5 ms·
> Fans are requested to appreciate the hard work the developers put into their video games and avoid spreading the leaked source code further. Alternately, app
by comex 3y ago
> Fans are requested to appreciate the hard work the developers put into their video games and avoid spreading the leaked source code further.
Alternately, appreciate the hard work by making interesting mods for the game. GTA5 has already had an extensive modding scene for the 10 years it’s been out, but now I assume mods will become easier to make and more powerful, benefiting Rockstar’s customers who paid for the game. And who is hurt? Not pirates, who could obtain the game starting shortly after release. Potentially people playing against cheaters online, except I’ve heard they’ve had free rein for a long time.
Companies should release their own games’ source code. Other software too.
- whateveracct 3y agoGPL'd source is an intriguing prospect to me. I'd BSD or MIT the libraries, engine, and other building blocks. But the games .. GPL feels right. With the assets being copyright probably?
- 8372049 3y agoWhy not GPL the building blocks if you want the end product to be GPL'd as well?
- vegetablepotpie 3y agoIf you want to make new works that are not GPLd, not GPLing the building blocks would let you do that. Alternatively, you could LGPL the building blocks, still allow the end products to not need to be GPLd, but require development on the building blocks to be open sourced.
- timschmidt 3y agoGPL + a copyright assignment agreement also works (because the copyright holder can issue any sort of license he pleases in addition to GPL)
- harry8 3y agoSven doesn’t care about contributing his changes back to your tree and does not assign you copyright. GPL is fine for Sven. Ingrid can use Sven’s GPL changes because she’ll use that license too. You want to dual licence, you can’t use Sven or Ingrid code. Copyright assignment + gpl so you can charge for a different licence too only works if nobody wants to fork. Doubt that’s the case for this sort of thing.
- whateveracct 3y agoBecause I don't care what license other people release their games with.
- chii 3y ago> And who is hurt? from the POV of management, a leak of the source might prevent a future re-release, which cuts into future potential profits!
- edflsafoiewq 3y agoHow?
- cianuro_ 3y agoWhy re release my 2008 game as a remaster in 2023 if Sven in Sweden already patched the (open) source with QOL changes and provided higher texture mods. It does cut on future dumb re releases :)
- edflsafoiewq 3y agoEmulators have given that forever. It does not seem to have stopped re-releases.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoLeaked doesn’t equal open. It’s likely a crime to own a copy, and it’s definitely a crime to distribute it.
- Takennickname 3y agoNo way!
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoThey filed a lawsuit against the engineers behind the reverse engineering of GTA III/VC who published their work on GitHub. To strengthen their own legal position and to combat the obvious argument that "You abandoned this and had no intention to profit further from it", Rockstar/Take-Two paid for the quickest, dirtiest, shoddiest port that was put out within a month of their lawsuit being filed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_The_Trilogy_%E2%80%93_The_Definitive_Edition#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_The_Trilogy_... > from the POV of management, a leak of the source might prevent a future re-release, which cuts into future potential profits! In the aftermath of the backlash from their shoddy legal engineering project, they decided to not remaster other games: https://kotaku.com/gta-iv-remastered-red-dead-redemption-canceled-rockstar-1849142371 https://kotaku.com/gta-iv-remastered-red-dead-redemption-can...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]