donated € 20.00
donated SEK 200.00
Home » Forum » Trisquel users
Submitted by onpon4 on Wed, 12/30/2015 - 17:19
The Gaming Trap
Please read and follow the Community Guidelines.
61 replies [Last post]
onpon4
I've decided to start a list of games, and groups of games, that people seem to mistakenly believe are 100% libre software, when they actually contain (or in some cases, are entirely) proprietary software:
https://onpon4.github.io/other/gaming-trap/
If you are aware of another example, or have an example you'd like me to check, please let me know. Also please let me know if any of the explanations are insufficient.
Please use the rating system to mark posts that go against the Community Guidelines
Dolus Astus
So this list only covers whether the code and scripts are libre not assets?
Yes, software only. The Libre Game Wiki already covers checking whether anything at all in the game is non-libre.
All games listed on this page have proprietary software in them.
Yes, software only. The Libre Game Wiki already covers checking whether
anything at all in the game is non-libre.
Nice! I have different views on assets but code and scripts should be Free.
Does the bit on id Tech 4 mean the Darkmods engine isn't libre?
It means that id Tech 4 games aren't necessarily libre, because you have to consider the licenses of the scripts as well as id Tech 4 itself.
The Dark Mod's LICENSE.txt file states, "All software components of The Dark Mod, either original or based
on the Doom 3 GPL Source Code as released in November 2011, are licensed and can be distributed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." That makes The Dark Mod sound OK, though I don't much like the vagueness of this statement ("software components" isn't clearly defined, and some people don't consider scripts to be software). It would probably be worth it to check up on any scripts to see if they have any sort of license notices, and possibly to contact the developers of The Dark Mod and ask for a clarification.
Thanks for the thorough response! I suppose I'll poke around the DM forums when I have spare time.
Thanks for the thorough response! I suppose I'll poke around the DM forums
when I have spare time.
It means that id Tech 4 games aren't necessarily libre, because you have to
consider the licenses of the scripts as well as id Tech 4 itself.
The Dark Mod's LICENSE.txt file states, "All software components of The Dark
Mod, either original or based
on the Doom 3 GPL Source Code as released in November 2011, are licensed and
can be distributed under the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version." That makes The Dark Mod sound OK, though I don't
much like the vagueness of this statement ("software components" isn't
clearly defined). It would probably be worth it to check up on any scripts to
see if they have any sort of license notices, and possibly to contact the
developers of The Dark Mod and ask for a clarification.
Embracer245
Sorry for budging in, But if i run standard doom/doom II/final doom with Zandronum, is that libre?
Zandronum contains code under the Doom Source License, so no. Change Zandronum to Odamex, and you're fine.
the doom source license says we can not allow mods for shareware doom. So using odamex removes this restriction? Just curious.
All of the Doom source code by id Software was also released under the GNU GPL. Odamex is derived from code under the GPL, and it's libre. The problem with Zandronum is it's derived from ZDoom, which contains additional Doom Source License code from other contributors (since that is the license the ZDoom project chose to use, I think mainly because the Doom Source License doesn't have as strong copyleft).
All of the Doom source code by id Software was also released under the GNU
GPL. Odamex is derived from code under the GPL, and it's libre. The problem
with Zandronum is it's derived from ZDoom, which contains additional Doom
Source License code from other contributors (since that is the license the
ZDoom project chose to use, I think mainly because the Doom Source License
doesn't have as strong copyleft).
This is proof that "Open Source" does not necessarily mean "Free Software"
MeNoMore
Thus the difference, and the preferably 'free software'?
the doom source license says we can not allow mods for shareware doom. So
using odamex will allow mods for shareware?
ADFENO
Despite Odamex, we have Prboom[1], PrBoom+[2] ("prboom-plus" package) and Doomsday Engine[3] as alternatives to the Doom source port.
Zandronum is proprietary/non-free software because it doesn't make any effort to remove the proprietary/non-free functional data from the parent project: ZDoom (be the functional data: software, scripts, documentation, fonts and so on) [4].
There is a project which does make such effort to remove the proprietary/non-free functional data, and which is also based on ZDoom: GLOOME[4]. Based on this proofs, I (and many others here as well) find GLOOME to also be free software, despite the fact that no one has yet sent GLOOME for review and approval at the Free Software Directory[5].
Also for a game to be played in this source ports, I recommend Freedoom 1 and 2, and FreeDM if you want some deathmatch. FreeDM is part of the Freedoom project.
[1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/PrBoom
[2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/PrBoom%2B
[3] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Doomsday_Engine
[4] https://trisquel.info/en/forum/doomdoom-ii-trisquel#comment-76944
[5] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?search=GLOOME&title=Special%3ASearch
[6] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Freedoom
SuperTramp83
I am a translator!
hi ADFENO mate, you seem to know a thing or two about Doom, so pardon me if I
OT this thread with my silly requests, but..
is there any way to play brutal doom in freedom?
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Brutal_Doom
The game seems so edifying and gentlemenish I just want to play it for
hours.. :)
Despite Odamex, we have Prboom[1], PrBoom+[2] ("prboom-plus" package) and
Doomsday Engine[3] as alternatives to the Doom source port.
Zandronum is proprietary/non-free software because it doesn't make any effort
to remove the proprietary/non-free functional data from the parent project:
ZDoom (be the functional data: software, scripts, documentation, fonts and so
on) [4].
