Quoting: ageresGameplay video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OLmDh6Fyy8 [External Link]

Quoting: subSo we should see all engine code changes for Nintendo Switch and PS4 released, right?

I somehow doubt it.

The original Quake/Darkplaces code has no support for PS4 and Switch, so I suppose 3DRealms made it themselves and don't have to release these parts of code, if I understand GPL correctly.

That would be incorrect, simply put the GPL would require them to release the full source code, including all their changes. But if they got a seperate license from id/ZeniMax AND from the copyright holders of whatever pirt(if any) they use.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The announcement on the 3D Realms website the version that seems to indicate Linux coming this summer: https://3drealms.com/news/wrath-aeon-ruin-announced/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Doesn't Valve already have their own anticheat solution, VAC?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AllocAnticheat stuff typically runs on a very low level these days, i.e. kernel mode of the OS with a lot of internal stuff going on to try to make sure no one is hacking. You wouldn't really be able to replicate everything that would be needed on a compatibility layer.

DRM is a different thing though, wonder how many companies still do that anyway these days though? Can't remember what my last game was that had actual DRM, though I must admit that I rarely play "triple A" games (imho triple A these days sucks most of the time compared to actual "innovations" from indies).

Indie's are often but not always DRM free but AFAIK new AAA releases pretty much always comes with one or more kinds of DRM like Valve's CEG, SecuROM, Denuvo, Origin or Uplay etc. This, probably incomplete, list of 3rd party DRM on Steam has plenty of entries: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_Big_List_of_3rd_Party_DRM_on_Steam [External Link]

But that is only 3rd party DRM, plenty of games on Steam, also indie games, use Valve's CEG DRM system.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They also sell the game on the 3D Realms website. Although I think you have to extract the Linux version from the installer if you do that. But it is included.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Are VP's porting activities at all beneficial to the Linux gaming community, given their abysmal performance record?

Highly underperforming ports may give people a bad impression of Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: eldaking

Added the ability to force Steam Play compatibility tools for non-Steam game shortcuts

Again I am pleased - I would say pleasantly surprised, but it is not that surprising by now - by Steam making it easier for people to play non-Steam games. :)

Valve is basically the most benevolent DRM provider out there. If it wasn't for the DRM I suppose only Free Software only people would have anything to complain about at all. If GOG adopted Valve's attitude about everything else(while keeping their DRM free stance) or Valve adopted GOG's DRM free stance(While still keeping all their work on Linux, Proton, DXVK etc) it would be the best possible combination.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SilverCode

Quoting: eldakingI think there was one more step [External Link], with Improbable claiming that Unity had explicitly told them they were not in violation and the entire "notified one year ago" was solved.

Anyway, it is certainly an advancement on one front, but proprietary software is still a huge liability.

As for the other companies involved, you know what would be actually cool? If Epic, instead of opportunistically giving money for people to use their (equally proprietary) engine, open sourced Unreal to actually solve the issue. Or if Improbable partnered with Godot instead.

Unreal Engine 4 is already Open Source. Do you maybe not mean change the license to be a more permissive royalty free one?

No, UE4 is NOT open source. Their license requirements are far from being in compliance with the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

" 1 x PS/2 Keyboard/Mouse Combo"

I thought everyone had long since moved on to USB for these things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBy definition, an open source engine could not have "the current license situation" because whether something is open source is determined by whether the license gives you rights that don't allow this kind of situation to happen. It's about freedom, not just being able to look at code.

It's about freedom, but you can add commercial limitations. Just like Mysql license does.

My understanding of the MySQL situation is, it's dual licensed. It's available under the GPL, or if you want to do something the GPL does not allow (like, mainly, embed it in a closed source thing and then distribute that thing), you can buy it under a commercial license which is not open source. So there is not one open source license which enforces weird commercial-license-type shenanigans. There is an open source license which works like open source, and there is a commercial license which does not.

That's my point. You can be open source (because your code product is freely available) but you can put limitations on commercial products that were based on your work.

Actually both the Open Source Definition [External Link] and the Free Software Definition [External Link] specifically allow commercial distribution. From the Free Software Definition:

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

In fact the FSF has an entire article on that topic [External Link]. What often confuses these matter is the distinction between commercial and proprietary. If I take the Linux kernel and/or its source code, burn it to a CD and sell that CD. That is a commercial transaction. The Linux kernel's GPL license allows such a transaction. If I do the same with Apache, that is still a commercial transaction. The Apache License 2.0 allows that commercial transation.

Now the GPL unlike the Apache License 2.0 is, in addition to being open source and free software, a copyleft license. So if I take the Linux kernel, make changes to it and release those changes to the public, but I refuse to release the source code to that changed version I am in violation of the GPL. That is the nature of copyleft [External Link].

The Apache License 2.0 is a free software/open source license. But it is not a copyleft license. So I can take Apache, modify it and sell the modified version as MyAwesomeWebserver or something and withhold the source code to that version. The Apache license allows that. Now that modified version would not be Free Software or Open Source. But Apache is.

Now of course there are nuances, details and footnotes to all of this. For example take the Mozilla Public License that Firefox uses. It is a copyleft license, but it is a file based copyleft. So long as my changes are in separate files, I can release a proprietary modified version.

Due to the copyleft nature of the GPL some projects have gone with a dual license business model. Meaning that they sell exceptions to the GPL. Allowing others to create proprietary derivative works. This is premised on the project/organisation holding the necessary legal rights(often via copyright assignments) to sell exceptions. I could take MySQL, make changes and release my own AwesomeSQL. I can even sell that version, so long as I abide by the terms of the GPL. That would include releasing the source code. Now I would hold the copyrights to my changes so MySQL could not sell exceptions to AwesomeSQL as a whole. Nor could I actually since MySQL would hold the majority of the copyright.

The part of the Unity TOS that is being disputed is definitely not compatible with either the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Definition and accordingly none of the licenses on the OSI's [External Link] or FSF's [External Link] respective lists contain any terms like that.

Edit:

I should expand the point about the Unity TOS and Open Source/Free Software. The 6th point of the Open Source Definition is this: "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."

So an Open Source license cannot have restrictions on using the software for cloud services, streaming, etc.

Similarly from the Free Software Definition: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her."

View this comment - View article - View full comments