FreeGameDev

That's nice.

@Charlie please make a Freegamer blog post about it

Deleted.

True dat Even a custom license...

I changed the title to "shared source" to be more accurate.

Deleted.

Well, at least it helps for long term support, I guess. Not that the game is a technical marvel or anything...

Lyberta {l Wrote}:NC for code. That's not even "open source". Even id had conscience of releasing under proper GPL. This is "you pesky low-life plebs, enjoy the Gods Of Gaming Spitting into your soul and praise this proprietary code that we had extreme kindness to dump for you to look but not touch, you filthy scum.

+1

Deleted.

I think the term “source-available” is better and should be preferred over “shared source”. It's a personal opinion, but I have a reason.

It's because I think “source-available” is more descriptive and obvious. The term “shared source” is more nebolous and doesn't seem so well-known. It seems to be primarily used by Microsoft for their “shared source initiative”, but I rarely find it for anything outside the Microsoft realm. It seems not even Microsoft actually ever defined “shared source” (but I am not sure, I'm too lazy to do a deep dig), so that's not really helping.

I think the attempt to establish the term "shared source" as something bad and not anywhere close to open source is intentionally done to shame Microsoft. But I guess now that they are a much better open source citizen (or at least pretend to be) this is kind of moot.

The term “shared source” is bad because it's nebulous (at least that's my impression) and we don't really have a well-written definition, not because it comes from the Microsoft world.

Discussion about license:

https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/issues/7

Deleted.

Wuzzy {l Wrote}:The term “shared source” is bad because it's nebulous (at least that's my impression) and we don't really have a well-written definition, not because it comes from the Microsoft world.

Free Software is also quite nebulous... we get a huge amount of people here trying to advertise their latest free as in beer shovelware. But it also brings in people who are new to the idea of open-source but are intrigued by it. Thus I don't think nebulous is necessarily bad.

But in the case of "shared source" the use makes/made IMHO sense as it is/was an attempt by Microsoft to "open-source wash" (as in green-wash) their bad practises and solidly establishing "shared source" as a negative term is thus better than leaving it to be used by Microsoft only.

Julius {l Wrote}:@Charlie please make a Freegamer blog post about it

I didn't because it wasn't a proper open source license.

I should get back into doing the odd blog post though. Surely a better use of my time than the current Netflix binges I do in my off the clock hours. Sitting on a couch is mentally so easy though! :P