Page 62 of 114 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 1134

Thread: Put the wish list for porting projects HERE...

  1. #611
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flami View Post
    Well Freespace 2 at least has been open source for a while now ....
    The engine itself is open source, licensed under a restricted license from Volition in 2002- I distinctly remember the event. I also remember going looking about for discs to find that I couldn't find any storefront back when it occurred and it wasn't worth the trouble to try online through eBay...

    The content itself is NOT FOSS- it never was. Otherwise, I'd have already gotten it long ago. I just finally got to install and start playing this classic back several days ago, having purchased it for $6 on GoG beta test.

    And, the link you point to indicates that they're aware that GoG is making the game available and is a means for which you can obtain the assets proper. Considering the Installer does some fetching of "proper content", including enhancements, that's not a good thing as the enhancements weren't approved by rights holders. Moreover, the link you provide indicates to go looking on a known abandonware site or on a torrent for the content to play. Even worse.

    We need that like we need a hole in our heads, guys.

  2. #612
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    The engine itself is open source, licensed under a restricted license from Volition in 2002...
    Yes If you want to distribute the game legaly that is surely not the way to go .
    I wish there were some modern spaceshooters out ...

    Oh yes make an EVE-online port , the cedega bundle they ship isn't that great. ( you'd have work for quite a while , with all those updates )

  3. #613
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flami View Post
    Yes If you want to distribute the game legaly that is surely not the way to go .
    I wish there were some modern spaceshooters out ...
    Heh... Freespace 1 & 2 aren't a foregone conclusion. We just need to see if there's any good way to defuse the mess the SCP people made of a few things. All in all, it's a good chance that we'll see those back- and with the graphical enhancements. We just can't have any pissing matches whatsoever over any of it on either side.

    Oh yes make an EVE-online port , the cedega bundle they ship isn't that great. ( you'd have work for quite a while , with all those updates )
    Not practical, sorry. EVE-online would require that the parties involved could understand the difference (and be willing to pay for it...) a native client for Linux. Instead, while they saw an undeserved market, they saw that it was "cheaper" to go with a Transgaming based answer. Until they see this as really more of a band-aid type answer for them, a native port isn't going to happen.

  4. #614
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Much like the OpenBSD people did with some of the Linux kernel code.
    Interesting you mention that, since a while back i read on OpenBSD's site how they were a little angry that the "linux folks" in their words basically "stole" the OpenSSH program and happily slapped the GPL license to it and included it with many linux distros.

    Also, what you mentioned about both the freespace 2 and the build engine license, that while "open sourced", are not actually "free". I begin to understand the clear distinction Richard Stallman makes regarding "free software" (as in speech) and "open source". With the term "open-source" you can get away with anything, even microsoft can say (and has actually, many times) that they are putting many of their programs under an "open source" license, but that doesnt mean anything, it's mostly an economic term. The source can be "open" but only for public viewing, like a car display. "Free software" actually means a compromise, to freedom. Open source isnt. OTOH, many people argue that the GPL isnt actually "free", since it's very strict, and contend that the BSD license (under which OpenSSH is licensed under) is.

  5. #615
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xav1r View Post
    Interesting you mention that, since a while back i read on OpenBSD's site how they were a little angry that the "linux folks" in their words basically "stole" the OpenSSH program and happily slapped the GPL license to it and included it with many linux distros.
    Unfortunately for the OpenBSD people, they chose to license the code for OpenSSH under the BSD license, which allows that sort of thing- relicensing. Also unfortunate for the BSD camp, they chose to crib driver code that was licensed under the GPL- which doesn't allow them the stunt they pulled, trying to relicense code that wasn't theirs.

    It all boils down to licensing, folks- be very cautious and understand what you're contributing to or what you're borrowing from. In both cases, with at least me, their pleas fall upon deaf ears- they knew the licensing going on in both situations and they acted quite like spoiled brats, throwing a temper tantrum.

