Won't this kill mindustry (at least on PC)?
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
250 points (99.2% liked)
Open Source
31118 readers
279 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Very different games
There's a model that id used to open source their engines under. The source code is open, but the assets (textures, models, sounds, etc.) are still copyrighted and you still have to buy the game to get them legally. This means the company still sells copies on Steam or wherever, and games that replace all the assets can still sell them without any licensing costs, too.
I'm a little surprised this model never caught on. Even id only ever published the engine to the previous game--Quake 3 was open sourced a little after Doom 3 was released--and the practice seems to have stopped when John Carmack left.
Possibly because nobody has tested it in court, or some other subtle legal issue?
Games got a lot more complicated and many use so many 3rd party add-ins that just sorting through what you have rights to release can be a pretty big task and not worth it if what you can release ends up unusable with all of them removed.
Is anyone even still buying Factorio? I was under the impression anybody who could possibly be interested in it already owns it. It's also quite cheap.
It looks like they are still selling almost 7000 copies per week !
The DLC launches next month, so it has seen a surge of renewed interest. And once the DLC lands, it’ll likely get a surge of new players from being on the store page again.
Notch said the same thing about Minecraft. I'll believe it when I see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the source code of the Java version open for modding?
Not really. There is de-obfusication headers which They officially provide which can make decompiled source readable for the purpose of making mods, You're not allowed to redistribute any of the code.
I'm not sure if the source is available or not. I remember some talk about it a few years back, but I don't know what happened. Either way, just because source code is available does not mean it is open source. When I say open source I mean libre.
I usually use open source to mean open source and free as in lunch, but in this case I assume kovarex is talking about open source but commercial and restrictively licensed. I could be wrong.
Open source is synonymous with "free software" as in freedom. Source available is likely what you're talking about.
If this were true, we wouldn't need the term "FOSS."
You're talking about the OSD presumably. Stallman's definition differs, and I think his terminology seems to be widely used.
I disagree with a few points of that article.
Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.
You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS,
The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to be neutral between free software and open source. If neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom.
The FSF and OSI agree on many of the licenses they approve as being free/open. If you can tell me of any notable differences that aren't a matter of one of them not commenting on a particular license yet then I'd be open to change my opinion on it.
Regardless, even if you believe the OSD and FSF's definition of libre software differ, merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source. Which is what this conversation was originally about.
The conversation was not originally about OSD; I had just mentioned it.
You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS
Touchée. But FLOSS the term only emphasises even more: there's open source software, and then there's free/libre open source software -- note the distinction.
Perhaps some components of the game can be open-sourced, especially regarding modding APIs and whatnot. Still allows them to keep some things closed for a while, but could expand the mods and optimization even further.
Fucking legends if they do
I'm feelin' the love. Opening the game to modding to the degree they already have has lengthened the life span of this game for ~~weeks~~ months of additional play time. Making it open source would make it immortal.
Months? You clearly haven't tried Pyanodons.
Jokes aside, yeah, it would be a killer.
This would be amazing!