For me, the most interesting point was the short mention of open sourcing Factorio (around 2:40). Kovarex seems to be very much open to the idea, he mentions that (as an approximation) maybe two years after the DLC after things calm down ...

(Hope this is not much of a titlegore)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the source code of the Java version open for modding?

[–] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

Not really. There is de-obfusication headers which They officially provide which can make decompiled source readable for the purpose of making mods, You're not allowed to redistribute any of the code.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if the source is available or not. I remember some talk about it a few years back, but I don't know what happened. Either way, just because source code is available does not mean it is open source. When I say open source I mean libre.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I usually use open source to mean open source and free as in lunch, but in this case I assume kovarex is talking about open source but commercial and restrictively licensed. I could be wrong.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Open source is synonymous with "free software" as in freedom. Source available is likely what you're talking about.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If this were true, we wouldn't need the term "FOSS."

You're talking about the OSD presumably. Stallman's definition differs, and I think his terminology seems to be widely used.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I disagree with a few points of that article.

Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.

You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS,

The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to be neutral between free software and open source. If neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom.

The FSF and OSI agree on many of the licenses they approve as being free/open. If you can tell me of any notable differences that aren't a matter of one of them not commenting on a particular license yet then I'd be open to change my opinion on it.

Regardless, even if you believe the OSD and FSF's definition of libre software differ, merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source. Which is what this conversation was originally about.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

The conversation was not originally about OSD; I had just mentioned it.

You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS

Touchée. But FLOSS the term only emphasises even more: there's open source software, and then there's free/libre open source software -- note the distinction.