this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
311 points (99.1% liked)

Opensource

1371 readers
12 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
pylapp@programming.dev
311
The developer of Rogue Legacy has officially released its source code 'in the pursuit of sharing knowledge' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 1 month ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/opensource@programming.dev
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

License seems to be quite permissive, isn’t it? I specifically checked. Unless you mean strict copyleft.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Sounds reasonable for a game’s source code to me, I don’t see anyone claiming it’s “open source”

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 15 points 1 month ago

Makes sense to protect the studio's reputation against potential droves of crappy, barely altered clones with scam ads.

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, we are in the lemmy subforum named "open source" so its implied.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago

Fair point!

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is an opinion which is not universally shared. Even Stallman doesn’t agree with this definition.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms

What is Free Software? - GNU project

The four essential freedoms

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.

-- https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md

“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.

-- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks, I know what free software is. Open source != free software.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

I said that Stallman didn’t agree with the open source definition he was using. Please stop conflating free and open source software.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Nobody owns this term so who’s appropriating?

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I and the OSI say otherwise.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

You claim ownership of „open source”? That’s wild. Your lawyer can speak to my lawyer, I guess.

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

"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.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

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

  1. 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.