123
Hilmar Pétursson: Making CCP tech open source will enable Eve Online to live forever
(www.gamesindustry.biz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
123 points (97.7% liked)
Games
16728 readers
546 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- 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:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Um, open source is FOSS, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe you're talking about source-available?
No it isn't. Open Source is not inherently Free and Open Source. This is the whole point of licensing agreements.
Open source software is practically the same as free software, with only a handful of deviations:
FOSS is just the term for both groups together (Free and Open Source Software).
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
eefolder are not free, thus it is not FOSS.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.
That is exactly what I said above.
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.