[mordae]

Not open source.

> DevilutionX is made publicly available and released under the Sustainable Use License (see LICENSE)

> The source code in this repository is for non-commercial use only. If you use the source code you may not charge others for access to it or any derivative work thereof.

[burke]

The source is open. “Open Source” does not mean the FLOSS-flavour of Open in conventional speech. If you want to fight that battle, sure, it’s not unreasonable, but realize that you’re pushing a sub-consensus view.

[mepian]

"Source-available" is already the established term for this kind of software, not sure what you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[Narishma]

Does that term really apply to this? You can modify and distribute the source. The only thing you can't do is sell it.

[Pet_Ant]

Yes, because the OSI doesn’t recognize it as such.

[gfosco]

I don't recognize the OSI as any authority to define words.

[hgs3]

The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied [1].

[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

[jraph]

This is fine, but you don't get to decide what people mean when they say "open source", and usually they mean this definition.

[mannerheim]

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[rendaw]

"Free and open source (FOSS)" is another established term, for the opposite, so I'm not sure this proves anything.

[jraph]

It's not the opposite. Source-available is a requirement of FLOSS (or FOSS).

FOSS is "source-available" + other guarantees.

[jraph]

No it's not, and yes it does. This trend on HN that has consisted in wanting to kill the meaning of "open source" as most people understand it is very weird and surprising. I don't understand what is at stake. I have noticed this since one month or so.

The vast majority of projects that call themselves open source mean the open source definition as defined by the open source initiative, or something equivalent.

You might not like or recognize the OSI and that's fine, but you can't decide what people mean when they say open source.

You are the one starting the battle and I don't understand your motives.

I just searched for "open source" in a search engine, I'm getting [1,2,3] and lists of "the best open source software". And they are all using the OSD. You are at odds with Wikipedia, IBM, RedHat and with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple [4,5,6,7,8], and with everyone else, really.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

[2] https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so...

[3] https://www.ibm.com/en-en/topics/open-source

[4] https://opensource.microsoft.com/

[5] https://opensource.google/

[6] https://aws.amazon.com/fr/opensource/

[7] https://opensource.fb.com/

[8] https://opensource.apple.com/

[xorcist]

Consensus is very clear here and it's the opposite of what you suggest.

Check out wikipedia, or count google hits, or just talk to any computer geek who was alive in the 90s.

[hotpotamus]

This sounds like it's getting into a pedantry I wasn't aware of. If the source is available for me to look at and potentially mess around with, I'd consider it open source, but I assume it's the non-commercial aspect that makes it not "Open Source"?

That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.

[dontlaugh]

There’s a clear widely accepted definition https://opensource.org/osd/

[burke]

This is a claim by an organization on ownership of a phrase used by humans in common speech. That doesn’t mean it’s what people mean when they say it.

[bananabiscuit]

Don’t forget who you’re arguing with on this website. Most people here earn their livelihood by commercializing huge amounts of work done for free by others. They definitely have a horse in this race.

[bayindirh]

There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software.

There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute.

There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome.

Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions.

Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users.

Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer.

So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.

[mannerheim]

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[jraph]

> common speech

In which situation outside the developer world people use this phrase… to mean something other than FLOSS?

Open source is not common speech. It's jargon. Jargon that's becoming popular outside the tech world because of the advocacy around open source and free software going on.

[Delk]

Where does this consensus of considering open source to mean the same as source available exist? I certainly haven't seen any such consensus anywhere.

Or is it just a consensus you assume to be there based on the assumption that people in general would just take the words at face value?

[Delk]

Can't edit anymore, so replying to self instead. But now that I look at it again, it seems you aren't saying the face value meaning of the words "open source" would be the consensus either, just that the OSI-style meaning isn't common enough to be considered consensus either.

Which I suppose is fair enough, and it seems like I may have originally replied to something you didn't say. I'd still disagree both about the lack of a consensus, based on my general experience, and about the meaning.

[mannerheim]

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[mordae]

Is it stands, it would be rejected for inclusion in Debian and other distributions (unlike open source games) and I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting.

Don't get my hopes up by calling it open when you post it on HN. It's not that much to ask.

[littlestymaar]

> I wouldn't be able to bring it to my software club and study it with kids, because that would be using it in a commercial setting.

Would you mind elaborating on this? How is a software club a commercial setting?

[pgeorgi]

"Commercial activity" can be as benign as "There are membership fees", "There's a soda machine in the corner that takes coins", "I'm doing it to brush up my CV" (increasing future income potential), or "There are ads on the website".

As such, any of these might trigger the "only for ... non-commercial ... use" clause. So folks generally just don't sweat it.

[boredhedgehog]

The Sustainable Use License doesn't seem to contain a blanket ban on commercial use. Here's what it says on limitations:

"You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the licensor in the software. Any use of the licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law."

Studying the software in a commercial setting seems to be permitted.

[anthk]

It's still non-free, period. True FOSS software doesn't impose restrictions on commercial sales.

[Narishma]

Why does Debian care that it can't be used in a commercial setting?

[jraph]

Because it comes with the freedom to used for any purpose in its core goals / social contract [1], including commercial purposes:

> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

See also [2]

[1] No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[Narishma]

Are there any (main) distributions that are fine with this restriction?

[jraph]

The GNU project has a page listing common distribution and their handling of non-free software if you are interested in the topic [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

[ainiriand]

Then it would be fair to call Unreal Engine open source, which is not.

[yazzku]

I think you're in the minority here. Open source is generally understood to be the OSI definition of the term, not just "source available". The latter is typically what is understood by people who are not familiar with OSS or free software.

[IshKebab]

And it is of at best dubious legal status given that it was from decompiled Diablo code. I think it's unlikely that they'd get sued for this because Diablo is old and Blizzard probably doesn't care too much about the engine, but if they did I seriously doubt you would win a case against them.

[contrarian1234]

I feel this issue will never die till someone finds new catchy terms...

Maybe the core problem is that the atnonym of open is closed. And closed source definitely means you can't see the source

You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone a source available project is "closed source "

[asylteltine]

Ugh this again. If you have the source publicly available, it’s open source. I wish you guys would get over it! If people want to profit from this work they can pay for it.