I guess the main benefactor will be the modding scene. Indie devs can make deals with Cellar Door Studios to get a commercial licence with additional conditions. It might be close to open source in practice if the commercial licences are handed out generously.
Regarding the proprietary assets, I used to give it some thought, and came to a conclusion that other than selling consultance services, selling assets is the only way to make money while creating something open source. That’s why now I don’t find proprietary assets to be something bad.
Just to clarify, licenses are free software or open source when they fit the definition of those terms, aka the 4 freedoms and whatever open source requires, but both require being able to use the software without restrictions. So this isnt open source.
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms: [1]
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I don’t know however if it is illegal to use the source code without having bought the game first, so I don’t know if toothbrush is correct with their point.
Something that I find could prevent it from being called free or open-source software is the fact that you are not allowed to make derivative works for comercial use.
You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. This includes, but is not limited to, selling altered or unaltered versions of this software, or including advertisements of any kind in altered or unaltered versions of this software.
“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.
toothbrush was talking both about free software and open source and you claimed that Stallman disagreed with the notion that free software must allow to be used without restrictions (which I misread as run in toothbrush’s comment and only now realized that they weren’t talking about running)
That’s why I talked about free software, but I’m sure at least the commercial use part also applies to open source (since business is mentioned as an example in the point about discrimination against field of endeavor in the OSD)
Since there’s one open source that’s more strict and one that’s more permissive, for the more strict one, we should indicate that it’s like the value of a variable: it has a specific meaning that doesn’t change. With that understanding, Rogue Legacy is open source, but Trisquel is “open source”.
(I was going to go with Tux Kart instead of Trisquel for that joke, but my heart couldn’t handle throwing shade at Tux Kart.)
Edit: I’d just like to interject for a moment. What I’m referring to as Tux Kart, is in fact, SuperTuxKart, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Super+TuxKart
Lets not do open washing here. Its not open source, as that would require it having an open source compatible license, which it does not have, see the open source definition:
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
“free software” very clearly means some software you can use for free (which this isn’t), but “open source” very clearly means openly accessible source code, which this is.
I deleted my comment because I didn’t really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it’s not distributable without condition, it’s not open source.
EDIT- And it’s okay that it’s “only” source-available, it’s a creator’s choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn’t fit the spirit of this lemmy community.
Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There’s no need to be pedantic, if the software isn’t available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.
License seems to be quite permissive, isn’t it? I specifically checked. Unless you mean strict copyleft.
Custom license, not free for commercial use. Assets are still proprietary. https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md
I guess the main benefactor will be the modding scene. Indie devs can make deals with Cellar Door Studios to get a commercial licence with additional conditions. It might be close to open source in practice if the commercial licences are handed out generously.
Sounds reasonable for a game’s source code to me, I don’t see anyone claiming it’s “open source”
Makes sense to protect the studio’s reputation against potential droves of crappy, barely altered clones with scam ads.
Well, we are in the lemmy subforum named “open source” so its implied.
Fair point!
Regarding the proprietary assets, I used to give it some thought, and came to a conclusion that other than selling consultance services, selling assets is the only way to make money while creating something open source. That’s why now I don’t find proprietary assets to be something bad.
Just to clarify, licenses are free software or open source when they fit the definition of those terms, aka the 4 freedoms and whatever open source requires, but both require being able to use the software without restrictions. So this isnt open source.
This is an opinion which is not universally shared. Even Stallman doesn’t agree with this definition.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
What is Free Software? - GNU project
I don’t know however if it is illegal to use the source code without having bought the game first, so I don’t know if toothbrush is correct with their point.
Something that I find could prevent it from being called free or open-source software is the fact that you are not allowed to make derivative works for comercial use.
– https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md
– https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling
Thanks, I know what free software is. Open source != free software.
toothbrush was talking both about free software and open source and you claimed that Stallman disagreed with the notion that free software must allow to be used without restrictions (which I misread as run in toothbrush’s comment and only now realized that they weren’t talking about running)
That’s why I talked about free software, but I’m sure at least the commercial use part also applies to open source (since business is mentioned as an example in the point about discrimination against field of endeavor in the OSD)
I said that Stallman didn’t agree with the open source definition he was using. Please stop conflating free and open source software.
Since there’s one open source that’s more strict and one that’s more permissive, for the more strict one, we should indicate that it’s like the value of a variable: it has a specific meaning that doesn’t change. With that understanding, Rogue Legacy is open source, but Trisquel is “open source”.
(I was going to go with Tux Kart instead of Trisquel for that joke, but my heart couldn’t handle throwing shade at Tux Kart.)
Edit: I’d just like to interject for a moment. What I’m referring to as Tux Kart, is in fact, SuperTuxKart, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Super+TuxKart
Lets not do open washing here. Its not open source, as that would require it having an open source compatible license, which it does not have, see the open source definition:
https://opensource.org/osd
Anyone who disagrees ought to go get their own term rather than appropriating “Open Source” and/or “Free Software”.
I’ve heard “source available” used.
Nobody owns this term so who’s appropriating?
I and the OSI say otherwise.
You claim ownership of „open source”? That’s wild. Your lawyer can speak to my lawyer, I guess.
“free software” very clearly means some software you can use for free (which this isn’t), but “open source” very clearly means openly accessible source code, which this is.
“Free Software” very clearly means this, and “Open Source” very clearly means this.
Again, get your own terms. “Freeware” and “source available” are just sitting right there.
deleted by creator
You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.
I deleted my comment because I didn’t really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it’s not distributable without condition, it’s not open source.
EDIT- And it’s okay that it’s “only” source-available, it’s a creator’s choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn’t fit the spirit of this lemmy community.
MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense
Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There’s no need to be pedantic, if the software isn’t available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.
deleted by creator