Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

It should be noted that "Red Alert: Remastered" is open source (but not free as in beer, probably not free as in freedom either).

If you buy "Red Alert: Remastered" on Steam, there's a directory that lists the entire source code of Red Alert: Remastered.

-------

They probably did that because OpenRA was so popular, and that people would be curious how the original was also coded. The "Remastered" edition only came out in 2020.

Warning: Red Alert: Remastered includes a bunch of x86 assembly files for 64-bit MMX SIMD. Some ugly, 90s-era assembly language there for pathfinding...

View on HN

They licensed it under the GPL3 so it's free software. You can also get it also from EA's GitHub:

https://github.com/electronicarts/CnC_Remastered_Collection

They only released the source to the game logic, not the full engine.

And of course, the game data is not free.

See also https://github.com/TheAssemblyArmada/Vanilla-Conquer made by former modders based off that release.

Open source means people could redistribute the code, is that the case? Or do you only mean the code is available to view, but you are not free to redistribute (which would not meet the definition of open source)?

Tales of Maj'eyal is open source, you can redistribute or sell the source code of the engine, but the assets that comprise the game are not free.

Open source generally means people can read the source.

Anything past that gets to some specific license

Most people call that "source available" which has a very different meaning.

"Most" would depend of the bubble you live in. In mine, it's wrong.

I'm pretty sure "Open source" is a legally protected phrase owned by OSI with a precise definition.

I'm pretty sure "Open source" is a legally protected phrase owned by OSI with a precise definition.

It does have a precise definition (the OSD[1]), but OSI does not own the phrase in the sense of owning a (registered) trademark on it. They applied for such a trademark decades ago, but ultimately abandoned the application IIRC. That said, registered trademark or no, the OSD is by far and away the most widely accepted and used definition of what it means to be "open source". I'd argue that it is a de-facto standard, albeit not a de jure standard.

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

This is far from the first time I see this discussion. If anything, it makes me even more heavily dislike the confusion created by using the word "open", which already carries a definition, to describe this concept that's actually more than "open". Free or libre software at least means what it says.

Right. At this point there's an established playbook:

1. Someone who doesn't understand open source claims that open source means source available

2. Someone who does understand open source points to the OSI definition and points out that availability of source is nowhere near enough

3. Bickering about legal matters as if trademark law is the best way to handle terminology

4. Accusations that it's essentially tyranny for the OSI and FSF to try to establish standard definitions for open source and free software, or for the rest of us to insist upon proper use of these terms

Examples:

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367131

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25834067

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26079067

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27267367

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25364878

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26017500

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084823

Normal people get really confused by the word "free" to the degree that I think it might actually be worse than "open." Libre is really perfect but no one wants to call it that because it sounds silly.

> Libre is really perfect but no one wants to call it that because it sounds silly.

Maybe I'm biased cause the word exists in French, but I'm not sure how "libre" sounds silly.

We really have to stop letting engineers name things...

While bubbles do exist, "open source" means readable and redistributable in both Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster, so I'd agree that mostly it means that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

Reply on news.ycombinator.com