    Also, what you mentioned about both the freespace 2 and the build engine license, that while "open sourced", are not actually "free". I begin to understand the clear distinction Richard Stallman makes regarding "free software" (as in speech) and "open source". With the term "open-source" you can get away with anything, even microsoft can say (and has actually, many times) that they are putting many of their programs under an "open source" license, but that doesnt mean anything, it's mostly an economic term. The source can be "open" but only for public viewing, like a car display. "Free software" actually means a compromise, to freedom. Open source isnt. OTOH, many people argue that the GPL isnt actually "free", since it's very strict, and contend that the BSD license (under which OpenSSH is licensed under) is.
    In the case of GPL vs. BSD, the BSD camp chooses to allow ultimate freedom, even to the expense of their ecosystem for the software to allow it. GPL insists on giving back as the only real restriction. You're obligated to provide access to the source if you distribute binaries.

    If OpenSSH was under something like the GPL, the code wouldn't have been relicensed. Nobody stole ANYTHING in that instance because the BSD license allows that sort of thing.

    In the case of the driver incident, the author didn't want leakage back into Broadcom's driver tree of any of his work beyond the reverse engineering of the drivers. While still raw, the FOSS driver stack for Broadcom wireless devices actually has a better feature set than the Broadcom offerings. The author licensed it so that people could have the freedom of access, but not the freedom to crib code from it (If there's a distinction between the two it'd be that...) without giving back. Had the BSD people asked, he'd have done point releases under the BSD license to them, understanding that Broadcom could crib- but he wanted to control what was going out to the wild that way.

  6. #616
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    I never like "open source". It's like graphic driver binary blobs. You try to sugar-talk a big problem. Just because you hand something a sweet doesn't mean he's allowed to plunge his hand into the candy bucker. FS grants this important freedom and protects against thieves ( meaning those taking code selling it as their own work ).

  7. #617
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    I never like "open source". It's like graphic driver binary blobs. You try to sugar-talk a big problem. Just because you hand something a sweet doesn't mean he's allowed to plunge his hand into the candy bucker. FS grants this important freedom and protects against thieves ( meaning those taking code selling it as their own work ).
    Heh... I can see you see eye-to-eye with me on that one.

  8. #618
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Here's an odd tidbit of info:

    Interplay's website's been updated. The 10-Q they filed this year is...interesting. The fact that they've still been filing 10Q's is amazing in and of itself.

    "We are now focused on a two-pronged growth strategy. While we are working to secure funding for the development of a MMOG based on the popular "Fallout" franchise, we are at the same time exploring ways to leverage our portfolio of gaming properties through sequels and various development and publishing
    arrangements. We are planning, to develop sequels to some of the most successful games, including Earthworm Jim, Dark Alliance, Descent and MDK. We have reinitiated our in-house game development studio, and have hired game developers. Initial funding for these steps will mainly derive from license
    arrangements or other financing that we may enter into."

    This is...odd...without a doubt. It seems Interplay itself is the actual player behind the revival of the Interplay titles on Good Old Games. I believe I will dig into this further.

  9. #619
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Here's an odd tidbit of info:

    Interplay's website's been updated. The 10-Q they filed this year is...interesting. The fact that they've still been filing 10Q's is amazing in and of itself.

    "We are now focused on a two-pronged growth strategy. While we are working to secure funding for the development of a MMOG based on the popular "Fallout" franchise, we are at the same time exploring ways to leverage our portfolio of gaming properties through sequels and various development and publishing
    arrangements. We are planning, to develop sequels to some of the most successful games, including Earthworm Jim, Dark Alliance, Descent and MDK. We have reinitiated our in-house game development studio, and have hired game developers. Initial funding for these steps will mainly derive from license
    arrangements or other financing that we may enter into."

    This is...odd...without a doubt. It seems Interplay itself is the actual player behind the revival of the Interplay titles on Good Old Games. I believe I will dig into this further.
    Oh yea, follow that developing story, but AFAIK, that info has been on Interplay's shall we say "brief" website for a while now. They came out of bankrutpcy with the money for the fallout rights, and they're probably getting some cash too from GoG. But there are a few GoG titles that arent Interplay, arent there? GoG doesnt stand for "Interplay's Good Old Games", doesnt it? One example would be operation flashpoint. And probably redneck rampage, since it was published by interplay, but the rights were bought by vivendi.

  10. #620
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xav1r View Post
    One example would be operation flashpoint. And probably redneck rampage, since it was published by interplay, but the rights were bought by vivendi.
    And this goes to show ya...it's an incestuous business this...

    Oh, I've contacted GoG about things, believe me- but to find Interplay "still alive" and struggling... Heh... I know about that little story entirely too personally, though not through Interplay.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •