Comment by tpxl
5 years ago
Source available games (don't even need to be "Open Source" or "Free and Open Source") benefit greatly from modding, keeping games alive much longer and making them better even in the very short run.
I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.
> I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.
Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Also, one thing I've noticed is that for many ostensibly open source game code releases where assets are withheld, often no placeholder assets are provided either, without which the code sometimes can't be built, or if built can't be run or tested, which can present a significant barrier to the use or reuse of the code. All the more so when the original assets are in some idiosyncratic, non-standard, and possibly even undocumented, format.
I quite literally meant the code to be something like MIT/GPL licensed and art/sounds licensed something preventing commercial use, but all being available. This should make replacing sounds and art rather trivial.
> Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content).
EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
> Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content).
Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content.
> EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
I'll not claim to speak for your reasons, but in general the motivation seems to be defense of things like trademark/trade dress or restrictive franchise licensing and adaptations to other media.
Eg. If Doom's assets were entirely free of any and all restrictions, anyone could have produced a Doom movie (including an inevitable Rule 34 version), not to mention sequelae.
5 replies →