5 ms·

From the repo's License [0]: > This is NOT an Open Source license I think it's fair to say this is not an open source project, but instead has the source avai

From the repo's License [0]: > This is NOT an Open Source license I think it's fair to say this is not an open source project, but instead has the source available for viewing and restricts who can compile and distribute it or not. [0]: https://github.com/analgesicproductions/Even-The-Ocean-Open-Source/blob/5e7202e6fdf35e7847fc7218cce716c05b2dd77d/License.md https://github.com/analgesicproductions/Even-The-Ocean-Open-...

zem 3y ago
honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  So... not open source, but pretending to be.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Open source, in the literal sense of the word.
    - a1369209993 3y ago
      Open source in only the literal sense of the word. It's like calling a wild boar from the midwestern coast of Africa a "Guinea pig". It's not actually lying (/pretending/cetera), since they clearly expect people to understand the distinction they're making, and so far it looks like most do, but it's still unforunately unclear (and rather needlessly so, since "source available" works just as well, if equally imprecisely).
  - Tao3300 3y ago
    They didn't say "Open Source", they said "open-source".
- weaksauce 3y ago
  > and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. they don't mind that actually... they just want you to not sell it or anything too close to the original game. if you want to figure out how to compile it and play it they are fine with it. it seems to be the don't screw me over license.
  - zem 3y ago
    right, i should have made that distinction!
- seanclayton 3y ago
  I honestly believe AGPLv3 for the software and CC BY-SA 4.0 for the non-software assets would absolutely be everything one would need for this project. Is there an example of a commercial AGPLv3 (or even any other copyleft license) game being cloned and sold without modification? I feel like this extra effort towards restrictions is rather unnecessary and putting the cart before the horse.
  - zem 3y ago
    AGPL3 doesn't cut it if you want to allow "take literally every piece of this code and remix it into your own possibly closed-source game, just don't try to appropriate my game". it's sad that such a common-sense intent is so hard to work into a legally sound license.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      Isn't that covered by trademark? Or what do you mean by appropriate?
      - zem 3y ago
        they spell it out in the license - don't essentially republish "even the ocean" with a few tweaks and the serial numbers filed off. use their code (and maybe even assets? that wasn't entirely clear) for your own work, not their game-as-a-whole.
weaksauce 3y ago
the source is open and fairly unrestricted. the assets and game itself are not though. > Non-legal summary of license: Anyone can use or compile the code EVEN WITHOUT OWNING THE GAME. The code is open to everyone. If you're doing noncommercial or commercial things with a low budget ( < $50k/year), you can do anything, so long as you credit us. Don't sell anything unaltered (don't sell our sprites or music unaltered, or compile and try to sell the game unaltered.)
facorreia 3y ago
Indeed, the title needs to be edited. It clearly states: > This is NOT an Open Source license
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

zem 3y ago

honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
warkdarrior 3y ago
So... not open source, but pretending to be.
- amelius 3y ago
  Open source, in the literal sense of the word.
  - a1369209993 3y ago
    Open source in only the literal sense of the word. It's like calling a wild boar from the midwestern coast of Africa a "Guinea pig". It's not actually lying (/pretending/cetera), since they clearly expect people to understand the distinction they're making, and so far it looks like most do, but it's still unforunately unclear (and rather needlessly so, since "source available" works just as well, if equally imprecisely).
- Tao3300 3y ago
  They didn't say "Open Source", they said "open-source".
weaksauce 3y ago
> and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. they don't mind that actually... they just want you to not sell it or anything too close to the original game. if you want to figure out how to compile it and play it they are fine with it. it seems to be the don't screw me over license.
- zem 3y ago
  right, i should have made that distinction!
seanclayton 3y ago
I honestly believe AGPLv3 for the software and CC BY-SA 4.0 for the non-software assets would absolutely be everything one would need for this project. Is there an example of a commercial AGPLv3 (or even any other copyleft license) game being cloned and sold without modification? I feel like this extra effort towards restrictions is rather unnecessary and putting the cart before the horse.
- zem 3y ago
  AGPL3 doesn't cut it if you want to allow "take literally every piece of this code and remix it into your own possibly closed-source game, just don't try to appropriate my game". it's sad that such a common-sense intent is so hard to work into a legally sound license.
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    Isn't that covered by trademark? Or what do you mean by appropriate?
    - zem 3y ago
      they spell it out in the license - don't essentially republish "even the ocean" with a few tweaks and the serial numbers filed off. use their code (and maybe even assets? that wasn't entirely clear) for your own work, not their game-as-a-whole.

weaksauce 3y ago

the source is open and fairly unrestricted. the assets and game itself are not though. > Non-legal summary of license: Anyone can use or compile the code EVEN WITHOUT OWNING THE GAME. The code is open to everyone. If you're doing noncommercial or commercial things with a low budget ( < $50k/year), you can do anything, so long as you credit us. Don't sell anything unaltered (don't sell our sprites or music unaltered, or compile and try to sell the game unaltered.)

facorreia 3y ago

Indeed, the title needs to be edited. It clearly states: > This is NOT an Open Source license

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]