3 ms·

It already was open source by looking at the js code in the browser when I played it this weekend, at least I remember looking in the source code to find the ch

It already was open source by looking at the js code in the browser when I played it this weekend, at least I remember looking in the source code to find the chance of the Wandering Master appearing (which is, btw, around 1/Nth chance every 3-6 minutes while you're in the firelit room where N is amount of event types, 6 or so iirc) Does uncompiled JS count as open source or not? Seems to fit the definition to me at least. Or is change history required as well to really call it open source?

davexunit 13y ago
>Does uncompiled JS count as open source or not? No, it doesn't. The license indicates if it meets the requirements to be Free Software and/or Open Source Software. Was there a license header in the JS files?
Spittie 13y ago
Just because you're able to see the source, it doesn't mean that it is open source. An example is the recent release of the Adobe Photoshop 1 source code. You can see it, but it's not released under an OSS license. To be considerate Open Source, code has to respect those criteria: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd
- PhearTheCeal 13y ago
  >9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license.
  - reeses 13y ago
    Which is why rms and the FSF are careful to distinguish between "free" and "open".
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license. Untrue. The GPL does not "insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be" licensed in any particular way. [1] And the GPL has been reviewed and is an OSi approved license, which means its been found to be consistent with the definition by the people that wrote the definition. [2] [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license
    - PhearTheCeal 13y ago
      I stand corrected. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't assume I understand any document that is complex enough to warrant a preamble.
  - jamie_ca 13y ago
    "software distributed along with the licensed software" is to handle the case of distributing a CD with multiple software packages (shareware CD, or your typical linux install disc). The GPL says nothing about other software.
reeses 13y ago
Change history is not required.
- eru 13y ago
  Though highly appreciated nowadays, if you want to comply with the spirit of the open source licences and not just the letter.

davexunit 13y ago

>Does uncompiled JS count as open source or not? No, it doesn't. The license indicates if it meets the requirements to be Free Software and/or Open Source Software. Was there a license header in the JS files?

Spittie 13y ago

Just because you're able to see the source, it doesn't mean that it is open source. An example is the recent release of the Adobe Photoshop 1 source code. You can see it, but it's not released under an OSS license. To be considerate Open Source, code has to respect those criteria: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd

PhearTheCeal 13y ago
>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license.
- reeses 13y ago
  Which is why rms and the FSF are careful to distinguish between "free" and "open".
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license. Untrue. The GPL does not "insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be" licensed in any particular way. [1] And the GPL has been reviewed and is an OSi approved license, which means its been found to be consistent with the definition by the people that wrote the definition. [2] [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license
  - PhearTheCeal 13y ago
    I stand corrected. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't assume I understand any document that is complex enough to warrant a preamble.
- jamie_ca 13y ago
  "software distributed along with the licensed software" is to handle the case of distributing a CD with multiple software packages (shareware CD, or your typical linux install disc). The GPL says nothing about other software.

reeses 13y ago

Change history is not required.

eru 13y ago
Though highly appreciated nowadays, if you want to comply with the spirit of the open source licences and not just the letter.