Wolfire Games Releases Overgrowth Game As Open-Source

[sinepgib]

It was a joke from Ladis. Because usually free software meaning is clarified with "Free as in freedom not as in free beer". To emphasize it's about freedom and ethics and not money (free/libre software can be sold)

Considering all the previous conversation with Ladis, I'm not so sure it was a joke. They didn't seem to understand free software is about freedom and ethics at all despite a long discussion about it. And yes, free/libre software can be sold, but in practice it's a hard sell: your first client is absolutely within their rights as per license to release it for free to everyone else, as free software licenses are transferable. That's why in the end most business models based on free software are either open core, services or support contracts. There's also some tailored development, some dual license models, and some developers just hope the community will donate if they intend to commit full time to a project, which often doesn't pan out (but there are some remarkable exceptions, such as bcachefs' author earning enough for a reasonable living via donations). Free/libre software as the sold end product is rather the exception.

[tuxayo]

It's not free as in free beer either. Besides, "free as in free beer" has a name as well, which is "freeware". Free software also has a well defined and accepted meaning which is not the one you give it.

It was a joke from Ladis. Because usually free software meaning is clarified with "Free as in freedom not as in free beer". To emphasize it's about freedom and ethics and not money (free/libre software can be sold)

[Draget]

The dev(s) have been pouring their life and love into the creation of these games. Watching their development blog was always a very interesting experience. While this might not be the graphically most advanced game, it does have a really cool fighting system and allows building worlds and stories on this.

It is a cool community and I do recommend taking a peek at their games!

[microcode]

19.99 USD to play open source game?

It's quite some fun, worth a play.

[dragon321]

Nice move. I wish more companies would follow. At least for old games so community can keep them alive, port to new platforms or fix years old issues.

[sinepgib]

Ok, let's call it "free software". Free as a free beer, not as a freedom

It's not free as in free beer either. Besides, "free as in free beer" has a name as well, which is "freeware". Free software also has a well defined and accepted meaning which is not the one you give it.

[Ladis]

...

Ok, let's call it "free software". Free as a free beer, not as a freedom

[tg--]

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.

This has nothing to do with simplicity.
Open Source is a well defined and broadly accepted term. There's an industry initiative behind that definition, and even US courts (as shown recently) accept that definition, so much so, as to label it "false advertising" when the source code is available, but the Open Source terms (redistribution and so on) are not met.

What you're saying is basically, that you chose to publicly redefine the term on your own, because you don't accept general concensus, and confuse everyone while claiming to strife for "simplicity".

[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.

[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.