Category talk:Open source video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Open source cannot be non-commercial

There are several games on here that should not be, because they prohibit commercial redistribution. Quotes from the Open Source Definition:

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor ... The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially."

I think somebody has the idea that open source merely means "you can see the source code." Jdavidb 05:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We really need another category for such games, but I can't think of a name. "Category:Freeware games with source code available"? "Category:Open but non-commercial freeware games"? There is definitely a distinct class of games in there, but I'm not able to come up with a concise name. Jdavidb 15:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This category's name is not appropriate

This category should be called "Free software games", indicating that it contains articles on games that are free software. While the term "open source" is largely synonymous as a class of software, its connotation is such that the phrases cannot be used interchangeably. "Open source games" conjures up images of multiple authors writing in blogs, committing to CVS, and posting news on SourceForge. Several of the games in this category are emphatically not developed that way. --Graue 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That name change would still necessitate removal of several of these games, which meet neither the Open Source Definition nor the Free Software guidelines. Jdavidb 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have no argument with that. In that case, why don't you go ahead and remove those games now? --Graue 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Well, we can split the category to open source and freeware games; but not to open source and free software games: 1) It is simpler, easier to understand, one can not mistake freeware to free software and vice-versa 2) There are not too much difference between open source and free software Open_source_vs._free_software 3) Open source software restricting commercial redistribution can still be in the open source category, but: 4) "Open" source software restricting modification must be in freeware.

Why? Because open source isn't really about price. It's the freedom to improve it; an open source software with the permission to modify will always remain open source. Frigo 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the difference. Open source games are freeware games, but freeware games aren't necessarily open source, because the company does not release the program to public domain. How's that? If that isn't it, then I'm confused. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They can release the game's source code, but it isn't open source if somebody can't modify it and redistribute either the original or the modified. Even charging money for the source code doesn't matter IF you can redistribute and modify it.

Prohibiting commercial redistribution doesn't matter in my view. Also, commercial redistribution itself isn't, as long as there are other options to get the software (i.e. if somebody is dumb enough to buy it, nothing prevents you from selling it)

So it is enough to have a freeware and an open source section, as long as idiotisms like microsoft's shared source and alike don't find their way in open source.Frigo 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)