Is "World of Goo" now OpenSource?

[alexan]

Who remember the humble indie bundle of some time ago?


last time I did check the only one (http://www.wolfire.com/humble) title who didn't go "open source" was, indeed, World of Goo.

Now, I open Ubuntu Software Center... and what I find on the market?


World of Goo


I do remember that: in order to get in the Ubuntu Software center as pay application you need to be open source.


So, if 2+2=4

World of Goo is now (or was previously) opensource.



BTW: double news... now World of Goo is available for 19.9$ in your SC (question+news in this thread :D )

[Oxwivi]

It's not open-source, it's a proprietary game for sale.

[zekopeko]

Who remember the humble indie bundle of some time ago?
last time I did check the only one (http://www.wolfire.com/humble) title who didn't go "open source" was, indeed, World of Goo.
Now, I open Ubuntu Software Center... and what I find on the market?
World of Goo
I do remember that: in order to get in the Ubuntu Software center as pay application you need to be open source.
So, if 2+2=4
World of Goo is now (or was previously) opensource.
BTW: double news... now World of Goo is available for 19.9$ in your SC (question+news in this thread :D )

No, World of Goo isn't open source. You would know that if you bothered to read the "License" field in the software center.

And no, paid applications don't need to be open source to appear in USC.

[forrestcupp]

If it were really open source, they couldn't force people to pay for it for very long. All it would take would be for one person to buy it, then legally redistribute it for free.

[imbjr]

If it were really open source, they couldn't force people to pay for it for very long. All it would take would be for one person to buy it, then legally redistribute it for free.

I believe Red Hat has been selling open source software for quite some time now:

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/

Whilst they classify it as support, you'll note that you don't get access to the download link until you've paid.

[Paqman]

I do remember that: in order to get in the Ubuntu Software center as pay application you need to be open source.


No you don't. The first paid for package was the Fluendo codecs.

[kvant]

No, World of Goo isn't open source. You would know that if you bothered to read the "License" field in the software center.

And no, paid applications don't need to be open source to appear in USC.

Open source has nothing to do with license type. Just like it has not much to do with free software.

[kvant]

If it were really open source, they couldn't force people to pay for it for very long. All it would take would be for one person to buy it, then legally redistribute it for free.

That's wrong too, as I've explained - open source has nothing to do with licence.

[zekopeko]

Open source has nothing to do with license type. Just like it has not much to do with free software.

Free software is a subset of open source.

And if you actually bothered to read what I wrote you would see that the "License" field in USC for World of Goo says "Proprietary" and that I was referring to that.

[koleoptero]

Free software is a subset of open source.

And if you actually bothered to read what I wrote you would see that the "License" field in USC for World of Goo says "Proprietary" and that I was referring to that.

Well not exactly a subset, there are free software that are not open-source, for example Opera.

[zekopeko]

Well not exactly a subset, there are free software that are not open-source, for example Opera.

That's freeware not Free software (notice the capital F).

[nickstu]

Can I "activate" world of goo in the software center if I bought it previously?

[zekopeko]

Can I "activate" world of goo in the software center if I bought it previously?

Like from Steam or some other online service? AFAIK, no you can't. But this is a great idea to implement in the future.

[RiceMonster]

I believe Red Hat has been selling open source software for quite some time now:

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/

Whilst they classify it as support, you'll note that you don't get access to the download link until you've paid.

Yes, but it's the support that is the reason people pay. Otherwise CentOS would put them out of business.

[Spice Weasel]

That's why games companies make the engine open source, but keep the data (3d models, textures, maps etc) proprietary. Makes sense.

[zekopeko]

That's why games companies make the engine open source, but keep the data (3d models, textures, maps etc) proprietary. Makes sense.

Game companies usually don't do that. Game engines are a great source of revenue for companies.

There are open source engines but nothing on the level of Unreal Engine 3 or iD Tech 5.

[Chronon]

I believe Red Hat has been selling open source software for quite some time now:

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/

Whilst they classify it as support, you'll note that you don't get access to the download link until you've paid.

That's totally permissible. They don't have to provide the source to you until they provide a binary (for which they can charge and/or require a service contract).

Also, as RiceMonster says, the support is the added value that they are paying for.

[forrestcupp]

I believe Red Hat has been selling open source software for quite some time now:

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/

Whilst they classify it as support, you'll note that you don't get access to the download link until you've paid.So are you implying that it's not legal for me to buy a copy and redistribute it for free? Of course I can. They don't have to distribute it for free, but anyone else can. Like RiceMonster said, that's exactly what CentOS is doing. People are paying for the support which isn't the same as paying for software.


Yes, but it's the support that is the reason people pay. Otherwise CentOS would put them out of business.
Exactly.

[Quadunit404]

So are you implying that it's not legal for me to buy a copy and redistribute it for free? Of course I can. They don't have to distribute it for free, but anyone else can.

