5 ms·
Quite cool, although the license is quite strict: https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/m
by ginko 7y ago
Quite cool, although the license is quite strict:
https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/master/LICENSE....
- teddyh 7y agoNo kidding. I sincerely doubt this actually qualifies as Open Source. It certainly can’t be distributed by, e.g., Debian.
- fiddlerwoaroof 7y agoThis probably could go in the Debian nonfree repo
- teddyh 7y ago…which is defined as being not distributed by Debian; it is, IIRC, the reason it exists.
- cjbprime 7y agoIt looks similar to e.g. Quake 3's license, source is open but assets aren't.
- simias 7y agoNot at all, Quake 3's source code is GPL[1]. You can totally sell a game made with Quake 3's source, you just have to redistribute the source as mandated by the GPL. v{6}'s license is more restrictive. The assets are a different problem. You can use the code without the assets and vice-versa. [1] https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/COPYING.txt https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/C...
- cjbprime 7y agoOops, I missed that extra clause, thanks.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoProhibiting commercial use would make it non-open. But it's not that surprising given that VVVVVV is still sold today. I'd rather have the source with limits over not having the source at all.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- floatingatoll 7y agoNot much more strict than CC-BY-NC, unless I’m missing something? The “you may not represent your fork as my product” is a good abuse prevention that I’m not sure the equivalent CC contains, good call including that.
- teddyh 7y ago“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 kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
- SQueeeeeL 7y ago"Don't make VVVVV 2 with my code" seems to be what they're going for. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment, but it's nice to have this source available, so if this is the price we have to pay...
- tudelo 7y agoWhy? The source is open to the public?
- woodrowbarlow 7y agoit's a "look but don't touch" situation. open-source means giving freedom to the users. there's nothing wrong with source-available, but source-available and open-source are not equivalent.
- teddyh 7y agoThe term “Open Source” has a precise definition, determined by the Open Source Initiative, who invented the term and started promoting it. Nobody used this term in software contexts before they did. They get to define it.
- xorcist 7y agoNot sure why this is downvoted. One of the criteria when the term "open source" was decided on by the people who went to form the OSI was that it must not have (much) documented earlier use in order to become eligible for trademark protection. It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
- ciroduran 7y agoTerry is open to propositions https://twitter.com/terrycavanagh/status/1215679119666688001 https://twitter.com/terrycavanagh/status/1215679119666688001