Talk:List of open source video games/Archive 1

message: A freely playable, freely downloadable game is what the vast majority think of as a 'free game'. :) The exact legal specifics are important, but should not require people to read several different articles. I've moved the article to Free open source games as this seems a lot more relevant. Open source is nice, but most people just want to know whether a game can be *used* for free or not. --86.132.35.147 17:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Free game software" may be more appropriate than "free open source games" (I'm aware of the free software/open source distinction), but it's still a terrible name for the article. I propose a simple shuffling of words in the title to rename it List of free software games. This would prevent the majority of erroneous additions to the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone object to my moving the article to List of free software games? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to free hardware games? Seriously though, the attribute is not really "free software", but "free" (as in freedom). A better location would be "List of free games" or "List of free computer games", or indeed "List of free game software" (where it is now). Shinobu 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to make a clear distinction between free software and freeware, if not in the article title then in the article itself. What's so bad about List of free open source games? According to Open source vs. free software: "All free software is open source; free software is a subset of open source software", so I don't really see a problem here. Am I missing something? --Conti|✉ 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Plugging in an extra software won't help. If you take free to be synonymous with gratis, then free software means freeware too. Just make it clear that we're talking free as in freedom here. I personally don't like use of "free software" as an adjective. Do you ever say "red car sportscar"? No, you would say "red sportscar", and rightly so. Shinobu 14:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just so you know, List of free open source games would be okay, I guess, but it would be a bit ugly, for the same reason that you don't say "round circle". As for erroneous additions to this article, the article starts with a clear cut definition of what is to be included. People to dumb to understand that very simple definition can probably not be pushed in line whatever we try. They would have made their additions too if the article would have gotten the phrase "free software" in the title, because those people see only the word free and nothing more, and are too materialistic to think of anything else than of money when they see "free". Shinobu 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, "free open source" is kinda redundant. So what about List of open source games? No "free" in it, so people don't add freeware to it (hopefully). --Conti|✉ 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good solution (to the drive-by addition problem) and a good title to me. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, but - to play the devil's advocate for a minute - do we do with games that are open source, but not free (as in freedom)? Put it in a separate section at the bottom of the page? Hm. On second thought, that's actually a solution I would be okay with. Shinobu 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples? I can't think of any non-free open source game at the moment. I don't think there are many of them, if any, so a separate section would be ok if needed. --Conti|✉ 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm curious about any examples, too. If there are though, I do think a separate section is appropriate. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, PlaneShift for instance. The code is GPLed but the maps etc. fall under a different license. I think the same situation applies to ToHeart2 XRATED (although I'm not sure about that). Shinobu 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On first thought, I would class those as open-source engines rather than open-source games: I'm particularly thinking of the example of Quake, which has open-source code but closed content, and which isn't included in this list despite its high profile. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense. So are we all set for the move to List of open source games then? Shinobu 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and moved the page, as no one opposed the move as of yet. We could also add a subsection for open source game engines like Quake or TA Spring. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free games 

message: # If you think ther is a better name for an article, you always should redirect the old one to the new. It makes no sense to redirect to a completely different article (like Freely downloadable game software in!). There are links out there, which link here!
# The name "Free game software" is more apropriate than "Free open source games"!
I hope everybody agrees that i revert the article.
--Dafuchs 01:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Free game software" may be more appropriate than "free open source games" (I'm aware of the free software/open source distinction), but it's still a terrible name for the article. I propose a simple shuffling of words in the title to rename it List of free software games. This would prevent the majority of erroneous additions to the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone object to my moving the article to List of free software games? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to free hardware games? Seriously though, the attribute is not really "free software", but "free" (as in freedom). A better location would be "List of free games" or "List of free computer games", or indeed "List of free game software" (where it is now). Shinobu 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to make a clear distinction between free software and freeware, if not in the article title then in the article itself. What's so bad about List of free open source games? According to Open source vs. free software: "All free software is open source; free software is a subset of open source software", so I don't really see a problem here. Am I missing something? --Conti|✉ 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Plugging in an extra software won't help. If you take free to be synonymous with gratis, then free software means freeware too. Just make it clear that we're talking free as in freedom here. I personally don't like use of "free software" as an adjective. Do you ever say "red car sportscar"? No, you would say "red sportscar", and rightly so. Shinobu 14:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just so you know, List of free open source games would be okay, I guess, but it would be a bit ugly, for the same reason that you don't say "round circle". As for erroneous additions to this article, the article starts with a clear cut definition of what is to be included. People to dumb to understand that very simple definition can probably not be pushed in line whatever we try. They would have made their additions too if the article would have gotten the phrase "free software" in the title, because those people see only the word free and nothing more, and are too materialistic to think of anything else than of money when they see "free". Shinobu 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, "free open source" is kinda redundant. So what about List of open source games? No "free" in it, so people don't add freeware to it (hopefully). --Conti|✉ 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good solution (to the drive-by addition problem) and a good title to me. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, but - to play the devil's advocate for a minute - do we do with games that are open source, but not free (as in freedom)? Put it in a separate section at the bottom of the page? Hm. On second thought, that's actually a solution I would be okay with. Shinobu 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples? I can't think of any non-free open source game at the moment. I don't think there are many of them, if any, so a separate section would be ok if needed. --Conti|✉ 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm curious about any examples, too. If there are though, I do think a separate section is appropriate. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, PlaneShift for instance. The code is GPLed but the maps etc. fall under a different license. I think the same situation applies to ToHeart2 XRATED (although I'm not sure about that). Shinobu 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On first thought, I would class those as open-source engines rather than open-source games: I'm particularly thinking of the example of Quake, which has open-source code but closed content, and which isn't included in this list despite its high profile. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense. So are we all set for the move to List of open source games then? Shinobu 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and moved the page, as no one opposed the move as of yet. We could also add a subsection for open source game engines like Quake or TA Spring. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, I do not agree 

