OSNews

I'm feel almost as strongly about keeping an open-source system as Stallman but I'm also pragmatic enough to make an exception for games because I recognize that games fall squarely in the area current open-source development models and communities are weakest at.

(There's still a lot of work to be done to enable and encourage participants who artistic without also being technically-skilled, Game engines are significantly harder to architect such that you can incrementally improve them over the course of a decade, etc.)

I guess I would count as part of the 'foss crowd' as I vastly prefer (f)oss and run a Linux based distribution pretty much fulltime (with some time logged in Haiku).

That doesn't mean I think everything has to be (f)oss, in fact the main important thing for me is that everything I need to operate my system is (f)oss, and that everything I need to store/archive/retrieve my personal data is (f)oss.

Depending on it's nature, I also require applications through which I generate data to be (f)oss, but that's a somewhat more fuzzy deal, as the most important part here is that there are simple ways of exporting the data to open formats with all the information intact.

Games are none of that, they are pure consumption. I will never need a game in order to use my computer or get my work done.

As such I have no problem using proprietary games (and as stated above, I have no problem using proprietary software as long as I am not subject to vendor lock-in, as I would never entrust my own data to a proprietary format).

If I understand correctly, game developers could release the game source code, but keep the creative aspects (art, music, story, etc) proprietary. So you could build your own game using the source code, but would need to provide your own creative elements. I would imagine there's more concern over the Steam DRM.

DRM there is more annoying than "closed-sourceness". I wish GOG already would start competing in the same field but with DRM free approach.

Edited 2013-01-30 03:22 UTC

FOSS != Stallman's attidude.



I dunno, by making good games that people want to pay for?
Besides, if what we're told about how rampant piracy is on closed-source platforms is true would open sourcing your game really make things worse?

I was recently working on an OSS license project whose terms were basically "you do whatever you want the source at home and with other licensees, but if you start to spread it around without following our redistribution conditions, our lawyer pack can sue the hell out of you".

The redistribution conditions were initially set to "you must redistribute the source along with derivatives you publish", and then individual projects could add or remove extra terms as long as they do not contradict this basic principle. Point was to decouple the core open-source principle that users should have access to the source of the software they legally acquired, from software distribution conditions themselves, so as to allow for commercial software development.

Discussions with the OSI to have it lawyer-approved had come to a stall though, I'd have to start working on that again one of these days...

Edited 2013-01-30 06:36 UTC

No, it doesn't (seriously, google/wiki what "begging the question" is :p )

@Wafflez:
Forums? pfft the article is about Steam not about games, so this needs to be here: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux
And BTW do show me a game with a forum, with customers and without problems? geez

@WorknMan: There are plenty of F/OSS engines out there that support Linux, say iD's, yet no CoD clone (in popularity geez) has spawn in the mean time. The thing is that the code to drive the logic is just a piece of the puzzle, having the gigabytes of F/OSS textures and models is the problem, hence the likes of OpenArena which took a while to get where they are.

Edited 2013-01-30 00:00 UTC

Except that for such a small Desktop fraction they generate so much issues.

Do you understand what a beta is?