this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
123 points (97.7% liked)

Games

16679 readers
719 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 53 points 4 months ago (2 children)

tldr; the developer of Eve ("CCP") is going to open source their engine

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Their engine, not the game or server code? How does the engine help their game live forever?

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 15 points 3 months ago

Probably hoping to crowd source the engine development to reduce costs, but honestly no idea.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not just the engine, no.

the company is planning to make its proprietary Carbon Development Platform – which encompasses the studio's Carbon Engine and other technology – an open source property

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

That's pretty vague. What is "other technology"?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

Nyet, comrade, the transitionary state is complete, now they program in communism.

[–] Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We and our 692 partners (vendors) collect and process personal data (such as IP addresses or device identifiers) for the purpose of displaying personalized ads and measuring our advertising success.

No thanks.

I wonder which license they are going to use. Is it gonna be just an open source one or full-on FOSS?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it gonna be just an open source one or full-on FOSS?

Um, open source is FOSS, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe you're talking about source-available?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No it isn't. Open Source is not inherently Free and Open Source. This is the whole point of licensing agreements.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Open source software is practically the same as free software, with only a handful of deviations:

In "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software," Stallman explains: "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."

FOSS is just the term for both groups together (Free and Open Source Software).

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You have it backwards. Free and Open Source software is Open Source (subset). But Open Source is not Free and Open Source (superset).

Langfuse is a great example of where this is the case: https://github.com/langfuse/langfuse/blob/main/LICENSE

It is open source, but all features under the ee folder are not free, thus it is not FOSS.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

From reviewing the license, the portions under the ee directory are not open source, they're source-available with some additional grants of rights given certain conditions.

Here's the definition I use for "open source", and here's the one I use for "free software". Most (all?) free software licenses meet the definition of free software, but not all open source licenses meet the definition of free software, so that's why I tend to set that free software is a subset of open source software.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is exactly what I said above.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, the portions outside the EE directory are both open source and free software because it satisfies the definitions of both. The software in the EE directory satisfies neither. The combined work is neither, it's a mix of FOSS and source-available.