5 ms·

Something limited to "educational purposes only" is technically not "open source". (It doesn't fit the Open Source Definition, and licenses such as GPL would no

Something limited to "educational purposes only" is technically not "open source". (It doesn't fit the Open Source Definition, and licenses such as GPL would not be compatible with such restrictions either.)

notJim 11y ago
I'm not normally a wonk about this kind of stuff, but this distinction seems significant in the context of blizzard apparently threatening fan-run servers with legal action.
ekianjo 11y ago
Open source is ambiguous the only term thats clearly defined is Free Software. And GPL is Free Software RMS would jump at your throat for calling it Open Source.
- cwyers 11y ago
  RMS is not the only person allowed to define words.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    The OSI would be pretty pissed at that definition also.
    - cwyers 11y ago
      The GPL is an OSI-approved license. (Or do you mean the point that started this thread? I was only responding to the narrow point about the GPL and open source, not the larger one about the license for this server, which I think I agree with you on.)
jtmarmon 11y ago
open source means the source is open. that's all it means. free software is what you're referring to and it's something entirely different
- the_af 11y ago
  Even without getting into Free Software territory, there are reasonable expectations about what open source means. It's not just "you are free to read the code". See: - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Indeed - "open" means open to modification.
  - arcticfox 11y ago
    What do you call source that is open to read then? It's definitely not closed-source. I have always thought of source as either open (with many flavors of licensing) or closed.
    - bobbyi_settv 11y ago
      > What do you call source that is open to read then? "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary".
      - twr 11y ago
        > "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary". Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet. For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles. Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
        the_af 11y ago
        The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. They are not vague like you suggest. It's unavoidable that people will be confused about terms outside their area of expertise. Since you mentioned gamers: I shudder at the vast multitude of confusing terms the various gamer communities use, like for example in WoW. However, I think you're overstating your case: I suspect few gamers, if any, will confuse leaked source code or code which you're not allowed to use in any way as "open source". I don't expect them to undestand every nuance, but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)
djsumdog 11y ago
It will also face the same fate of bnetd. Unless it gets hosted outside of the US jurisdiction (NZ banned software patents, but they sill enforce US copyright law; hence Kim dotcom). I bet Blizzard will go after they OSS version too, just like they did with bnetd.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  What copyright claim can Blizzard articulate against the nostalrius source code?
  - unlinker 11y ago
    The source code and the database required to make it work contains the names of all spells, instances, quests and their briefings, NPCs... Maybe they could even claim patents on the protocol? Who knows.
- unlinker 11y ago
  Well, Nostalrius was hosted in France (OVH), and it didn't change much.

notJim 11y ago

I'm not normally a wonk about this kind of stuff, but this distinction seems significant in the context of blizzard apparently threatening fan-run servers with legal action.

ekianjo 11y ago

Open source is ambiguous the only term thats clearly defined is Free Software. And GPL is Free Software RMS would jump at your throat for calling it Open Source.

cwyers 11y ago
RMS is not the only person allowed to define words.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  The OSI would be pretty pissed at that definition also.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    The GPL is an OSI-approved license. (Or do you mean the point that started this thread? I was only responding to the narrow point about the GPL and open source, not the larger one about the license for this server, which I think I agree with you on.)

jtmarmon 11y ago

open source means the source is open. that's all it means. free software is what you're referring to and it's something entirely different

the_af 11y ago
Even without getting into Free Software territory, there are reasonable expectations about what open source means. It's not just "you are free to read the code". See: - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Indeed - "open" means open to modification.
- arcticfox 11y ago
  What do you call source that is open to read then? It's definitely not closed-source. I have always thought of source as either open (with many flavors of licensing) or closed.
  - bobbyi_settv 11y ago
    > What do you call source that is open to read then? "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary".
    - twr 11y ago
      > "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary". Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet. For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles. Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
      - the_af 11y ago
        The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. They are not vague like you suggest. It's unavoidable that people will be confused about terms outside their area of expertise. Since you mentioned gamers: I shudder at the vast multitude of confusing terms the various gamer communities use, like for example in WoW. However, I think you're overstating your case: I suspect few gamers, if any, will confuse leaked source code or code which you're not allowed to use in any way as "open source". I don't expect them to undestand every nuance, but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)

djsumdog 11y ago

It will also face the same fate of bnetd. Unless it gets hosted outside of the US jurisdiction (NZ banned software patents, but they sill enforce US copyright law; hence Kim dotcom). I bet Blizzard will go after they OSS version too, just like they did with bnetd.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
What copyright claim can Blizzard articulate against the nostalrius source code?
- unlinker 11y ago
  The source code and the database required to make it work contains the names of all spells, instances, quests and their briefings, NPCs... Maybe they could even claim patents on the protocol? Who knows.
unlinker 11y ago
Well, Nostalrius was hosted in France (OVH), and it didn't change much.