Julius {l Wrote}:AFAIK, we are not super strict about it as we are not doing package management for a Linux distribution or something like that. Anything that has source-code that falls under this:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd or the Free Software definition by the FSF is definitely fine.
Ok, my source code is still and will remain under GPL.
Julius {l Wrote}:Borderline cases like for example stuff based on the FreeSpace2 source code would probably not get deleted, but someone will point out that this isn't true open-source software.
I'm curious, please can you explain what is "wrong" with FreeSpace2 source code?
Julius {l Wrote}:Same goes for trademark or based on copyrighted characters etc. stuff (depending on the character of those post someone might decide to move it to "off-topic" however).
I don't infringe copyrights, I don't intentionally use protected materials without the prior consent of copyright owners even though I'm not a supporter of copyright and I don't intentionally use copyrighted materials in my game. In my mother tongue, the synonym of this word rather means "author's right", it sounds better for me but it is already something different of the traditional American copyright notion. When I use a registered trademark in an option or in a text, I try to find a place to mention the owner of this trademark. The long title of my game is my trademark, Mozilla Firefox is almost in the same situation except that it is a registered trademark. When you talk about trademark and copyright, do you talk about games that may use one of them illegally? (which isn't my case)
Julius {l Wrote}:Non-"Free" art assets are accepted but also depreciated, and there seems to be a general agreement in this community that all should be "Free" which includes commercial use.
tl;dr: There is no strict rule, nor is there need for one.
Personally, as I said in some threads, I don't want to earn money from my game. Its development has costed me about 3000 €, I don't want anybody to earn even a penny with it, I don't want my game to be mixed with ads (especially ads for Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Google, Monsanto, Bouygues, Mediaset, Lagardère, Dassault, ...). I disagree with the way most games are sold nowadays, especially those with DRMs, freemium/F2P games with ads and/or silly features designed just to encourage the players to pay. On my view, "selling" a software like an apple, like something material, is weird and requires technical protections that are dangerous for the Internet and computer science, for our rights. That's why I defend the collectivist cooperative global patronage. I understand that in the meantime some developers and artists have to live from gaming or at least make some money but my main concern is this further: if someboby doesn't care about how I fund my project, if he doesn't want to respect my rights, if he just wants to use my stuff for free without mentioning the attribution, I should have a legal mean to say "no, thanks". If the economic system provided a viable and fair mechanism to ensure that the "digital" creations are democratically funded, I would just use GPL + CC BY-SA.
Julius {l Wrote}:P.S.: Projects based on closed source commercial engines (even if their script code is some sort of open-source) will usually get deleted as there is no point discussing them here.
It's not my case and I uderstand your position.
if its art assets are under a free sharing license preventing commercial use and/or forcing the mention of the attribution (right of paternity).
