I've entered this site before but it seems I missed some game projects for linux they are listing here. I thougt it would be a good idea to share it. BTW, the new location of some broken links can be found trough google. EDIT: Since I've nothing better to do, I'm going to make cleaner list just in case someone else adds a link after the liscense rant :P Linux Game Developer Center The Linux Gamers' Game List Linux Games Happy Penguin [Edited by - owl on August 10, 2006 3:05:04 PM]

See also: The Linux Gamers' Game List

And ofcourse http://www.linuxgames.com/ and http://www.happypenguin.org/

Quote: Original post by 255
See also: The Linux Gamers' Game List

No one has ever explained to me why there is a "License" category with values of "free" and "commercial". Happy Penguin does the same thing. If it is licensed under a Free Software license, such as the GPL, then the LICENSE is both free and commercial. If we're talking about cost, then why call the category "License"?

It's misleading to say that things that are not free are commercial because it furthers the misconception that free software is about getting a free lunch. Free markets are not markets in which everything is given away at no cost, and free software is not a reference to cost, either.

There are commercial games on that list that license the code under a free license. If such a game is listed as "free", it would be accurate, but because other things are listed as commercial, it leads people to think that free is referring to cost and they don't need to pay.

The point is, I don't know if I am looking at a license or a cost comparison. The explanation given to me when I asked: grandma won't care about the GPL. She just wants to know how much things cost.

If that's the case, why not change the name of the category to Price or something similar? Why not make License tell me what license the game is under? If grandma doesn't care, she doesn't have to look at that category. She can look at Cost or Price since that is what she would supposedly care about.

It's a problem I've seen elsewhere, too. Wikis that list games make the discussion "free vs commercial", which as I've argued before is a fallacy. Yes, most free software is available at no cost, but it doesn't have to be, and in fact the GPL, for example, explicitly allows it. To say that some code is licensed under the GPL "only for non-commercial purposes" would be a contradiction as it takes away a freedom that the GPL explicitly protects. Talking about free software as if it was different from commercial software furthers the misconception.

I would end with /rant, but I'm sure someone will come along to complain that I am wrong. B-)

Quote: Original post by GBGames
No one has ever explained to me why there is a "License" category with values of "free" and "commercial".

I fail to see the problem there. To me, free means the licenses that allows you to download the thing a play it wihtout buying. Commercial, those that require you to pay before you can touch it.

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by GBGames
No one has ever explained to me why there is a "License" category with values of "free" and "commercial".

I fail to see the problem there. To me, free means the licenses that allows you to download the thing a play it wihtout buying. Commercial, those that require you to pay before you can touch it.

So shareware, software which is defined as try before you buy, wouldn't be commercial?

LICENSE indicates to me that I will be looking to see what permissions I have. Free vs commercial doesn't tell me that. Free vs restricted does.

If you want to talk about freeware vs commercial, that's fine. Freeware is defined as software that is available at no cost. But free license vs commercial license makes no sense as a free license is both.

Quote: Original post by GBGames

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by GBGames
No one has ever explained to me why there is a "License" category with values of "free" and "commercial".

I fail to see the problem there. To me, free means the licenses that allows you to download the thing a play it wihtout buying. Commercial, those that require you to pay before you can touch it.

LICENSE indicates to me that I will be looking to see what permissions I have. Free vs commercial doesn't tell me that. Free vs restricted does.

And this, kids, is why some people thought another term besides "Free" was needed. Like, say, "Open." [smile]

Quote: Original post by GBGames
So shareware, software which is defined as try before you buy, wouldn't be commercial?

It should be commercial indeed. Is it listed as free in that site?

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by GBGames
So shareware, software which is defined as try before you buy, wouldn't be commercial?

It should be commercial indeed. Is it listed as free in that site?

It is listed as commercial, but by listing just "commercial" even though the license for the code is indeed free, it's misleading, don't you think?

If I tell you that I am going to sort chickens by how they were raised, and then tell you "These chickens here are going to be sold to market, but these chickens are free range", wouldn't that be confusing? It isn't as if free range chickens can't be sold, but if I said it that way, you would be under the impression that if you want to sell chickens, you can't raise them free range.

At least, assuming the analogy holds. My analogies almost always tend to confuse more than clarify. B-)

The point is that free software by definition must be allowed to be commercialized. Telling me that some licenses are free and some are commercial makes it sound like free software can't be commercial and that it is the opposite of commercial. It isn't, and so "free vs commercial" is a false argument to make.

Either talk about cost or talk about the license. Don't tell me that you're sorting by license and then use cost as the key.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
And this, kids, is why some people thought another term besides "Free" was needed. Like, say, "Open." [smile]

Well, Open vs Commercial is still misleading. B-)