←back to thread

Show HN: Open-source Counter-Strike-like game

(github.com)
420 points solcloud | 1 comments | 22 Oct 24 16:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.389s | source
Show context
tokai ◴[23 Oct 24 12:25 UTC] No.41924295[source]▶
Still not open source many hours later after multiple people said to put a license on it. Calling something open source when its not is really not okay, and it is hurting free and open source software.
replies(6): >>41924342 #>>41924429 #>>41924533 #>>41925018 #>>41925263 #>>41942022 #
ivanvanderbyl ◴[23 Oct 24 12:37 UTC] No.41924429[source]▶
What would you call it? Source available?
replies(2): >>41924447 #>>41924558 #
tokai ◴[23 Oct 24 12:52 UTC] No.41924558[source]▶
I would personally just called it a video game. Free and Open source a issue of copy right. If there's still full copyright (and there's copy right on everything published nomatter if it is explicitly claimed or not) with no license on a piece of software, it has nothing to do with open source.

But source available would be the term to use if one wants to point out that the source is on github.

replies(2): >>41924592 #>>41925037 #
meiraleal ◴[23 Oct 24 12:55 UTC] No.41924592[source]▶
Open-source game has a literal meaning.
replies(1): >>41924618 #
tokai ◴[23 Oct 24 12:58 UTC] No.41924618[source]▶
The code is not open source. It is not an open source game. This is not open to interpretation, as there is no license given.
replies(1): >>41924985 #
shortrounddev2 ◴[23 Oct 24 13:41 UTC] No.41924985[source]▶
Why isn't it open to interpretation? Who made you king of open source software
replies(1): >>41925046 #
franga2000 ◴[23 Oct 24 13:49 UTC] No.41925046[source]▶
Terms that have an unambiguous and widely-agreed-upon definition are simply not open to interpretation. The term "open source software" is a technical term and is defined by The Open Source Definition [0], which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of experts in software engineering and software licensing.

[0] https://opensource.org/osd

replies(1): >>41925104 #
1. shortrounddev2 ◴[23 Oct 24 13:57 UTC] No.41925104[source]▶
The Open Source Initiative is a hypocritical organization that tried to trademark the term "Open Source" and was denied because they don't control the term and have no stewardship over it. Your interpretation is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of "experts in software engineering" (whatever that means), and I don't know of any way to quantify your claim either. What you are referring to is most likely FOSS, which is a more rigidly defined thing. Open Source, to most people, is a colloquial term that simply means that the source is available to be viewed.