[Samsagax]

I mean. I know that for now we need the proprietary/non-open(?) binaries from the retail version of FS2. But is there an intention to replace those binaries with open-source or free (as in freedom i mean) ones?

Some other projects have done that, like OpenTTD or Urban Terror. It would be great if this could happen to this project.


Off topic: I also want to cooperate to that in any means in my reach (quite limited), but i can put my hardware to test (I'm doing that on daily builds of Ubuntu for instance) and report bugs. BTW, i've seen a "FreeSpace 2 Open" package in Launchpad, is there an intention to make it work?

[Topgun]

you don't need the non-free binaries, you need the non-free assets. So its not legally possible on our end.

[General Battuta]

I mean. I know that for now we need the proprietary/non-open(?) binaries from the retail version of FS2. But is there an intention to replace those binaries with open-source or free (as in freedom i mean) ones?

Some other projects have done that, like OpenTTD or Urban Terror. It would be great if this could happen to this project.


Off topic: I also want to cooperate to that in any means in my reach (quite limited), but i can put my hardware to test (I'm doing that on daily builds of Ubuntu for instance) and report bugs. BTW, i've seen a "FreeSpace 2 Open" package in Launchpad, is there an intention to make it work?

For many years FreeSpace 2 Open was distributed like you describe - completely for free.

However, for legal reasons we cannot distribute the FreeSpace 2 assets as long as the game is not considered abandonware. Because it's available for $6, DRM-free, on GoodOldGames.com, we support GoG.

The problem is not the executables, which are totally open. It's the game assets.

[Topgun]

Also the freespace 2 engine will never be considered free by the fsf, it uses a weird license that basically says we can have the code but volition still has the right to do whatever they want with it.

[Iss Mneur]

I mean. I know that for now we need the proprietary/non-open(?) binaries from the retail version of FS2. But is there an intention to replace those binaries with open-source or free (as in freedom i mean) ones?

Some other projects have done that, like OpenTTD or Urban Terror. It would be great if this could happen to this project.


Off topic: I also want to cooperate to that in any means in my reach (quite limited), but i can put my hardware to test (I'm doing that on daily builds of Ubuntu for instance) and report bugs. BTW, i've seen a "FreeSpace 2 Open" package in Launchpad, is there an intention to make it work?

Our problem is not the binaries.  We are free to use the binaries and source code for any purpose as along as long as it is not used commercially (which I might add makes our source code license not OSI approveable).

The problem is the IP (game data) of Freespace that we do not have the rights to.  So even if we did re-implement the engine with a more favourable license, we would still not be able to distribute the game data with it.  There was an attempt several years ago (called Ferrium IIRC) to re-implement FSO under a "nicer" license however the project was abandoned (for lack of a better word).

IIRC, OpenTTD also does not own their IP and are in a similar position that SCP was before GoG started offering FS2.  That being said, I don't believe the source of OpenTTD was ever released, they just decomplied the binary.

The project on Launchpad is not associated with any current SCP developer.  It was created by a member of the community that wanted to make a packaging of the FS2Open binaries for Ubuntu.  I do not know anything about the project's current status.

EDIT: I realize that I got jumped but I think my explanation is more through.

[Samsagax]

[

...

The problem is the IP (game data) of Freespace that we do not have the rights to.  So even if we did re-implement the engine with a more favourable license, we would still not be able to distribute the game data with it.  There was an attempt several years ago (called Ferrium IIRC) to re-implement FSO under a "nicer" license however the project was abandoned (for lack of a better word).

IIRC, OpenTTD also does not own their IP and are in a similar position that SCP was before GoG started offering FS2.  That being said, I don't believe the source of OpenTTD was ever released, they just decomplied the binary.

...
EDIT: I realize that I got jumped but I think my explanation is more through.

So I was about to re-question, but you answered me ahead, or partially at least. Is there some effort to replace the assets you mention? I'm familiar with what OpenTTD people done: they replaced the SFX and GFX with their own, so they could declare their 1.0 version when the game could "stand for itself". I'll read more about the legal issues, I promise. There are some legal voids that i'm trying to understand.

[General Battuta]

It just wouldn't be the same game with different music and voice acting.

[Topgun]

[

...

The problem is the IP (game data) of Freespace that we do not have the rights to.  So even if we did re-implement the engine with a more favourable license, we would still not be able to distribute the game data with it.  There was an attempt several years ago (called Ferrium IIRC) to re-implement FSO under a "nicer" license however the project was abandoned (for lack of a better word).

IIRC, OpenTTD also does not own their IP and are in a similar position that SCP was before GoG started offering FS2.  That being said, I don't believe the source of OpenTTD was ever released, they just decomplied the binary.

...
EDIT: I realize that I got jumped but I think my explanation is more through.

So I was about to re-question, but you answered me ahead, or partially at least. Is there some effort to replace the assets you mention? I'm familiar with what OpenTTD people done: they replaced the SFX and GFX with their own, so they could declare their 1.0 version when the game could "stand for itself". I'll read more about the legal issues, I promise. There are some legal voids that i'm trying to understand.

the story is still copyrighted. it can't be done.

