Open source

the source is on github ( ) under the wtfpl license

ps: i tried editing this page and gotten ERR_CONNECTION_RESET three times and got tried of trying to edit it.


Even still, isn't calling it open source much more accurate than calling it closed source?

I agree, especially since the WTFPL is even considered FSF-free and GPL-compatible. It's not the best license out their, but can't be considered closed source. OSI rejected the license because they believe it's too similar to public domain dedication - public domain is still free though.

yeah i agree at some point, I understand that it is not closed but if we use the term open source we should follow OSIs list. so we could either add another tag eg: other or we need to rename open source to something that covers all those licenses(afaik there there doesn't exist such a term eg: free software is used by the FSF but they also reject other licenses that are appoved by the OSI(see )

I also find the term "free software" confusing an the OSI has a clear defination, which will avoid such discussions under every single game with an unknown or not yet covered license

i call BS on their rejection reason, quote: `Mr. Michlmayr moved that we reject the WFTPL as redundant to the Fair License. Mr. Tiemann seconded. Passed unanimously.`

in other words, it fit their definition as stated on but got rejected cause it like another license.

"Open source" is a way broader term than what the OSI definition encompasses. If we're to judge by Wikipedia, "Open Source Initiative" is hardly mentioned in the whole page:
So IMO software under the WTFPL license could clearly be labelled as "open source" or "free software". The OIS did not state that WTFPL was not open source, but only that the license in itself was in their opinion unnecessary, as it does not bring anything that is not covered by the Fair license. I could fork the MIT and name it the "Akien License", it would probably be rejected by the OSI, would that make my work closed source?

Fair license doesn't allow warranty, even if it's highly unlikely that someone would put a warranty.
it also require the license to be included with the works, something that WTFPL doesn't require.

it doesn't cover everything that WTFPL does.

I just went ahead and changed it to open source [approval pending]. Source code is there, the WTFPL meets all 10 criteria of the Open Source Definition AND the 4 freedoms of the Free Software Definition.

The WTFPL is absolutely an open-source license. Whether a license is open-source is determined by its compliance with the OSI definition - *not* through explicit inclusion in the approved licenses. The list of approved licenses exists purely to provide extra assurance.

Hey everyone,

I'm the author behind trAInsported.
I just stumbled across this - thanks for adding the game to the database! I didn't know about the LGDB, it's awesome! :) I'll be sure to browse through the games!

I used the WTFPL because it was the most permissive license I could find. I found it hilarious that this creates a discussion about whether or not to add it to a list of open-source licenses (and I agree - the reasons at OSI for not adding it are funny).
Just wanted to note that, if in doubt about the license type, you can always download it, add an MIT license or similar, and re-upload it with the new license. The WTFPL should allow that (as far as I understand it).

Kinda defeats the purpose of WTFPL, but hey...