Talk:List of open source games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This non-article page is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
NA This non-article page has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This non-article page is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:


Contents

[edit] These games are fully open

Someone deleted my fully open source games:

Here is the list:
Open Outcast
Crystal Core http://crystalcore.crystalspace3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php
Battle of Antargis http://antargis.berlios.de/
Free Orion http://www.freeorion.org/
JFDuke http://jonof.edgenetwork.org/index.php?p=jfduke3d

Whoops JFDuke requires original game data. Bummer -anon

[edit] Planeshift License

As far as i know, planeshift is not a free computer game. check http://www.planeshift.it/pslicense.html#explanation and http://freegames.wiki.taoriver.net/moin.cgi/Planeshift. I will remove it!

-As far as I know, the engine is Free, but other aspects of the game, like the graphics, are not. Therefor, it should probably go on the freeware games list instead. --67.136.148.30 21:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It keeps getting added... should I add a comment under P to the effect of don't add PS because? Shinobu 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The game is a good example of partially open sourced software so it's not open source. It's scripting and media are closed as well as some freedom of distribution aspects. Maybe list it as an example of partially open sourced games. Also mabey change the title of the article to free and open source games too, maybe. Maybe a link to the Creative Commons or IConmmns -anaon

[edit] Quake and Quake II?

I notice Quake and Quake II aren't listed even though id has GPL'd them. Perhaps they're not listed because they weren't always GPL'd, so maybe it would be nice to have separate lists for games that have been GPL'd their entire existence and games that were eventually GPL'd?

-I'm pretty sure that those games' engines are GPL'd, but not the content.

[edit] Free games

A freely playable, freely downloadable game is what the vast majority think of as a 'free game'. :) The exact legal specifics are important, but should not require people to read several different articles. I've moved the article to Free open source games as this seems a lot more relevant. Open source is nice, but most people just want to know whether a game can be *used* for free or not. --86.132.35.147 17:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, I do not agree

  1. If you think ther is a better name for an article, you always should redirect the old one to the new. It makes no sense to redirect to a completely different article (like Freely downloadable game software in!). There are links out there, which link here!
  2. The name "Free game software" is more apropriate than "Free open source games"!

I hope everybody agrees that i revert the article.

--Dafuchs 01:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Free game software" may be more appropriate than "free open source games" (I'm aware of the free software/open source distinction), but it's still a terrible name for the article. I propose a simple shuffling of words in the title to rename it List of free software games. This would prevent the majority of erroneous additions to the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone object to my moving the article to List of free software games? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to free hardware games? Seriously though, the attribute is not really "free software", but "free" (as in freedom). A better location would be "List of free games" or "List of free computer games", or indeed "List of free game software" (where it is now). Shinobu 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We just need to make a clear distinction between free software and freeware, if not in the article title then in the article itself. What's so bad about List of free open source games? According to Open source vs. free software: "All free software is open source; free software is a subset of open source software", so I don't really see a problem here. Am I missing something? --Conti|✉ 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Plugging in an extra software won't help. If you take free to be synonymous with gratis, then free software means freeware too. Just make it clear that we're talking free as in freedom here. I personally don't like use of "free software" as an adjective. Do you ever say "red car sportscar"? No, you would say "red sportscar", and rightly so. Shinobu 14:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and just so you know, List of free open source games would be okay, I guess, but it would be a bit ugly, for the same reason that you don't say "round circle". As for erroneous additions to this article, the article starts with a clear cut definition of what is to be included. People to dumb to understand that very simple definition can probably not be pushed in line whatever we try. They would have made their additions too if the article would have gotten the phrase "free software" in the title, because those people see only the word free and nothing more, and are too materialistic to think of anything else than of money when they see "free". Shinobu 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, "free open source" is kinda redundant. So what about List of open source games? No "free" in it, so people don't add freeware to it (hopefully). --Conti|✉ 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution (to the drive-by addition problem) and a good title to me. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but - to play the devil's advocate for a minute - do we do with games that are open source, but not free (as in freedom)? Put it in a separate section at the bottom of the page? Hm. On second thought, that's actually a solution I would be okay with. Shinobu 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any examples? I can't think of any non-free open source game at the moment. I don't think there are many of them, if any, so a separate section would be ok if needed. --Conti|✉ 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about any examples, too. If there are though, I do think a separate section is appropriate. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, PlaneShift for instance. The code is GPLed but the maps etc. fall under a different license. I think the same situation applies to ToHeart2 XRATED (although I'm not sure about that). Shinobu 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
On first thought, I would class those as open-source engines rather than open-source games: I'm particularly thinking of the example of Quake, which has open-source code but closed content, and which isn't included in this list despite its high profile. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. So are we all set for the move to List of open source games then? Shinobu 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved the page, as no one opposed the move as of yet. We could also add a subsection for open source game engines like Quake or TA Spring. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take out the Trash

Somebody put trash on here. It is neither Free Open Source Software nor simply freeware. From their website it says that you purchase the full verison to: "Unlock the Mutants(the other playable side) and all the maps, without time limits." What they provide for free is clearly a demo, no matter what they call it. And of course, there is no reference to the source nor a FOSS license. I will be removing this.