message: Moved from Free game software completed. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Warrock seems to be just some non-free windows beta game,
Cube OTOH had something non-free because e.g. Debian isn't including it (can't remember why was it now..)
:The networking code in Cube is non-free. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  warrock, cube non-free 

message: Does Open Source really automatically imply "open content"?  AFAIK there is no requirement in the GPL or OSI definition that data associated with the program be open.
Irrevenant 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to any definition there, no. But according to the use of the word "game", yes. After all, Quake is not an open source game at all, and the only reason is because the content is closed. Take away the content, and it's not a "game" anymore. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are describing would be an open source engine. Of course these are free/open as well, but in a different way. If the content is not open, that means that only the game engine is really free/open, but the game as a whole is not. Remember that the GPL when applied to the game engine source only guards the openness of the engine. The openness of the game data has to be protected seperately to make the whole game open. List of open source game engines doesn't seem to exist yet, but nothing stops you from creating it. Shinobu 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with this wholeheartedly.  The word game implies something you can play - if it doesn't have content, you can't play it.  If the content isn't covered under an open source license, how then can you call it an "Open Source Game". Kurt 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are quite a number of licenses out there that are specifically designed for open content (as opposed to open source). Any of the Creative Commons licenses, for instance, the GFDL (which Wikipedia uses for its content), and so on can be used on JPEGs and .pak files. It remains that if the content is closed and the engine is open, what you have is an open engine being used in a proprietary game, not an open-source game. (Note also, that "source" does not have to mean only code—it can mean "origin" as easily, as in the stuff that is put together to make the game, the source of the game, is open.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Open Source really have to be open content? 

message: Should Dispatch of Army game be on the list? I had a look round the web:
* http://philgaming.com/index.php/reviews/Dispatch_of_Army says it's an "Open Beta Game".
* http://doa.cube-asia.com/download.asp is the download page on the official site, it does appear to let people download the game for free, but I don't see any downloads for the code.
* http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=3366 says the software and subscription are free.
I think it's just a free game (probably only while it's in beta stage), not open source. So I don't think it should belong on the list. Can someone with more knowledge about the game confirm/deny this? Icey 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Anyone can feel free to add it back in if it really is open source. Icey 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispatch of Army 

message: It has been suggested that free-as-in-beer games should be merged here, into the article of free-as-in-freedom games.
I agree that the two pages should be merged if and only if the list of open source games gets and keeps its own section. This list is a valuable resource for aspiring programmers, and to not separate open source from just free would be a disservice to Wiki readers. Sarysa 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think it's safe to say the merge is off. I will remove the templates accordingly. Shinobu 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No merge then

message: Although the SWF is an open source format, would Flash games be considered open source? Yes there are Flash game sites that sell Flash games (some games have a freeware version), but what is the legality of reverse-engineering of these "SWF" games and making them your own? There are programs mixed with technics that would prevent reverse-engineering programs from doing so, but a Wikipedia article on Flash says it isn't perfect (then again all technology can be reversed-engineered with work), so, is it a toss up? no? yes?
SRodgers--65.24.77.104 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SWF is actually a closed, proprietary format. So the answer would be no, Flash games can not be open source. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold it. The actual important thing is whether the game's preferrable editable form is open. Furthermore, there's Gnash. So it isn't a toss up at all; we'll have to consider this on a case-by-case basis. If the game can be easily edited, and you're allowed to, then it's open source. Otherwise, it isn't. By the way, if you want to make open source browser based games, I'd recommend you have a look at Java and SVG. Shinobu 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any editors that aren't license-encumbered, and Gnash isn't a complete implementation. But you're right, if there were then they could be open-source. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: At the moment, no free software projects are binary-compatible with the current versions of adobe flash or sun java, which are both non-free as a gpl'd sun java runtime has been announced but not released, and adobe has no stated intention of freeing flash.  Also, free software can be compiled for and even included with a non-free platform such as adobe flash, sun java, windows, mac os x, sony playstation 3, non-free mobile devices, and so on, so long as the free software itself remains free.64.59.144.22 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash Question