There is a project which does make such effort to remove the
proprietary/non-free functional data, and which is also based on ZDoom:
GLOOME[4]. Based on this proofs, I (and many others here as well) find GLOOME
to also be free software, despite the fact that no one has yet sent GLOOME
for review and approval at the Free Software Directory[5].
Also for a game to be played in this source ports, I recommend Freedoom 1 and
2, and FreeDM if you want some deathmatch. FreeDM is part of the Freedoom
hi ADFENO mate, you seem to know a thing or two about Doom, so pardon me if I OT this thread with my silly requests, but..
The game seems so edifying and gentlemenish I just want to play it for hours.. :)
Brutal Doom contains several ACS scripts. Source code is included for these scripts, but no license is given. The entirety of Brutal Doom, including its scripts, is proprietary.
So no, there is no way to play Brutal Doom in freedom, short of remaking it.
Unfortunately, I have never played Brutal Doom, mainly because it's non-free/proprietary software, but I do have some friends who like to play it.
Looking at the images, videos and descriptions of it around the Internet and considering the description given by some of my friends, I find the features of the game to be quite interesting. Secondly, I find it interesting that the game was made by a Brazilian, but I don't consider this fact as means to prioritize the software on top of the others.
Unfortunately, I have never played Brutal Doom, mainly because it's
non-free/proprietary software, but I do have some friends who like to play
Looking at the images, videos and descriptions of it around the Internet and
considering the description given by some of my friends, I find the features
of the game to be quite interesting. Secondly, I find it interesting that the
game was made by a Brazilian, but I don't consider this fact as means to
prioritize the software on top of the others.
tx for your answer Onpon. Nada Brutal, just Doom it is then.
a_slacker_here
Brutal doom is proprietary by itself because the creator didn't think about putting it a license... Very bad.
I would like to add that brutal doom is perfectly compatible with GLOOME.
Brutal doom is proprietary by itself because the creator didn't think about
putting it a license... Very bad.
Brutal Doom contains several ACS scripts. Source code is included for these
scripts, but no license is given. The entirety of Brutal Doom, including its
scripts, is proprietary.
Zandronum contains code under the Doom Source License, so no. Change
Zandronum to Odamex, and you're fine.
hi all, im from windows,, nice too meet u..
Hello there. Maybe you should start by reading the community guidelines first for first time users.
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
Hello there. Maybe you should start by reading the community guidelines first
for new time users.
Allanitomwesh
Onpon4 abit off topic
ReTux looks like a lovely game. I was not aware of it.
In this list, I would also mention Quake 1/2 mods such as Team Fortress (Q1/QW), Rocket Arena (Q1/QW), Action Quake 2 (Q2), OSP (Q2)… which use proprietary (binary-only) game logic in the form of .dat/.dll/.so files.
Some mods are libre though, like KTX (QuakeWorld), OpenFFA and OpenTDM (Quake 2).
Thanks, I've added that.
vita_cell
As I can see, most games in Libregamewiki, are free software, but, most of games contain non-free art. And some free software games are only compatible with non-free OS (Winbugs).
All games on Libregamewiki are libre software and libre culture. If you find one which isn't, this is a mistake that ought to be corrected.
I've decided to start a list of games, and groups of games, that people seem
to mistakenly believe are 100% libre software, when they actually contain (or
in some cases, are entirely) proprietary software:
If you are aware of another example, or have an example you'd like me to
check, please let me know. Also please let me know if any of the explanations
are insufficient.
All games on Libregamewiki are libre software and libre culture. If you find
one which isn't, this is a mistake that ought to be corrected.
You refering to code. Yes, all games are free software I think.
I could find some games with non-free art/media:
https://libregamewiki.org/Blob_Wars_Episode_2_:_Blob_And_Conquer
The original version of that game does have non-libre media, but Debian's version is completely libre, as stated in the opening paragraph.
That game did originally have non-libre media, but it's been corrected by
Debian, as the opening paragraph of that article states. Debian's version is
completely libre.
I would also like to point out, that "free culture" is different from our culture[1] (which I like to name it as "free software culture", but it also involves other things as well. If someone has a better name, please say so).
[1] https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ive-probably-misunderstood-difference-between-open-source-and-free-software-movements#comment-86757
I would also like to point out, that "free culture" is different from our
culture[1] (which I like to name it as "free software culture", but it also
involves other things as well. If someone has a better name, please say so).
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ive-probably-misunderstood-difference-between-open-source-and-free-software-movements#comment-86757
GNUtoo
onpon4,
This is very nice. I however find the title a bit misleading. Something like "Games licensing myths", "Game licensing misconceptions", "common mistakes with games freedom" would suits more I think.
It would also be very nice to include references for all the claims in it.
Denis.
> I however find the title a bit misleading. Something like "Games licensing myths", "Game licensing misconceptions", "common mistakes with games freedom" would suits more I think.
The title is a reference to "The JavaScript Trap", itself a reference to "The Java Trap", because the usual problem is almost identical to "The JavaScript Trap": failing to notice proprietary scripts included in games' "data" directories.
> It would also be very nice to include references for all the claims in it.
This is original research, so the closest thing to a reference I would be able to provide for most of them is a link to download the games.