Recent comments

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):

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:

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:

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. :-(

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).

pheonton's picture

Thanks for the Heads Up, it is now fixed.

When we switched to using let's encrypt for ssl, i didn't prepare the www alais of the domain.