DogFight - Post Contest

**cairnswm** · 13-04-2005, 05:25 AM

What is happening with all the Dogfight entries. When the contest was started the idea was to make them open source. Is this still going to happen? I know sourceforge turned down the idea but there could be space here or even on someones own web site.

I have a couple of questions:
1. Would anyone actually be interested in the idea of making these entries open source?
2. Would you be willing to work on such an open source project?
3. If so which projects...?

Basically I want to know if I must start an open source project for Run-A-War or if I should keep it as a personal project. I have already made a lot of changes and am thinking of using them for my next shareware game.

**cairnswm** · 15-04-2005, 10:18 AM

Based on the enthusiastic :shock: response I presume each project stays closed source of their creator

**Sascha Willems** · 15-04-2005, 10:38 AM

As far as I am concerned, Open Source *only* means that one has to release the source under a proper Open Source licence (like the GPL). But it does not mean that you need to further work on it, or to release your project under something like sourceforge so others can continue with it.

**cairnswm** · 15-04-2005, 11:22 AM

Well I do want to continue my game.

If that was the definition of open source - why did the contest not just say that the source code must be available?

**WILL** · 15-04-2005, 09:03 PM

The idea of the contest was that you would open-source your entry, but doesn't require you to pick any specific licence nor does it require you to keep anything you choose to do with it open, just the entry under whatever licence you chose

**Sly** · 16-04-2005, 07:36 AM

Perhaps it was just a mis-use of the term 'open source'? Perhaps it was just meant to mean to make your source available for other people to learn from, not open source in the GPL sense of open source.

**Harry Hunt** · 16-04-2005, 07:43 AM

I've got my own server so if you need space, I can provide you with that.

**marmin** · 16-04-2005, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sly

Perhaps it was just a mis-use of the term 'open source'? Perhaps it was just meant to mean to make your source available for other people to learn from, not open source in the GPL sense of open source.

How is that 'license' called, that you allow people to see your code, but that they may not alter/copy/ or use it otherwise than compiling?