Four of the games on that list are battle royale games, which started life as a somewhat popular Minecraft mod and really took off with "Battle Royale" - a mod of "Dayz" which itself is a mod of "ARMA II". Of the 10 most popular multiplayer games in 2023 seven of them owe their core mechanics to mods / flashes of brilliance from a handful of amateurs.Ī more or less correct history of their origins: So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users.Įven GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome.īoth have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions.Ĭan we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute. There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and with everyone else, really. I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting and lists of "the best open source software". You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives. You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source. The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent. I have noticed this since one month or so.
This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising.
0 kommentar(er)
