8 ms·
I'd love to see Jagex open source OSRS as a business decision to keep the game alive forever, and for leveraging the dedicated community. Now, I said open sour
by fallat 3y ago
I'd love to see Jagex open source OSRS as a business decision to keep the game alive forever, and for leveraging the dedicated community.
Now, I said open source, but that doesn't mean free. Even if the source was available, it would make the most sense if they kept it "non-free", as in, no commercial usage of the source may be allowed.
People are free to run their own servers, but the Jagex ones will be "blessed".
The only problem I see is if some group in a country outside of IP legality were to take it and try to monetize it.
Alternatively I hope one day Jagex has a "hail mary" and releases the source when they think the game is considered commercially dead.
- hoten 3y agoNot the same, but Jagex has embraced (probably because they really had no choice) the 3p client "RuneLite". There is an understanding between Jagex and that community that the client is blessed, but only if they steer clear of certain features - like things that would reduce how much you have to interact with UI in the game, such as re-ordering items in the Construction right-click menu for convenience.
- blairbeckwith 3y agoTIL that this is why I couldn’t configure the Menu Item Swapper or whatever last week when I was leveling Construction with oak larders. I wonder what makes construction a special case here vs, say, allowing one click dropping of collected resources.
- memefrog 3y ago'Open source' and 'free (as in speech)' are, in the software context, synonyms. It is incoherent to say 'open source but non-commercial'.
- gcau 3y agoI disagree. You're basically saying, "open source code isn't open-source". There's nothing incoherent about what they said.
- NavinF 3y ago"Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. However, open-source licenses may have some restrictions, particularly regarding the expression of respect to the origin of software, such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and a copyright statement within the code, or a requirement to redistribute the licensed software only under the same license (as in a copyleft license)" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research" https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ If you don't allow commercial use, your code is "source-available", not "open source" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- Kiro 3y agoCommon speak disagrees with you and that's all that matters.
- memefrog 3y agoNo, it doesn't. Everyone knows what 'open source' means: what the open source definition says. Literally the *only* place on the Internet where people pretend this isn't true is HN. I have never seen anyone suggest that 'open source' means anything else anywhere else.
- gcau 3y agoI have the exact opposite experience.
- gcau 3y agoI just disagree and use a different definition of open source than you/your sources (many people share my definition, mind you). If the source is open, its open-source. It can be free, commercial, or have any license. I feel like people with the other definition of OS, do it because they have a vendetta against companies that open-source code with a non-free license.
- ben_w 3y agoCC-NC isn't OS for you?
- memefrog 3y agoIt isn't open source to anyone, by the universally accepted definition of "open source" that has obtained for decades.
- TZubiri 3y agoAre you deliberately invoking the Stallman acolytes?