Wolfire Games Releases Overgrowth Game As Open-Source

[Ladis]

Nope, at least most of the serious popular game engines are not open source. "Source code publicly visible" is not open source. However Godot is an example of a popular open source game engine, so they do at least exist.

And how it is called, if not open source, when everybody can look into the code and make changes (for themselves)? Are there some levels of opensourceness? I would understand, if this is called opensource, and some higher level of opensourceness would be called e.g. libresource. Is this the same debate like whether the GPL or BSD license is more free?

[sinepgib]

And how it is called, if not open source, when everybody can look into the code and make changes (for themselves)? Are there some levels of opensourceness? I would understand, if this is called opensource, and some higher level of opensourceness would be called e.g. libresource. Is this the same debate like whether the GPL or BSD license is more free?

No. Open source means that every user gets to see the code, modify it and release the modified version with its source code and the same rights (but permissive licenses additionally allow for the derivative to be kept closed). They also get to use it for any purpose they wish. Open source licenses are (can be, when permissive) transitive. Because for these engines only the engine maker's clients get to see the code, the use is restricted and the license is strictly non-transitive. Even those for which the code is more broadly available, the latter points apply, so they are not open source. By definition.

Straight from the horse's mouth: https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

EDIT: last but not least, they are not similar debates as one is purely semantic (a set of properties make a term apply or not) and the other is philosophical, as for both the term "free software" applies because they do have the four stated properties of free software, but whether one or the other is freer depends on a deeper meaning of what freedom is.

[Ladis]

...

I see Wikipedia says the same as you: "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution.". Then how to call Unreal's source? Free Source? Freedom Source? Obviously not Libre Source, as that is considered usually the highet level, when OSS project are forked

[dEnigma]

I see Wikipedia says the same as you: "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution.". Then how to call Unreal's source? Free Source? Freedom Source? Obviously not Libre Source, as that is considered usually the highet level, when OSS project are forked

Source-available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[sinepgib]

I see Wikipedia says the same as you: "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution.". Then how to call Unreal's source? Free Source? Freedom Source? Obviously not Libre Source, as that is considered usually the highet level, when OSS project are forked

Just as M1kkko called it, "source code publicly available". It's still a strictly proprietary license that is given strictly to you for strictly certain purposes. Essentially an EULA for the source code.
Regarding libre vs open source, that's much more a philosophical difference than it is a practical one. Libre and open source licenses are the same, but libre focuses on communities and freedom and ethics (thus the term) while open source focuses in the technical benefits of everyone being able to contribute to a common goal. Libre software projects tend to dismiss proprietary software as it doesn't match their ethics (in most cases) while open source doesn't unless it becomes a technical roadblock (that's why mainline Linux ships proprietary firmware but does not accept code that isn't exercised by an open source userspace, because it's harder to debug when you don't know what the user program is doing).

[Ladis]

Just as M1kkko called it, "source code publicly available". It's still a strictly proprietary license that is given strictly to you for strictly certain purposes. Essentially an EULA for the source code.
Regarding libre vs open source, that's much more a philosophical difference than it is a practical one. Libre and open source licenses are the same, but libre focuses on communities and freedom and ethics (thus the term) while open source focuses in the technical benefits of everyone being able to contribute to a common goal. Libre software projects tend to dismiss proprietary software as it doesn't match their ethics (in most cases) while open source doesn't unless it becomes a technical roadblock (that's why mainline Linux ships proprietary firmware but does not accept code that isn't exercised by an open source userspace, because it's harder to debug when you don't know what the user program is doing).

Well, GPL is also a quite strict license. For simplicity, I'll keep calling it open source (in a more general meaning) instead of "source code publicly available", which the general population doesn't understand.

[Sin2x]

Michael, did I miss the news from Phoronix that Oil Rush is now completely free? I remember you covering it a lot back in the day. Still one of the best graphics for a completely native Linux game.

[M1kkko]

Well, GPL is also a quite strict license. For simplicity, I'll keep calling it open source (in a more general meaning) instead of "source code publicly available", which the general population doesn't understand.

There is a list of approved licenses that meet the commonly accepted criteria of "open source". If you come across some code on the internet with a custom EULA attached to it that is not on that list, then the code is generally speaking not open source.

[sinepgib]

Well, GPL is also a quite strict license. For simplicity, I'll keep calling it open source (in a more general meaning) instead of "source code publicly available", which the general population doesn't understand.

So you'd rather use a misleading term. The people who would talk about open source generally knows what open source means anyway.
Regarding GPL, it's strict but it fills the definition, while the others do not. You can still use it for any purpose, even if you're restricted in the form you can distribute it.
Using the wrong term may lead to actual problem for people making derivatives, as they may unknowingly (if they choose to assume source available is the same as open source) infringe copyright.

[Nille_kungen]

I actually bought Lugaru and i think there was some kind of deal for Lugaru owners for Overgrowth, but it's very long ago and i think it was called Lugaru 2 back then.
If i remember correctly Lugaru was an idie game and icculus (Ryan C. Gordon) made the linux port for free in 24h iirc. He really did a lot for linux gaming.