You can redistribute RHEL if you download the source code, remove all the trademarked images and text from it, replace all the removed stuff and compile it with the changes you made. Otherwise redistributing RHEL for free is illegal due to trademark reasons, as per the legal terms defined here. (https://www.redhat.com/legal/legal_statement.html)

Also, World of Goo isn't open source, under "License" in the USC it reads "Proprietary" and in /opt/WorldOfGoo (where the USC installs the game to) I see a file called eula.txt.

And also, about Opera... the browser itself isn't open source and it doesn't need to be, but components of it are (e.g. Opera Dragonfly)

[earthpigg]

Also, World of Goo isn't open source, under "License" in the USC it reads "Proprietary" and in /opt/WorldOfGoo (where the USC installs the game to) I see a file called eula.txt.

indeed.


3. GAME OWNERSHIP. The Game is the copyrighted proprietary material of 2D BOY and/or its third-party licensors and is subject to copyright protection under U.S. copyright law and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. 2D BOY and/or its third-party licensors retain all right, title, and interest in the Game (and any copies thereof) and specifically reserve all rights not expressly granted under this EULA.

[alexan]

I read somewhere that in order to be in the Software Center applications are required to be OpenSource.

I forget the source link (its on Canonical.com or Ubuntu.com website anyway); but I do clearly remember the statement and some details...for example: Canonical reserve the right to fix your application (for future and retro compatibility I do suppose)... and this could had be done only if the source code are available.

Someone has the link where Canonical post the rules for get in the Software Center? pls???

[chriswyatt]

Maybe you're thinking of the Ubuntu repositories, I've got a feeling everything in the repositories is open source. And if they did say that everything in the Software Centre must be open-source well then they've most likely revoked that particular guideline now.

[zekopeko]

I read somewhere that in order to be in the Software Center applications are required to be OpenSource.

I forget the source link (its on Canonical.com or Ubuntu.com website anyway); but I do clearly remember the statement and some details...for example: Canonical reserve the right to fix your application (for future and retro compatibility I do suppose)... and this could had be done only if the source code are available.

Someone has the link where Canonical post the rules for get in the Software Center? pls???

You are probably talking about this: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/ubuntu-application-review-process-announced-restrictive-rules-galore/

The above doesn't apply to commercial applications.

[alexan]

Right, that's the stuff: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviews. Thanks


...but, if these rules apply only on regular repositories... we are supposed to believe there are no rules at all for pay software?

Then its more easy way put in your software and sell for 0$ (like Vendetta Online) rather just pass all the whole process for AppReviews?

What kind of agreement is taking Canonical? they get a %share on Ubuntu user which download for free Vendetta Online and pay for monthly subscription?

I would have prefer that Canonical had a more "open" way of business (transparency) rather just be another one in the bowl. :\

Don't get me wrong, I am highly supportive for Canonical enter in this business... I did just hope that they did in "Canonical's ways"... not "everyone else ways"

[forrestcupp]

Game companies usually don't do that. Game engines are a great source of revenue for companies.

There are open source engines but nothing on the level of Unreal Engine 3 or iD Tech 5.

That's right. id is the only mainstream one I know that releases open source engines, and they only do that when they're obsolete. They make a lot of money off of selling licenses to use their engines. A license to a high end engine can cost from $10,000 to millions of dollars depending on your arrangements and the size of your project. Even id wants to cash in on their latest game engines.

[zekopeko]

Right, that's the stuff: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviews. Thanks

...but, if these rules apply only on regular repositories... we are supposed to believe there are no rules at all for pay software?

Reasonable speculation to follow: as of now Canonical and the company that wants to sell in USC make a contract. I have no idea if they will provide clear guidelines similar to AppReviews for new FOSS. Most likely they will.


Then its more easy way put in your software and sell for 0$ (like Vendetta Online) rather just pass all the whole process for AppReviews?

What kind of agreement is taking Canonical? they get a %share on Ubuntu user which download for free Vendetta Online and pay for monthly subscription?

Canonical probably gets a share of each sale.


I would have prefer that Canonical had a more "open" way of business (transparency) rather just be another one in the bowl. :\

Don't get me wrong, I am highly supportive for Canonical enter in this business... I did just hope that they did in "Canonical's ways"... not "everyone else ways"

You have to understand that this is very much still beta functionality at best. The process will probably get streamlined as more developers start to sell stuff in USC.

[fatality_uk]

I can't wait for Adobe to release a native client for Linux into the USC.

WHAT!! This is sooo crap. Yes it's PhotoShop but it aint open source. We have Gimp for photo editing

[Spice Weasel]

I can't wait for Adobe to release a native client for Linux into the USC.

It will cost £983257 to make up for lack of interest.

[alexan]

You have to understand that this is very much still beta functionality at best. The process will probably get streamlined as more developers start to sell stuff in USC.

Yeah, that da*n feel of urgency that us, linux user, usually have: we need to focus that Linux will be a slow, inexorable, win.


It will cost £983257 to make up for lack of interest.

Well.. the top share of supercomputers are Linux... so, no one can say that Linux users are poor or don't have money. :p