• gradual
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Valve games should honestly be open-source with how much the community does for them.

    As I get older, I realize how correct people were in their criticisms of the company. They aren’t the good guys; just the least bad.

    • Truscape@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well boy howdy do I have news for you lol.

      Tf2 is open source now - just with non-commercial strings.

      • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Just to be pedantic, if the source is available, but there are restrictions on how the source is used, it’s not open source.

        Open source licenses do not forbid anyone from using the source code for any purpose.

        • kadup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not really. Open source isn’t synonymous with libre or free software.

          I can have software that is protected via extremely restrict commercial licenses and open source. In fact, there are many examples.

            • kadup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              No, that’s the OpenSource Initiative’s definition for what they endorse.

              Open source quite literally means the source is open. That’s it. Otherwise there would be absolutely no point in having terms like FOSS or libre or whatever else.

              They’re not OSI approved, but that’s about it. Ubuntu is not FSF approved, and guess what, it’s still a GNU operating system. We are not forced to follow definitions from specific orgs.

              • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                You can follow whatever you think is best. I’ll stick to and evangilise what I view to be the correct definition of open source.

                Ubuntu is not FSF approved, and guess what, it’s still a GNU operating system

                What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

                • kadup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  What makes Ubuntu a GNU operating system isn’t the fact that it’s FSF approved, it’s the fact that it uses GNU tools.

                  Exactly. You’re precisely right. Which is why:

                  What makes software open source isn’t the fact that it’s OSI approved, it’s the fact that the source is open for scrutiny.

                  • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    What? The two things have nothing to do with each other. A GNU operating system doesn’t need to be open source or have its source code available anywhere. A GNU operating system just means it uses GNU tools.

                    You could write a new kernel from scratch, never distribute a single character of the source code, make an operating system with your new kernel along with GNU tools, and even sell your operating system, which the GPL allows for. The GNU tools would still be open source, sure, but your operating system would be neither open source, nor have its source code completely available.

        • Truscape@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Fair enough, then a more apt statement would be a permissive non-commercial license with media assets injected from the base game (alla GMOD)

          • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’ve heard the term source available be used, though not sure how popular it is.

      • gradual
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So does that mean anyone can do what they want with the code?

          • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Which means it isn’t truly open source, just that the source code is available.

            Don’t get me wrong, I love that the source for TF2 is available, but it’s not open source.