But I also don't see any actual playable (!) release yet. :-(
If there's not serious visible update / playable release within the next month, I suggest to disable or remove this entry and wait until (at the very least) an alpha version is out.
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).
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):
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:
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.
Forum topic: Feedback
It should work now. Give it a
It should work now. Give it a chance when you have some time.
Thanks!
Forum topic: Feedback
Hello! Thanks for your
Hello! Thanks for your comment.
Unity, the game engine used for this game, has OpenGL Core and OpenGL2 compatibility. When you open the game it should detect which one fits for you.
Since it seems it is not working for you, I'll check it out!
Forum topic: Feedback
should have stated somewhere
should have stated somewhere that the minimum requirement is OpenGL 3.2.
Forum topic: Unreleased game
Apparently the source code of
Apparently the source code of the game can be viewed here:
https://dev.hackerexperience.com/
But you need to login somewhere to see it; I haven't tried it myselves yet.
Here's a game development FAQ:
https://docs.hackerexperience.com/lbag/faq/
But I also don't see any actual playable (!) release yet. :-(
If there's not serious visible update / playable release within the next month, I suggest to disable or remove this entry and wait until (at the very least) an alpha version is out.
Forum topic: Most played games under linux
Another great game for Linux
Another great game for Linux :)
Forum topic: License: Closed Source
I also think the seperation
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).
Forum topic: License: Closed Source
you both are right
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.
Forum topic: License: Closed Source
Wuzzy, you are incorrect. Art
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