Do you mean source available or actually open source?
Comment on Minecraft is removing code obfuscation in Java Edition
chunes@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Why not go open source? What are they so afraid of, given anyone can now see the source code by using a simple tool?
JackbyDev@programming.dev 21 hours ago
chunes@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I mean releasing it under a license like GPL.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 21 hours ago
Because then anyone could fork it and redistribute the game which I presume they don’t want.
It would be sweet for us if they did, but I can see why they don’t want to do that.
chunes@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Not really. They could distribute source ports of the game, but you’d still have to buy the game in order to make use of them.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Things like Minetest exist.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 14 hours ago
I’d love to see that but realistically I don’t ever see it happening.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
ytg@sopuli.xyz 18 hours ago
Open source includes unlimited distribution. The game is still paid and they want to reserve distribution rights.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
To add to this, it’s exclusively available on the Microsoft Store, which has gotten so bad lately that I refused the terms on their most recent update and haven’t had it installed on any machines since.
derpgon@programming.dev 14 hours ago
Open-source and source-available are used interchangeably. Releasing the source does not mean the license will allow any form of redistribution or recompilation.
If you decompile the game yourself you can infinitely distribute the game as well. This is not an argument.
XM34@feddit.org 5 hours ago
Open source and source available are not and cannot be used interchangeably. They mean two extremely different things!
JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 hours ago
The comment said why not go open source, not why not go source available though.