Open source Diablo 1 engine – DevilutionX 1.5.0 released
github.com
github.com
2) iOS brought in more than 67% of the revenue last year… it’s no wonder why apps are generally higher quality
It makes testing and making sure everything works vastly easier across the range of devices when you don't have literally thousands of possible devices to account for.
Then there's the monopolistic and highly curated app store.
Anyway, this was also all taking place before Diablo 2 Remastered was really a thing, so there was more motivation to work on this -- at least on my part -- back then. Now, not so much when I can already boot up Diablo 2 on my Switch.
[1] https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/diablo-ii-resurrecte...
> DevilutionX is made publicly available and released under the Sustainable Use License (see LICENSE)
> The source code in this repository is for non-commercial use only. If you use the source code you may not charge others for access to it or any derivative work thereof.
FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.
[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Check out wikipedia, or count google hits, or just talk to any computer geek who was alive in the 90s.
That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.
There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute.
There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome.
Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions.
Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users.
Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer.
So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.
Did this change?
[0]: https://arewefastyet.com/win10/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...
The requirement to allow selling is also true for free software, and RMS had user rights in mind, not commercial interests.
In which situation outside the developer world people use this phrase… to mean something other than FLOSS?
Open source is not common speech. It's jargon. Jargon that's becoming popular outside the tech world because of the advocacy around open source and free software going on.
Or is it just a consensus you assume to be there based on the assumption that people in general would just take the words at face value?
Which I suppose is fair enough, and it seems like I may have originally replied to something you didn't say. I'd still disagree both about the lack of a consensus, based on my general experience, and about the meaning.
Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.
Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?
As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.
"You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law."
Studying the software in a commercial setting seems to be permitted.
> 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.
See also [2]
[1] No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent.
You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source.
You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives.
I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
[2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so...
[3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source
[4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/
[5] https://opensource.google/
[6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/
Maybe the core problem is that the atnonym of open is closed. And closed source definitely means you can't see the source
You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone a source available project is "closed source "
A more or less correct history of their origins:
- Four of the games on that list are battle royale games, which started life as a somewhat popular Minecraft mod and really took off with "Battle Royale" - a mod of "Dayz" which itself is a mod of "ARMA II". It's mods all the way down.
- Two are tactical FPS games, which owe a huge chunk of their mechanics to "Team Fortress" a Quake mod and "Counter Strike" a Half-Life mod.
- One is a MOBA, which started life as "DotA", a Warcraft III mod.
Of the other three, one is Minecraft. Created by a solo dev, and I expect its moddable nature has helped its multiplayer popularity significantly.
One is Roblox. Created by two devs, and is itself a game creation system.
The final one is Genshin Impact - something of a an outlier in terms of team size and genre origins.
One can host the game with piqueserver[4]. I'm not sure if one can still host with the original Ace of Spades server, but the game was 'shut down' in 2019 so maybe not.
It's well worth a go - there is intense satisfaction in digging a tunnel undetected all the way through to the opposing team's base! Playing with friends enhances the enjoyment for me as one can be a little more strategic when in direct communication.
[1]: https://openspades.yvt.jp/
[2]: https://github.com/xtreme8000/BetterSpades
oh, and quake 1's quakeworld client. many excellent quakeworld clients like darkplaces and ezquake. lots of one offs showing off tech, etc
- https://libregamewiki.org/Iris2_3D_Client_-_for_Ultima_Onlin... - this is older, but really interesting as it's a totally different style to the official one
> I shouldnt have write access to do this i'm just some random internet guy, maybe think about fixing the permissions here
Whoops!
Most QoL are optional and is either off by default or can be turned off in the settings. Devilution is more of a reference work then something intended for anyone to use.
Still not finished, because then I got 486 and there was games like Heroes of M&M or AoE2 that I enjoyed more.
Maybe I shoul finish D1 now.
A pity, at least the amount of systems it supports is staggering.