Non-free game data: Reasons, justifications, rebuttals
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 07:47
A lot of games love to call themselves “free software” or “open source” when they really aren't:
If you look closer, it turns out that only the source code is under a free license, while the game's data is not.
Yet they are advertised as “open source games”. This practice seems to be somewhat common.
What are the reasons and justifications for only going the “half way” to free software?
Why stop at the artwork?
Did maybe even any of you choose to release such a game under such terms? Why?
To me, these games are neither open source nor free software. Just read the Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
and the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/definition).
Nowhere do these definitions state that there can be any part of the software which—for some reason—is excempt from the definition.
As I read the definitions, it's basically all-or-nothing.
Game data is rarely separate from the game. It seems to be a common notion that game data is somehow special and does not need to be free.
I think this is nonsense. It's essential and in many games, the code does not even work if you remove the data.
Even if the code does not immediately crash, you can hardly call it a game anymore. Maybe a game engine at best.
Try removing all maps from Xonotic and see if you still have a game.
So, I think it's a mistake to refer to games as “open source” or “free software” if only the game data is non-free.
If you look closer, it turns out that only the source code is under a free license, while the game's data is not.
Yet they are advertised as “open source games”. This practice seems to be somewhat common.
What are the reasons and justifications for only going the “half way” to free software?
Why stop at the artwork?
Did maybe even any of you choose to release such a game under such terms? Why?
To me, these games are neither open source nor free software. Just read the Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
and the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/definition).
Nowhere do these definitions state that there can be any part of the software which—for some reason—is excempt from the definition.
As I read the definitions, it's basically all-or-nothing.
Game data is rarely separate from the game. It seems to be a common notion that game data is somehow special and does not need to be free.
I think this is nonsense. It's essential and in many games, the code does not even work if you remove the data.
Even if the code does not immediately crash, you can hardly call it a game anymore. Maybe a game engine at best.
Try removing all maps from Xonotic and see if you still have a game.
So, I think it's a mistake to refer to games as “open source” or “free software” if only the game data is non-free.