• Nick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Great to see Godot getting more adoption by successful indie games! Slay the Spire was already a masterpiece, excited to see what they do with the sequel. This is the kind of success story that helps the whole indie ecosystem grow. 🎮

  • HelloRoot@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Godot […] is open-source. By proxy, Slay the Spire 2 is also open-source.

    Written by somebody who naively thinks open-source means: the source code can be viewed.

    Typical game journalism incompetence.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Open source does literally mean that. But it doesn’t mean that everything you build using open source is itself open source by proxy.

      Edit: ah, I see now, you meant to say “written by someone who thinks source code being viewable means it’s open source”.

      • HelloRoot@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        No, my wording was intentional. I was describing the journalist’s direction of inference, not asserting the definition in reverse. They saw the term “open source” and mentally reduced it to “the source code is viewable”, which is why I phrased it that way.

        Open source does literally mean that.

        It means that PLUS many more conditions. If you remove those additional conditions it’s not open source anymore but “source available”.

        To be precise: open source implies source-available, but source-available does not imply open source.

      • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 hours ago

        There was some asshole on the threadiverse saying that copy-left licenses weren’t open source, since you weren’t allowed to profit off the free code.

        I say this at the risk of signal posting this regressive view to say that anybody should be allowed to view and learn from software, and benefitting from such work while closing off future access is shitty. Find some other way to make money that doesn’t involve freeloading off of someone’s contribution to community.

        • Nemoder@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You are allowed to charge for most libre-licensed software, but of course in practice if it’s popular enough somebody else will just build it and undercut you.

          I do wish there were more institutions funding FOSS work though it can be hard to measure the benefits and progress for individual projects.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    I’m happy for Godot’s commercial success here. But what’s this weird attempt at connecting open source to piracy? You can de-compile lots of Unity games too. Wtf.

    • Nemoder@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yeah I guess you could argue that not encrypting or obfuscating the binary makes it a bit faster to create a pirated version but it doesn’t really effect piracy rates beyond that.
      I’m just happy to see a FOSS engine being noticed as important to the game’s success.