[edit] Runescape is freeware

Somebody put Runescape in here. It simply provides you with a precompiled java applet under a proprietary license. It is not free software, so I am moving it to freeware.

[edit] Gunz: The Duel is freeware

Correct me if I'm wrong about this one. I've removed it from the list.

[edit] Requested move

Moved from Free game software completed. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] warrock, cube non-free

Warrock seems to be just some non-free windows beta game, Cube OTOH had something non-free because e.g. Debian isn't including it (can't remember why was it now..)

The networking code in Cube is non-free. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Open Source really have to be open content?

Does Open Source really automatically imply "open content"? AFAIK there is no requirement in the GPL or OSI definition that data associated with the program be open. Irrevenant 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to any definition there, no. But according to the use of the word "game", yes. After all, Quake is not an open source game at all, and the only reason is because the content is closed. Take away the content, and it's not a "game" anymore. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that a proprietary game makes use of an open source engine should prevent someone from referring to it as an open source game. Open source refers to code, not data. Open source games shouldn't necessarily refer to open content. Technically if you don't like the content, whether proprietary or not, you replace it with your own, meaning that the content is irrelevent. Yes, engines are not games, but a big problem is that people apply open source licenses to content/data. How does the GPL apply to .pak files or a JPEG? It can't and it shouldn't since licenses generally only apply to code. Open Source Game, in that sense, is a misnomer, and one that furthers the idea that you can apply an open source license to code AND data. If the name is used at all, there shouldn't be a requirement that content should be open as well.

What you are describing would be an open source engine. Of course these are free/open as well, but in a different way. If the content is not open, that means that only the game engine is really free/open, but the game as a whole is not. Remember that the GPL when applied to the game engine source only guards the openness of the engine. The openness of the game data has to be protected seperately to make the whole game open. List of open source game engines doesn't seem to exist yet, but nothing stops you from creating it. Shinobu 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with this wholeheartedly. The word game implies something you can play - if it doesn't have content, you can't play it. If the content isn't covered under an open source license, how then can you call it an "Open Source Game". Kurt 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a number of licenses out there that are specifically designed for open content (as opposed to open source). Any of the Creative Commons licenses, for instance, the GFDL (which Wikipedia uses for its content), and so on can be used on JPEGs and .pak files. It remains that if the content is closed and the engine is open, what you have is an open engine being used in a proprietary game, not an open-source game. (Note also, that "source" does not have to mean only code—it can mean "origin" as easily, as in the stuff that is put together to make the game, the source of the game, is open.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-open-source spam continues

The number of non-open-source listings hasn't really dropped off since the page move. I rather suspect that all the "free games" page-redirects here are the problem, as spammers will search for "free games" and will put their stuff on whatever page shows up.

I propose that we ask for all the redirects that have the word "free" in the title—there are six!—be deleted. (Prior to this, I would want to go through the What links here list and make sure all articles pointing to the old titles are updated.) Is there support for this? If there is clear consensus, we might be able to have an admin do these as speedy-deletes rather than go through the regular deletion process. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but it would be better to redirect these redirects to other, more appropriate articles IMHO. People should find something when they search for terms like "free games". I'm not that sure where else to redirect, tho, as we apparently don't have an article on open source computer games. --Conti|✉ 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Duh, right! Then it would just be a matter of seeing whether the articles that link to the redirects should be linking here or there. No need to go through a deletion process at all. I'll start on it now. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Tracing the links, I found that too many external links point to the redirects, so just changing them to redirect to List of freeware games would be inappropriate. Instead then, I turned Free games into a disambiguation page and changed all the redirects to point there. Now let's see if it has any effect on the linkspammers... — Saxifrage ✎ 07:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the non open-source Helbreath -anon

[edit] Dispatch of Army

Should Dispatch of Army game be on the list? I had a look round the web:

I think it's just a free game (probably only while it's in beta stage), not open source. So I don't think it should belong on the list. Can someone with more knowledge about the game confirm/deny this? Icey 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Anyone can feel free to add it back in if it really is open source. Icey 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It has been suggested that free-as-in-beer games should be merged here, into the article of free-as-in-freedom games.

