6 ms·

Also of interest: The Apple II version was open-sourced officially: https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-

Also of interest: The Apple II version was open-sourced officially: https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II

cxr 5y ago
Not open source, merely available—or, using the terminology of US copyright laws, it changed status from being an unpublished work to a published work. Mechner's warning from the linked repo: > As the author and copyright holder of this source code, I personally have no problem with anyone studying it, modifying it, attempting to run it, etc. Please understand that this does NOT constitute a grant of rights of any kind in Prince of Persia, which is an ongoing Ubisoft game franchise. Ubisoft alone has the right to make and distribute Prince of Persia games.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  It seems it is open source by the wording, he just makes it clear, that you can’t distribute it under that name because while he owns the rights to the code, Ubisoft owns the trademark(s). So any distribution would be required to remove the name completely from the game. But that’s just my total layperson reading.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    No, “open source” has a specific definition. Also, he specifically says that you can’t distribute it, only Ubisoft can.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      Ironically the specific definition of what open source is is not universally agreed on hence why you have likely seen the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS used explicitly. E.g. if you ask someone of the FSF group what "open source" means and they'll say the obvious meaning is you can look at the source code which is what makes "open source" different than FLOSS (which includes rights to use/modify the source). On the other hand if you ask the open source initiative what "open source" means and they'd likely link you to the OSD which includes most of the things a FSF would consider part of the separate FLOSS definition. Usually the definition of open source isn't what matters for all things legal though it's about what rights you were assigned and what those let you do as you point out. All the "what does open source mean" debate is just debate on the terminology of being able to view the source.
      - cxr 5y ago
        Is there a school or a correspondence course where people enroll in order to learn how to make up stuff about the FSF when posting online, instead of just familiarizing oneself with what the FSF actually has to say about a given topic? > if you ask someone of the FSF group what "open source" means and they'll say the obvious meaning is you can look at the source code Extremely inaccurate. FSF's definition of open source matches the OSI's. Here are some words that are not the product of my imagination—what FSF actually has to say about the relationship between the two: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free".
        zamadatix 5y ago
        While I appreciate the questions asking if I've taken a literal course in misunderstanding the topic instead of looking at what the FSF has to say I was actually referencing the article "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" which fsf.org links to for defining "free software" when writing my comment. From this article a key section I reread before posting: > The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases. [n.b. the OSI definition agrees with that of free software not that OSS is interchangeable with FLOSS - hence the article and its title] > However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source. > Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.” . In regards to the material you quoted "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free". Yes, that the fsf thinks most OSS also happens to be FLOSS, not that the terms mean the same thing.
    - Semaphor 5y ago
      But you can’t distribute Firefox as Firefox either because of trademarks. Is there a difference? edit: Ah. Now I get it, I think. You could distribute FF unchanged, which you could not do in this case.
  - cxr 5y ago
    That's not clear at all. There is no reason to believe that Mechner's warning is narrowly referring to the trademark rights, rather than, you know, "rights of any kind".

Also of interest: The Apple II version was open-sourced officially: https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II https://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II

cxr 5y ago

Not open source, merely available—or, using the terminology of US copyright laws, it changed status from being an unpublished work to a published work. Mechner's warning from the linked repo: > As the author and copyright holder of this source code, I personally have no problem with anyone studying it, modifying it, attempting to run it, etc. Please understand that this does NOT constitute a grant of rights of any kind in Prince of Persia, which is an ongoing Ubisoft game franchise. Ubisoft alone has the right to make and distribute Prince of Persia games.

Semaphor 5y ago
It seems it is open source by the wording, he just makes it clear, that you can’t distribute it under that name because while he owns the rights to the code, Ubisoft owns the trademark(s). So any distribution would be required to remove the name completely from the game. But that’s just my total layperson reading.
- teddyh 5y ago
  No, “open source” has a specific definition. Also, he specifically says that you can’t distribute it, only Ubisoft can.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Ironically the specific definition of what open source is is not universally agreed on hence why you have likely seen the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS used explicitly. E.g. if you ask someone of the FSF group what "open source" means and they'll say the obvious meaning is you can look at the source code which is what makes "open source" different than FLOSS (which includes rights to use/modify the source). On the other hand if you ask the open source initiative what "open source" means and they'd likely link you to the OSD which includes most of the things a FSF would consider part of the separate FLOSS definition. Usually the definition of open source isn't what matters for all things legal though it's about what rights you were assigned and what those let you do as you point out. All the "what does open source mean" debate is just debate on the terminology of being able to view the source.
    - cxr 5y ago
      Is there a school or a correspondence course where people enroll in order to learn how to make up stuff about the FSF when posting online, instead of just familiarizing oneself with what the FSF actually has to say about a given topic? > if you ask someone of the FSF group what "open source" means and they'll say the obvious meaning is you can look at the source code Extremely inaccurate. FSF's definition of open source matches the OSI's. Here are some words that are not the product of my imagination—what FSF actually has to say about the relationship between the two: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free".
      - zamadatix 5y ago
        While I appreciate the questions asking if I've taken a literal course in misunderstanding the topic instead of looking at what the FSF has to say I was actually referencing the article "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" which fsf.org links to for defining "free software" when writing my comment. From this article a key section I reread before posting: > The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases. [n.b. the OSI definition agrees with that of free software not that OSS is interchangeable with FLOSS - hence the article and its title] > However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source. > Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.” . In regards to the material you quoted "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free". Yes, that the fsf thinks most OSS also happens to be FLOSS, not that the terms mean the same thing.
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    But you can’t distribute Firefox as Firefox either because of trademarks. Is there a difference? edit: Ah. Now I get it, I think. You could distribute FF unchanged, which you could not do in this case.
- cxr 5y ago
  That's not clear at all. There is no reason to believe that Mechner's warning is narrowly referring to the trademark rights, rather than, you know, "rights of any kind".