[Nuke]

lots of assets have been recreated, but i assume the stuff you would have the most trouble with would be the music, voice acting, cut scenes, and sound effects. theoretically if you replaced those with user created content, you could run freespace without freespace, though it would not be the same. then there is that story copyright issue. still, it is possible to do total conversions with the engine and distribute those as a complete package free of charge.

[Fury]

But why would you do that? Right now the game can be bought only for measly $6 from gog.com. I very much believe FS2 deserves that much. For now anyway, situation and opinions may change if and when FS2 is no longer available in retail at all. For now though, it is and costs only $6. You pay for your food, electricity, clothes, computer hardware. Thinking any differently about software is just stupid, especially when said software is reasonably priced and doesn't have DRM-crap.

[chief1983]

That said, there are total conversions both released and in progress that themselves are full, free standalone releases.  Also, the line the FSF doesn't like from the license is in my signature for reference.

[Samsagax]

lots of assets have been recreated, but i assume the stuff you would have the most trouble with would be the music, voice acting, cut scenes, and sound effects. theoretically if you replaced those with user created content, you could run freespace without freespace, though it would not be the same. then there is that story copyright issue. still, it is possible to do total conversions with the engine and distribute those as a complete package free of charge.

Im not talking about price here... just about the freedom to distribute the entire game as stand-alone
Of course the 6$ is a fair cost, but the thing here is not how much should it cost.

[Shade]

Thing is, we really have no interest in distributing it as a standalone. We honestly believe that people who want the game should buy it, because the developers deserve the money. So as long as it remains up for sale, the idea is unlikely to get much traction here. That said, as has been mentioned there are standalone total conversions already released which do not rely on FS2 data, and are indeed free to distribute. And more of them in the works, too.

[General Battuta]

Due to the terms of the license we can only distribute the game as a standalone once it cannot reliably be acquired from a commercial source. Even then it would not be legal, we'd just be trusting that no one would care.

We do not own the rights to the game's assets.

[Goober5000]

Im not talking about price here... just about the freedom to distribute the entire game as stand-alone
Of course the 6$ is a fair cost, but the thing here is not how much should it cost.

If the thing is not about how much it should cost, then six dollars should be a non-issue.  The more important issue here is that GoG sells FreeSpace and FreeSpace 2 without any DRM, and without any odious bundling or shackling, and without preventing the user from running FSO on top of a GoG installation.  These are three very significant freedoms that GoG does not restrict.

I happen to believe not only that FS and FS2 are worth supporting commercially (especially, again, for only $6 each), but also that a company such as GoG is just as worthy of supporting.  Vote with your wallet: buy your games at GoG, rather than through Steam or Telltale or any other company or distribution system which infringes gamers' rights.

[Nuke]

i got the game months after it came out and i still have the cds, but if i did not i would probably chuck up the $6. i spent the $10 to make my kol account permanent. considering games today can cost $60 or $70 bucks. $6 is nothing especially with games these days going to extremes to keep their content protected, things i would have been disgusted to hear about a decade ago. like for example limited activations, intrusive drm software (starforce has made me boycott a few games i was seriously interested in buying), and dlcs that spy on you. but with gog you get an awesome game, without any drm what so ever at below bargain bin prices. whats wrong with that? i mean i can see where doing something like freedoom would be kind of a good thing. but i really dont think we could pull off something like that without breaking freespace's atmosphere and feel.

[Dragon]

In theory, it is possible to assemble a working FSO install out of files released for free, sans certain sounds (Inferno offers a decent selection of these).
In practice, you'd have to be an experienced modder to pull this off, familiar with which mod contains what (which means you'd most likely have FSO already), there are mods which wouldn't work and SCP team wouldn't support whay you'd be doing, meaning that you'd have to be familiar with debugging. And while you'd be able to run mods, certain things just wouldn't "feel" like FS with different sounds, music and no VA.
In short, more trouble than it's worth, expecially if you can just get the game for 6$ and don't live in a country that has currency with insane conversion factor to dollars.

[Flaser]

AFAIK what's more restricting - for the SCP team that is - is that the licensing of the open source code does *not* allow the use of other open source code published under the GPL license, since afterwards the FS-Open code would have to be GPL compliant as well (which can't be done, since Volition reserved rights for all commercial use).

...however there are ways around that (the same way how other commercial games use GPL-ed code), ie. just linking stuff from a dll, etc.

I don't know how much trouble this approach brings, since then you need to distribute more files with the releases (even OpenAl has been a bit of a trouble). It'd probably also warrant changes in the code.

Could the coders highlight where the SCP teams stands on this?

[The E]

Well, as you said, we can't use code that is under GPL. However, there are only very few things we're interested in in terms of adding external modules, and those that we do want are usually under LGPL, BSD, or some other non-assholeish license.

[chief1983]

Ones that come to mine are 7z support, and free TTS and Speech Recognition replacements, of which there are non-GPL libraries available.