I agree that the two pages should be merged if and only if the list of open source games gets and keeps its own section. This list is a valuable resource for aspiring programmers, and to not separate open source from just free would be a disservice to Wiki readers. Sarysa 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I think Wikipedia should always keep a distinct section for free-as-in-freedom games, and currently that is this article. I don't know who decided to put free-as-in-beer games on this list, but it was an ill-advised idea. First it would require us to rename this page, then it would require us to move all free-as-in-freedom games to a new article. If we need a combined list at all, which is not the case, create it as a new article from scratch. Shinobu 01:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Oppose Free-as-in-beer games are not (necessarily) open source, so why should they be in a list of open source games? --Kenmcfa 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. You wouldn't happen to be the same user who copied both articles into Freely downloadable games, would you? — Saxifrage ✎ 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No merge then

I think it's safe to say the merge is off. I will remove the templates accordingly. Shinobu 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Question

Although the SWF is an open source format, would Flash games be considered open source? Yes there are Flash game sites that sell Flash games (some games have a freeware version), but what is the legality of reverse-engineering of these "SWF" games and making them your own? There are programs mixed with technics that would prevent reverse-engineering programs from doing so, but a Wikipedia article on Flash says it isn't perfect (then again all technology can be reversed-engineered with work), so, is it a toss up? no? yes? SRodgers--65.24.77.104 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SWF is actually a closed, proprietary format. So the answer would be no, Flash games can not be open source. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hold it. The actual important thing is whether the game's preferrable editable form is open. Furthermore, there's Gnash. So it isn't a toss up at all; we'll have to consider this on a case-by-case basis. If the game can be easily edited, and you're allowed to, then it's open source. Otherwise, it isn't. By the way, if you want to make open source browser based games, I'd recommend you have a look at Java and SVG. Shinobu 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any editors that aren't license-encumbered, and Gnash isn't a complete implementation. But you're right, if there were then they could be open-source. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion?

It's not clear if this list should only include games with their own articles or not, as is the case with most lists. If it should only include "notable" games, this should be made clear at the top of the article. Otherwise, if the list is intended to be exhaustive, then that should be made clear. Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Tale in the Desert?

A tale in the desert has its source code downloadable, however I am not sure if this is purely for compatability reasons with those who must compile from source or if it is truely open source, could someone look into this? --69.47.3.70 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descent...?

Somebody put descent on this list. Shinobu said that "If the content is not open, that means that only the game engine is really free/open, but the game as a whole is not." Descent is open-source, in the public domain, but the content of the game is not. Thus, I am going to remove it from the list. 24.55.108.209 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the open-source community project based on the game? Surely that deserves a link? (And the same for the Descent: Freespace Source Code Project.) Mysterius 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If both engine and content are open source, then it can be on this list. Even if the engine was orgininally used in an non-open source game. Shinobu 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Magination

Why did you remove so many games on Sept 13? Were all of those not open source? Rob 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what the heck happened? Just by looking through the first 3 deleted game entries, I've found that 0verkill, Asteroid (remake), and Bird Park Tycoon are all open-source, at least according to their websites. Asteroids (remake) was even hosted on Sourceforge! It seems clear that these entries were not properly reviewed, if at all, before they were deleted. Weeding out truly non-open source games from this list (and adding them to the freeware games list, remember!) is good, but random deleting is certainly not. Mysterius 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've checked up on some of the deleted items:
diff
Descent was probably removed because only the engine is open source.
diff
0verkill is GLP'ed, complete with levels.
Ace of Penguins is GPL'ed, including cards etc.
Allegiance seems to be open source, but research into the license (of the worlds in particular) is required.
Automaniac comes with data.
Asteroids was probably removed because you cannot get at the source without running an executable.
Battle of Antargis - couldn't download gz file... maybe someone should try again later.
Bird Park Tycoon - zip file corrupt?
Blob Wars: Blob And Conquer was probably removed because no further information and no link was given.
Castle comes as part of an LGPL package.
Charred Dirt - both source and data for download, but no license given, so it might not actually be open source after all.
Chromium B.S.U. artistic license, both source and data, afaict.
Crossfire+ is GPL'ed.
Crystal Core - source: LGPL, art: CC
Cuyo is GPL'ed, including data.
Daimonin - some very shady things have been going there. Closing content, forbidding connections to third-party servers, etc. Definitely not an open source game.
Dark Oberon - couldn't find a license, see Charred Dirt.
Dink Smallwood - only the engine is open source [1]
Egoboo - again no license...
Foresight Exchange - no mention of source code or anything like that...
Freedroid RPG is GPL'ed.
FreeOrion relies on a non-free library.
FreeTennis is GPL'ed.
Gnome Games are open source, afaict.
Gnome Hearts is GPL'ed.
Hack is open source [2]
ioquake3 is an open source engine and shouldn't be on this list. IDs levels are still closed afaik.
JFDuke3D is GPL'ed.
Laser Squad 3D is GPL'ed.
Lentilwars no link or other info, should be removed.
Maniadrive
Marathon Aleph One is GPL'ed.
Mars: Land of No Mercy - can't find license.
Moon-Buggy is GPL'ed.
I have to stop here, the rest will have to wait. Shinobu 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha. Finally.

