Somewhat annoyed with the Evolution RTS game page

In looking over referrers to the Evo site I noticed a portion of hits coming from this site so I had a look at the evo page here. I was a little disappointed that it seems to be just a copy paste of the about page on the evo site (which is very badly written and entirely my own fault).

Another annoying thing is that it points to desura for the download which is not particularly good. I would much rather it point to

Unfortunately Desura has failed game developers very badly, and I can't be arsed to deal with it much anymore. Not to mention the fact that if someone messages me there or leaves a comment I have no way to get notified of it. Failure all the way around. Whereas the proper evo site is tied in with the G+ community (Forums) and various easy ways to get in touch with me.

But the #1 thing that actually upset me is that it is listed as closed source! It is absolutely not closed source! On the same page, it links to the changes list on the google code page, where all the source is open and available! The current license is Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States and can be viewed at

I realize managing a massive games db can't be a very easy job, so it kinda makes sense that this is likely an automated posting, no worries, nice to have the exposure! So thanks for that! :-)

Managing a game is a lot of very hard work and keeping everything in one sock is very difficult. I appreciate your patience!

I will rewrite the about page on the site right after I finish this post. Thanks for listening to me bellyache :-)

Edit: Crap no way to subscribe to the topic. I'll try to remember to check back semi-often for any replies.


Some clarifications:
- Download and Install
the name is historical, atm we only list thirdparty distribution of specific sites namely: Desura, Steam, humblebundle, indie game stand and Linux Package search. I can see how this is misleading and unsuited for projects that mainly use there own website to distribute their game. (in a first attempt to clarify i changed the name but we might find a more suitable solution)

- License
unfortunately i couldn't open the supplied pdf. but like you said it should be OSI compliant. So this will change.

- Subscription
Good point, we will try to get something implemented.

NC Means Non-Commercial, and ND means No-Derivatives. neither NC nor ND suggest that redistribution is not allowed.

As per the creative commons deed:

You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you
or your use of the work).
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this
With the understanding that:
Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get
permission from the copyright holder.
Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the
Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
The author's moral rights;
Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how
the work is used, such as publicity.

Since this is dealing strictly with linux, I would muchly prefer that the instructions on the page were followed. That will ensure the best possible experience.

Those instructions are basically this page:

For Debian/*buntu it's pretty straightforward due to synaptic. The rest are pretty simple as well.

Desura evo simple sends you to , which up until a few weeks ago was perfect, but web browers are tired of java and oracle sucking, and have declared war on both, so self signed applets are in deep doodoo.

I actually made a newspost regarding this yesterday:

Unfortunately, cross platform apps like spring tend to get really messy due to the extreme differences in how windows packages are handled vs linux packages.

Moreover, linux packages get extremely difficult to deal with when you have an app that actively supports multiple versions of itself (such as spring... the lobby downloads whatever version of the engine is appropriate for you automatically).

Spring went though a pretty intense growing period of static linking, which is how multi-engine is handled now.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and support. I rewrote the about page last night, and while it isn't any great literary work, it should be a bit more appropriate.

I wasn't aware that I could edit the about page myself... I'll hop on it. Thought I would add some pictures to illustrate the "Features" list as well on the main site. Dunno if I can add images inline here, but if I can, I'll add them here as well.

Thanks much for everything!

Edit: I've updated the listing now :-)

As you can see in the 3rd above link the license isn't approved by the OSI. It might be not ideal how we handle licenses, but licensing is messy and we are no lawyers so we use the term "open source" which is connected to the OSI.

It may not comply with the OSI, but that does not mean that it isn't "Open Source". I suggest modifying how you use the term "Open Source", because it does not mean what you are intending to mean when you use it ambiguously.

>It may not comply with the OSI, but that does not mean that it isn't "Open Source".

OSI is the only organization that uses the term "open source" in the public. Other organizations like debian or the fsf use "free software" but all agree that the nc and nd licences are not free or open.

>I suggest modifying how you use the term "Open Source", because it does not mean what you are intending to mean...

I see no need for that. If you use a term like open source you need a clear definition what it is and the OSI is the only organization that provides one. It's also already described here ( )

You seem to be confused... Where did you miss the part about all of the code being GPL v2? Only the art is off limits, specifically models and textures for those models. Everything else is fair game.

The project itself is nc nd, but the things contained therein are sometimes under other licenses that are compatible. In this case, GPL v2.

>You seem to be confused... Where did you miss the part about all of the code being GPL v2?

No I'm not, as you can see in the link above "The engine and all game files".

>Only the art is off limits, specifically models and textures for those models. Everything else is fair game.

I guess you don't understand: We are the LGDB not LEDB - We list games not engines! :)


Art is an important thing in a game it makes your game/mod different to all those other spring mods. Without the assets EvolutionRTS is just (a/the spring) engine and not a game.

Open game art might also be far more useful than another engine,
because it allows the reuse for countless other projects/people.

==>Code is only useful for programmers, art is useful for everybody.

The thread is about how the engine's license affects game content. Specifically, all game code must be GPL. Art can be any other license that is compatible.

In Evo, the art is CC by NC ND, and the code is GPL. The project itself is also CC by NC ND. An example being, you couldn't just copy it and make a derivative of the project itself without permission.

It is not uncommon for open source projects to make use of multiple licenses.

GPL is for code, not art. Anyone can tell you that. CC is great for art but not so great for code.