4 ms·

why don't they just open source it?

• erre 14y ago
  From the latest update: """A lot of you have mentioned that we should open source everything if worse comes to worse. In fact, the code is already open, but if we cannot pull together to make this a retail product, we will absolutely fully open source everything, content and code and turn it over to the community. Actually, at some point we’d like to do that no matter what, even after a retail release (however many years later, when it makes fiscal sense). But right now the code is under the same modified BSD license as the Go programming language and the contents are all Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share-Alike."""
  • erre 14y ago
    Besides, I should point out that the project owners haven't abandoned it yet. They are trying to find ways to make it happen.
    • EastCoastLA 14y ago
      That can be a slippery slope, because with more money and time, they can keep finding ways to "make it happen." When is the line drawn? Maybe the should publicly state a date to release the project to the people if they cannot complete the project.
      • jivatmanx 14y ago
        Yep, think Duke Nukem Forever.
  • austinlyons 14y ago
    oh thanks, I hadn't seen that. I think it would make more fiscal sense to open source it now and get it finished rather than let it sit, reimburse backers and then open source it.
  • yarrel 14y ago
    NC-SA isn't "open source".
    • TillE 14y ago
      That's true. The non-commercial clause makes it incompatible with almost everything. At least the code is properly licensed, though.
    • Karunamon 14y ago
      Sure it is, it's just not "free software" using the FSF's definition. Is the source available? Can you compile it and modify it yourself? It's open source. That's all that definition means.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]