I prefer qaulity over qauntity. Those games mostly didnt have any proper articles. Links do not count as articles. --E-Magination 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Who decides if a game is "quality," though? And what is a "proper" article, according to you? Several of the deleted games did have articles, and not just stubs, either. This is a List of open source games, not "Quality open source games." I believe that with a deletion of this scale you should have at least given some heads-up on the Talk page. I don't mean to disrespect your effort, but this is a community-written encyclopedia. I hope there will be better communication in future edits. -Mysterius 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    We (inclusive "we") decide what's quality. I think it's a fair reading of What Wikipedia is not to say that we should maintain some quality controls of the list by occasionally purging it of games that don't "belong". If we wanted to be rigorous about it, we could come up with some rules of thumb for what "belong" means. I'd suggest notability (measured by whether it has an article) and being actually free software/open source as basic criteria, but others might have different ideas. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
We could limit ourselves to games with a Wikipedia article, or to games that actually work. We could place a screenshot near the better ones to make them stand out. Just some ideas, comment away please. Shinobu 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Look. If a game with a proper article, proper licening etc. is deleted, Re-Add them. Be BOLD.
I will re-add moon-buggy. It is GPLed and actually works. --Jochen 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About deleting any game without article

I don't know what do you want to get by deleting 'games without articles', but I don't think it's a good idea. E.g: I'm a spanish open source videogame programmer and I don't know english well enough to write that article, but I can, at least, write a line telling that my game is a clone of Super Pang and that is called PiX Pang. Also, if there's no article but the game is linked, maybe someone will write that article about the game. I think it would be better to let the games without article in and write some info in those games without articles. Excuse my grammar.

I agree. My lack of knowledge regarding creation of wikipedia articles has prevented me from writing an article for the open source driving simulator that i've been writing for 3 years (open source contents too, yeah). The name is Motorsport. It has a working website, forums, images gallery, even a vids gallery. However it's been removed from the list. I added a red-link hoping someone would start writing an article, but this way no one will feel the need to write it. Shoud all links to inexisting articles be removed from wikipedia too? I think i recall reading that leaving small text mistakes here and there, and leaving links to unwriten articles was actually a good thing, encouraing people to edit and extend the wikipedia. Also, is anyone in charge of this page? How was it decided that these types of games shold be removed? --STenyaK 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the entire point of even having lists instead of categories was that you could have redlinks. Playstationman 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That way this article is getting out of hand.--E-Magination 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is about List, not "Quality Picks." Who is to decide if a game is "quality" or not? Basic requirements should certainly be enforced, such as having an article or stub, perhaps at least of two or three sentences in length, and actually being open source. Beyond that, though, I don't think we can reasonably exclude any games, and wouldn't trying to vet each one for "quality" actually increase the workload? If you want to make the browsing easier, a better step would be to organize the games into basic sections like "RTS," "RPG," etc., and perhaps with small pictures for ones that are deemed significant, like Shinobu suggested. I don't believe deleting true open source games from this list is the answer, though. -Mysterius 09:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that this kind of lists can be easily abused is just a reason. Please read what Wikipedia is not.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The list also fails to distinguish between operating systems, which to me makes it completely useless in its current format.   — Lee J Haywood 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with that. MrHen 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion having a list of red links is a good way of pointing people to articles needed to be written. To show the platforms needed, do we have little icons or logos on wp that we could add to the descriptions for OS's such as Microsoft Windows/ReactOS, Unix/Linux, Mac OS, Atari TOS etc. and environments such as Java, Flash, SVG+Javascript or whatever? --62.134.88.36 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a list for article writers. But the icons are a good idea.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree. When I come to this list I am looking for games that have strong development and are not merely attempts at getting famous quickly. In my opinion, if there is a strong community for a particular game it should be on this list. If more than a couple hundred people play the game it should be here. An extremely easy way to test that is if it has a Wikipedia article. Developers should not be putting their games on this list. I do not think this should be a bulletin board for garnering attention. If the game is good and the community is strong a Wikipedia article will appear and it will make it to this list. I have no problem kicking games off the list for not having full Wikipedia articles. MrHen

[edit] Deletion

GNU Backgammon has no current article. I will delete it for the time being - when someone makes an article, post here, and create the entry again. -Slash- 06:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for all the other entries.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_open_source_games_70dc.html"