Starting a Sue's Workshop clone

For you maybe, but not for the whole programming scene.
"Free Software" is a widely known term, for everyone who grappled with computers, more than just checking out little forums about indie games.

Plus "Free Software" is much more than only "Open Source Software".

"Open source" is the widely used term, unless you have had your head under a rock. How is someone is right about terminology when no-one agrees with you and every creator of "open source" software I have seen over the years uses the term "open source" (I have seen my fair share, but I doubt you would take my word on that).

Oh really? How so?

Let me guess... it also includes freeware?

CM: 1
SP: 0

 

Ever cared to read my posts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

Seems to be both of you are rather ignorant, noone of you even cared to read the whole license, did you?

Oh really? How so?

Let me guess... it also includes freeware?

No, it doesn't have to be freeware, you can sell it and it's still open source.
Plus if you modify it and share it with others it still needs to be open source.

So again:
Open source is not the same as "Free Software".

 

How does a FSF recommendation define common use?

Say either "open source" or "software libre" because "free (unrestricted) software" and "free (doesn't cost anything) software" will always be confused and never enter common use.

Also if you bothered to read the wiki you linked to, the term "free software" fell out of common use back in 1998 due to the "freedom/cost ambiguity of the word 'free'".

From 1998 onward, alternative terms for free software came into use. The most common are "software libre", "free and open source software" ("FOSS") and "free, libre and open-source software" ("FLOSS").

Oh, and a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software

 

Okay now again:

Open source is not "Free Software".

Also if you bothered to read the wiki you linked to, the term "free software" fell out of common use back in 1998 due to the "freedom/cost ambiguity of the word 'free'".

That's weird because it's still common used in several Linux forums/communitys. (I have a lot of friends who use Linux and they still use the term "Free Software".)

 

...
Demo?
*hides*

 

Why not just call it "Open Sourceware"or "Open Freeware"? >.> It's a pseudo portmanteau of the terms "Open Source" and "Freeware".

 

how about i get a cookie and you all keep talking about the thing i could care less about

 

Okay now again:

Open source is not "Free Software".

Then call it "unrestricted open source software" or something, maybe say something like "I may release the source code under the GPL licence". Your sentence about making it "free software" made me worried that you were originally planning to charge us all for it.

What is left to do before CL gets a release?

 

Then call it "unrestricted open source software" or something, maybe say something like "I may release the source code under the GPL licence".

How about: You stop telling me, how I should call it? I will still call it "Free Software".
Plus you don't release the source code under GPL, you release the program under GPL.

What is left to do before CL gets a release?

The whole graphicial thing.
There won't be a demo yet.
Like I posted before I have trouble with the Windows GDI.

 

No, it doesn't have to be freeware, you can sell it and it's still open source.
Plus if you modify it and share it with others it still needs to be open source.

True, technically "open source" does not imply "free of cost". But think about it – if the source is publicly available free of cost, how could you expect to make any money on it? People would simply download the source for free and compile it themselves, rather than paying for the precompiled version.

It's probably possible, but not very realistic.

Open source is not "Free Software".

Uh... yes it is. It is free of cost, is it not? Unless you're positing a program where you can buy the source code...

Plus you don't release the source code under GPL, you release the program under GPL.

If you release the program under the GPL, the license requires that the source be released under the same license. So, you need to release both if you're using the GPL.

 

True, technically "open source" does not imply "free of cost". But think about it – if the source is publicly available free of cost, how could you expect to make any money on it? People would simply download the source for free and compile it themselves, rather than paying for the precompiled version.

No, you release the source with the program. So if you sell the program you get the source, but you won't getting the source without the program for free.
It's much more than that anyway. If you modify it you still have to release it as Open Source after you did so.

If you release the program under the GPL, the license requires that the source be released under the same license. So, you need to release both if you're using the GPL.

Yeah both, sorry.

 

No, you release the source with the program. So if you sell the program you get the source, but you won't getting the source without the program for free.
It's much more than that anyway. If you modify it you still have to release it as Open Source after you did so.

Still seems kind of silly, but sure, I suppose it could work.

 

You people might interested on that

Still seems kind of silly, but sure, I suppose it could work.

I'm releasing it for free, but what if I'm going to sell it for 50 Euros?
Someone is going to buy it for 50 Euros and then decides to share with everyone. The GNU Liecense would be okay with that and I got my payment for the programming, so whats the problem?

 

*shrugs* If it's a one-time payment you're after, then it would make more sense to release it under a proprietary license (as freeware though) and then ask for money to change the license to GPL or whatever.

Have you actually read the GPL?

 

*shrugs* If it's a one-time payment you're after, then it would make more sense to release it under a proprietary license (as freeware though) and then ask for money to change the license to GPL or whatever.

Have you actually read the GPL?

Yes I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't think about releasing it as GPL would I? <_<

Plus I have no idea where you did get the idea that I'm going to sell this, so you should shut up about it before I'm really going to think about selling this

 

I never said you were, I said if you were with the assumption that that was not true.

 

Geeee stop complaining about freaking license stuff.

Nice work that far.
We do want more

 

You might be interested, that this project is still alive.
Plus it will have "projects", so it will edit the project and not the .exe itself
So it can't break anything. After you're done with work you will patch an original Doukutsu.exe and get your mod.

 

Pretty bad ass editor that you're working on.

Can't wait to use this when you're done!

 

>

http://www.cavestory.org/forums/posts/69203/

~ Closed ~