Opensource

1371 readers

10 users here now

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

Credits

Icon 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

[+] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source

MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.