Recent comments

Wuzzy's picture

I also think the seperation of art and source code does not make sense (as if the art would be an unimportant, disposable component) for many games when there is a strong coupling between both. If you remove the art from a game, it no longer works, so it is an essential part of the game (and, in extension, the software itself since it has a hard dependency on the art files).
If you just look at the code, then you are not talking about the complete game anymore.
So, to recap:
To make a video game, you need code AND art AND related files (e.g. levels, data files, etc.). Removing anything of this will likely result in something that is no longer a playable game.
If code and art and related files are free-as-in-freedom, then the game is obviously free software.
If code is free but art isn't, I'd argue the game is not free software because an essential part of it is not free. It would be honest to call just the code “free” and consider an entry in the “Engines” section of the LGDB (if the code is actually useful as an engine, of course).

ssf's picture

you both are right

its free but not open, the term Open is used by the OSI and their Open source definition(which is based on the (DFSG - debian free software guidelines):

https://opensource.org/osd
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

the cc-by-nc-sa is unlike the cc-by-sa not compatible with that definition since the it breaks rule #1: Free Distribution

the Free Software Foundation also uses the term free-software which mainly means the source code is under a FSF approved/GNU compatible license, they mostly give a sh*t about art - which is really sad ;(

But since artwork is probably the most important part of a game(without its just an engine) and because we had to choose one of them, the term Open is used and explained here:

https://lgdb.org/category/source/closed_source
https://lgdb.org/category/source/open_source

so Wuzzy is right an the page is correctly tagged.

t3g's picture

Wuzzy, you are incorrect. Art and media can be under any license you want as they are not software. As long as the code is free software, this project should be classified as such and is incorrectly labeled.

Here is some reading to help you learn the difference between art and software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html

toney's picture

What's wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA? It is also a free license.

Wuzzy's picture

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Only the the naked source code is “open source”, but that alone of course does not make a game.
Practically all the media files are under CC-BY-NC-SA. :-(
https://svn.thedarkmod.com/publicsvn/darkmod_src/trunk/LICENSE.txt

And this is unlikely to change because a lot of different people were involved.

Fun fact: They once made a HUGE effort to replace old copyright-rescricted files so they are not in conflict with copyright … only to replace them with other rescricted files. The irony!

pheonton's picture

Of course, the search now includes engines.

sysedit's picture

Thank you. Much better like this.

Wuzzy's picture

Yes, the copyright notice really is ugly. I have uploaded new screenshots, they should be visible here in a couple of days (I hope).