The developer of Rogue Legacy has officially released its source code 'in the pursuit of sharing knowledge' : opensource

[-] Kissaki@programming.dev 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's been over 10 years since we released Rogue Legacy 1, and in the pursuit of sharing knowledge, we are officially releasing the source code to the public.

https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/

License head

Rogue Legacy 1's source code is made available under a custom license. Basically, you can compile yourself a copy, for free, for personal use. But if you want to distribute a compiled version of the game, you might need permission first. See the EXCEPTIONS.md page for more information.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

Rogue Legacy is a great game, and I hear the second one is sweet too

[-] Donut@leminal.space 7 points 21 hours ago

The second game is the ultimate version that Rogue Legacy 1 should have been, and I say this with a lot of love and hours into the first game. It takes everything from 1 and turns it up the maximum and then some.

[-] AngryPancake@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

The second one knocked it out of the park. Really well done successor.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

100%. It's almost like the first is a beta for the second, despite being amazing in its own right.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago

I've added it to my list of wishes, let's hope Santa is bamboozled into thinking I've been good this year

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 33 points 1 day ago

Legend

[-] JazzDoggo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

I hope somebody will make source ports to other platforms eg. Android :D

[-] toothbrush 12 points 1 day ago

not open source :(

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

They don't seem to claim it's open source, just that they made the source code available.

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 day ago

License seems to be quite permissive, isn’t it? I specifically checked. Unless you mean strict copyleft.

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Custom license, not free for commercial use. Assets are still proprietary. https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md

I guess the main benefactor will be the modding scene. Indie devs can make deals with Cellar Door Studios to get a commercial licence with additional conditions. It might be close to open source in practice if the commercial licences are handed out generously.

[-] GammaGames@beehaw.org 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sounds reasonable for a game’s source code to me, I don’t see anyone claiming it’s “open source”

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago

Makes sense to protect the studio's reputation against potential droves of crappy, barely altered clones with scam ads.

[-] toothbrush 9 points 1 day ago

Well, we are in the lemmy subforum named "open source" so its implied.

[-] GammaGames@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago

Fair point!

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago

Regarding the proprietary assets, I used to give it some thought, and came to a conclusion that other than selling consultance services, selling assets is the only way to make money while creating something open source. That's why now I don't find proprietary assets to be something bad.

[-] toothbrush 10 points 1 day ago

Just to clarify, licenses are free software or open source when they fit the definition of those terms, aka the 4 freedoms and whatever open source requires, but both require being able to use the software without restrictions. So this isnt open source.

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 day ago

This is an opinion which is not universally shared. Even Stallman doesn’t agree with this definition.

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Anyone who disagrees ought to go get their own term rather than appropriating "Open Source" and/or "Free Software".

I've heard "source available" used.

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nobody owns this term so who’s appropriating?

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I and the OSI say otherwise.

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

You claim ownership of „open source”? That’s wild. Your lawyer can speak to my lawyer, I guess.

[-] Kacarott@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

"free software" very clearly means some software you can use for free (which this isn't), but "open source" very clearly means openly accessible source code, which this is.

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

"Free Software" very clearly means this, and "Open Source" very clearly means this.

Again, get your own terms. "Freeware" and "source available" are just sitting right there.

[-] Faresh@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms

What is Free Software? - GNU project

The four essential freedoms

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I don't know however if it is illegal to use the source code without having bought the game first, so I don't know if toothbrush is correct with their point.

Something that I find could prevent it from being called free or open-source software is the fact that you are not allowed to make derivative works for comercial use.

You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. This includes, but is not limited to, selling altered or unaltered versions of this software, or including advertisements of any kind in altered or unaltered versions of this software.

-- https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.

-- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

Thanks, I know what free software is. Open source != free software.

[-] Faresh@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

toothbrush was talking both about free software and open source and you claimed that Stallman disagreed with the notion that free software must allow to be used without restrictions (which I misread as run in toothbrush's comment and only now realized that they weren't talking about running)

That's why I talked about free software, but I'm sure at least the commercial use part also applies to open source (since business is mentioned as an example in the point about discrimination against field of endeavor in the OSD)

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 day ago

I said that Stallman didn’t agree with the open source definition he was using. Please stop conflating free and open source software.

[-] jeremyparker@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Since there’s one open source that’s more strict and one that’s more permissive, for the more strict one, we should indicate that it’s like the value of a variable: it has a specific meaning that doesn’t change. With that understanding, Rogue Legacy is open source, but Trisquel is “open source”.

(I was going to go with Tux Kart instead of Trisquel for that joke, but my heart couldn’t handle throwing shade at Tux Kart.)

Edit: I’d just like to interject for a moment. What I’m referring to as Tux Kart, is in fact, SuperTuxKart, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Super+TuxKart

[-] toothbrush 3 points 1 day ago

Lets not do open washing here. Its not open source, as that would require it having an open source compatible license, which it does not have, see the open source definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

[+] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

[deleted]

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago

You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I deleted my comment because I didn't really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source.

EDIT- And it's okay that it's "only" source-available, it's a creator's choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn't fit the spirit of this lemmy community.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source

MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There's no need to be pedantic, if the software isn't available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.

[-] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 day ago

Unrelated but how does one gains profit from an open source project? I heard that Doom is open sauce, but it's still a commercial game…

[-] TeddE@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Honestly? They're probably going to continue to offer the game on Steam and it will probably continue to trickle in revenue. Most people who are interested in the game have already bought it, so it's never going to draw in millions again.

The game is currently listed at $15, but goes on sale frequently for $3. I bet many new players would be happy to pay steam $3 for the cloud save and steam's easy game management, as opposed to compiling from source for every new PC install.

Finally, the gameplay loop between Rogue Legacy and Rogue Legacy 2 are pretty similar. This means the the original is a good extended demo for the sequel which is .$25, but up to 50% off. Frankly, it's a great marketing move at this stage in the game's lifetime.

[-] ShankShill@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

The assets aren't free and open source. If you want to legally use the open source code to play a game, you'll either need to buy the game to get the assets or use an alternative like freedoom.

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 day ago

I love hate that game. Fuckin bullshit sometimes!

The four essential freedoms

Opensource