When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting their licensing requirements is already a step in the process.
Comment on The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks agoLet’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
There is a reason it’s included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.
truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.
Saying to “just open source it” does not make sense.
What do you do about:
- proprietary codecs
- proprietary software that just does not exist as open source
- the fact you need a copy of the game engine to actually build the game from sources
- assets that have been bought on asset stores. Do the people who make those for a living not have a right to continue to make a living?
Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable
Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.
Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have “a server” but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some “servers” are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.
This initiative all comes down to the definition of “reasonable”. What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
“That stuff” is often core to the game. Any anti-cheat library, for example. On the client site, libraries like physx, bink video, and others are all proprietary and must be replaced and tested before it can be released in a working state. Few companies would release a non-functional game and let reviewers drag them through the mud for it.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
None of those things will be affected because this isn’t about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.
Sconrad122@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So you’re telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don’t need to sell me on it twice!
mang0@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can’t combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don’t care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?
Bravo@eviltoast.org 3 weeks ago
This is why code should be written to be library-agnostic. Or, rather, libraries should be written to a particular open source API standard to make library agnosticism easier.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they’ll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it’s legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the “rights holder” at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we’re pretty resourceful), as long as they’re not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we’ll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Heh. You are still overestimating the average developer. Random code gets copy-pasted into files without attribution all the time. One guy might know, but if he gets moved to a different team, the new guy has no idea. That can be a ticking legal time-bomb.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Again, if you know going in that is an absolute requirement, processes can be put in place to ensure things like that doesn’t happen. (at least not as often) vs what you’re thinking of trying to do it after the game is already shipped.
Decq@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s why i also said provide, not just open source. They can release a binary.
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Maybe they should have made sure their code was fully legal to use before releasing the game initially
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
What? There’s a big difference between “legal to sell as a compiled binary” and “legal to release as source”.
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Just saying, if my highschool programming classes are any indicator, there’s a ton of released binaries out there that use copywritten and otherwise plaigarized code
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
And that’s one of the big reasons companies don’t even think about open-sourcing their code.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
It’s just one possible solution. They can just release a proprietary server application instead.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
honestly with online only games i’d be “okay” (not that it’d be great but okay) with them just releasing a bunch of internal docs around the spec. you’re right that open sourcing commercial code is actually non-trivial (though perhaps if they went in knowing this would have to be the outcome then maybe they’d plan better for it), but giving the community the resources to recreate the experience i think is a valid direction
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Bold of you to assume such spec or docs exist. Usually it’s all cowboyed and tightly coupled, with no planning for reuse.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.
The pont is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.
Jeffool@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think your response is coming off as kinda “oh just do it different”. But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I’m in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new “best practices”. And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They’ll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Companies do that all the time in response to government regulation. You like seat belts and backup cameras in your car? No sawdust in your food? Transparent pricing when buying internet access? Government regulation. None of those companies went out of business.
Jeffool@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is exactly why I said: