3 ms·

Isn't it Java? It's basically already open source.

by astrange 4y ago

streakfix 4y ago
It's obfuscated
- MrPowerGamerBR 4y ago
  While it is obfuscated, newer versions provide unobfuscation mappings to make moodders' lifes easier
  - tjoff 4y ago
    You typically only do that the the intended API used for modders, would guess that is what is done here? Not quite the same thing.
    - _piif 4y ago
      There is no official modding API for the Java edition unless that changed some time ago. I remember there being plans for it almost a decade ago now but nothing coming out of it for the Java edition - Bedrock however got modpack support.
- astrange 4y ago
  Can't be that bad if there's so many mods.
  - herbst 4y ago
    You obviously haven't battled the mod game by rebuilding and fixing your mods from zero every time a new version comes out. The good tooling is from the community. Not majong and especially not Microsoft.
snvzz 4y ago
Open Source is not about having source code. It is about the license meeting OSI's requirements, which are more or less the same as GNU's four freedoms. The main problem with Minecraft is how Microsoft, due to Mojang's decision to sell, is at the centre. This is such an important game to computer history, and it has such huge community. It deserves better than this. IMHO the community is best served by alternative, actual open-source clients and servers, and it would be healthy to recreate everything Microsoft currently owns. Minetest is one such effort. This one is from scratch. The incremental approach is another possible route.
mort96 4y ago
Oh, so I can decompile Minecraft, make a bunch of my own changes, change the name (to avoid trademark issues) and then sell the result? Can you point me in the direction of a license or other legal document which grants me these rights? That's what it means for something to be open source as opposed to source-available after all.
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  You can’t do that on open source projects… that’s called stealing. Licenses basically never allow anything like that.
  - mort96 4y ago
    They ... do let you do that. Being able to make changes to the code and redistribute your changes is literally the whole point of open source, and the popular licenses don't contain restrictions on making money (nor could they, if they want to fit the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source). The permissive open-source licenses (MIT, BSD, ...) let you just take the code, make whatever changes you want, package it up into some proprietary product, and sell that product. The only requirements are usually that you maintain some attribution notice. The MIT license, for example, says this: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". The copyleft licenses (GPL, LGPL, ...) lets you take the code, make whatever changes you want, package it up into some product, and sell that product; but you need to provide your product's source code to your customers. Show me an open source license which prohibits me from taking the source code and selling a product based on it.
  - _piif 4y ago
    The commonly used licenses like GPL and MIT don't put any restrictions on commercial use granted you don't break any of the conditions and limitations. Theoretically you could even just take any software using any of those licenses, optionally package it up and then commercially redistribute it as is and it would not breach the license. Needless to say people probably wouldn't look at you favorably in that case though.

Isn't it Java? It's basically already open source.

streakfix 4y ago

It's obfuscated

MrPowerGamerBR 4y ago
While it is obfuscated, newer versions provide unobfuscation mappings to make moodders' lifes easier
- tjoff 4y ago
  You typically only do that the the intended API used for modders, would guess that is what is done here? Not quite the same thing.
  - _piif 4y ago
    There is no official modding API for the Java edition unless that changed some time ago. I remember there being plans for it almost a decade ago now but nothing coming out of it for the Java edition - Bedrock however got modpack support.
astrange 4y ago
Can't be that bad if there's so many mods.
- herbst 4y ago
  You obviously haven't battled the mod game by rebuilding and fixing your mods from zero every time a new version comes out. The good tooling is from the community. Not majong and especially not Microsoft.

snvzz 4y ago

Open Source is not about having source code. It is about the license meeting OSI's requirements, which are more or less the same as GNU's four freedoms. The main problem with Minecraft is how Microsoft, due to Mojang's decision to sell, is at the centre. This is such an important game to computer history, and it has such huge community. It deserves better than this. IMHO the community is best served by alternative, actual open-source clients and servers, and it would be healthy to recreate everything Microsoft currently owns. Minetest is one such effort. This one is from scratch. The incremental approach is another possible route.

mort96 4y ago

Oh, so I can decompile Minecraft, make a bunch of my own changes, change the name (to avoid trademark issues) and then sell the result? Can you point me in the direction of a license or other legal document which grants me these rights? That's what it means for something to be open source as opposed to source-available after all.

MagicMoonlight 4y ago
You can’t do that on open source projects… that’s called stealing. Licenses basically never allow anything like that.
- mort96 4y ago
  They ... do let you do that. Being able to make changes to the code and redistribute your changes is literally the whole point of open source, and the popular licenses don't contain restrictions on making money (nor could they, if they want to fit the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source). The permissive open-source licenses (MIT, BSD, ...) let you just take the code, make whatever changes you want, package it up into some proprietary product, and sell that product. The only requirements are usually that you maintain some attribution notice. The MIT license, for example, says this: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". The copyleft licenses (GPL, LGPL, ...) lets you take the code, make whatever changes you want, package it up into some product, and sell that product; but you need to provide your product's source code to your customers. Show me an open source license which prohibits me from taking the source code and selling a product based on it.
- _piif 4y ago
  The commonly used licenses like GPL and MIT don't put any restrictions on commercial use granted you don't break any of the conditions and limitations. Theoretically you could even just take any software using any of those licenses, optionally package it up and then commercially redistribute it as is and it would not breach the license. Needless to say people probably wouldn't look at you favorably in that case though.