4 ms·

> If an open-source implementation of the engine doesn't exist, you're always free to write one. This is a very strange interpretation. When a piece of softwa

by rekado 9y ago

> If an open-source implementation of the engine doesn't exist, you're always free to write one. This is a very strange interpretation. When a piece of software that is released under a free license has a crucial non-free dependency, it is effectively non-free. As the software only works with the non-free dependency, but that dependency cannot be conveyed along with the free part, the whole thing cannot legally be distributed and thus is non-free.

pvg 9y ago
That would make all GPL-licensed Windows software non-free. Not even the FSF thinks that's the case.
derefr 9y ago
The reason I take that view, is that the ability to use the software isn't actually a part of what makes software open source! As long as people have all the code, and can modify it, and can redistribute their modifications, the code is open-source... whether or not you can run it. Consider: there are also hardware platforms that have effectively ceased to exist over the years. If you wrote a program for one of these platforms, and it was open-source, would you now consider the program closed-source, because—given that the platform hardware doesn't exist any more—you can't run the software any more? No. Why not? Because open source is about the source, not about the binary. The source is a product in its own right, and valuable in its own right, whether or not it can be compiled into a working program.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > Why not? Because open source is about the source, not about the binary. If you have the platform and the source, but you can't run the program, then I wouldn't consider it "open source". At least not in the usual sense of FOSS. It's not just about the source; it's about the freedom to study and modify the source, produce improved versions of the original binary, and distribute that binary and the source that created it. The division between game and platform is lower in the stack than the engine. > The source is a product in its own right, and valuable in its own right, whether or not it can be compiled into a working program. I agree with that statement, but it's a different argument than you were making before.
  - hacking_again 9y ago
    And you won't get far with source modifications if you can't run the program.

by rekado 9y ago

pvg 9y ago

That would make all GPL-licensed Windows software non-free. Not even the FSF thinks that's the case.

derefr 9y ago

The reason I take that view, is that the ability to use the software isn't actually a part of what makes software open source! As long as people have all the code, and can modify it, and can redistribute their modifications, the code is open-source... whether or not you can run it. Consider: there are also hardware platforms that have effectively ceased to exist over the years. If you wrote a program for one of these platforms, and it was open-source, would you now consider the program closed-source, because—given that the platform hardware doesn't exist any more—you can't run the software any more? No. Why not? Because open source is about the source, not about the binary. The source is a product in its own right, and valuable in its own right, whether or not it can be compiled into a working program.

khedoros1 9y ago
> Why not? Because open source is about the source, not about the binary. If you have the platform and the source, but you can't run the program, then I wouldn't consider it "open source". At least not in the usual sense of FOSS. It's not just about the source; it's about the freedom to study and modify the source, produce improved versions of the original binary, and distribute that binary and the source that created it. The division between game and platform is lower in the stack than the engine. > The source is a product in its own right, and valuable in its own right, whether or not it can be compiled into a working program. I agree with that statement, but it's a different argument than you were making before.
- hacking_again 9y ago
  And you won't get far with source modifications if you can't run the program.