r/starbound • u/NoRound5166 • 8d ago
Discussion OpenStarbound is not open-source.
EDIT: For my own mental sanity I'm just not going to engage anymore. Post stays up though. No that anyone gives a shit anyway.
Every time someone says "Chucklefish should make Starbound open-source if they don't care about it", without fail there will be someone replying with "it's been open-source for a while" or "it's open-source now", as was the case in the most recent post in this sub.
OpenStarbound is not open-source.
OpenStarbound is a project using copyrighted, leaked code. Just because anyone can contribute to the code, does not make it open-source.
I think it's important that people understand this.
Chucklefish have been ok with OpenStarbound, they let it exist, and that is a good, fortunate thing for all of us. But what's going to happen if someone gets the wrong idea that it is actually open-source, decide to fork the project and make another game with itt? Even worse, what if they try to sell it? That's going to cross a line we don't want crossed, and despite Chucklefish's inaction up until now, we cannot be 100% sure that they won't do something about it, were it to happen.
If you know the faintest thing about open source projects, then you know they're usually licensed under an MIT, BSD, or GPL license. So anyone interested in making a derivative of something will look at its license to get an idea of what they're permitted to do with the code. OpenStarbound isn't licensed under any open-source license. Not "for now", not "yet", just not. Period.
Is the majority of people who use or know about OpenStarbound, interested in making derivatives or contributing to the project? Nope, not at all. But you can't keep telling people Starbound is open-source. It's only a matter of time before some doofus who thinks they can do whatever they want gets the wrong idea and starts coding or vibe-coding changes in Starbound's code to make their own game.
28
u/Bobby_Bonsaimind 8d ago edited 8d ago
Chucklefish have been ok with OpenStarbound, they let it exist, and that is a good, fortunate thing for all of us. But what's going to happen if someone gets the wrong idea that it is actually open-source, decide to fork the project and make another game with itt? Even worse, what if they try to sell it? That's going to cross a line we don't want crossed, and despite Chucklefish's inaction up until now, we cannot be 100% sure that they won't do something about it, were it to happen.
Forget that, what if Chucklefish is bought or sells Starbound to another entity? Chucklefish might turn a blind eye, but whoever may hold the rights next might not. That's some copyright violations you can get sued for, and anyone contributing to the project (damn, theoretically even those just reading it) might be burned as programmers.
0
u/Darmak 6d ago
While you're right, I doubt anyone would want to buy the rights to Starbound nor do I think Chucklefish would sell the rights. It's not impossible but I don't think it's real likely.
3
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 4d ago
Its happened often enough that it is something to be wary of according to a friend who used to work in various gaming venues. IP changes hands and what was fine then isnt now.
Apparently a similar thing happened with the FRUA group after SSI closed. The group was given the source code and various permissions. WotC picks up the IP and tries to shut it all down.
52
u/Renkoto- 8d ago edited 7d ago
To be fair, Tiy and Chucklefish should properly release Starbound's source code under a open source or free software license at this point, the source code has been leaked for years and the game is dead commercially, and any future major update will break mods that rely on the features of the forks.
If they hand Starbound over to the community, the situation for the game could change radically, just like what happened with other games whose source code was released by its developer under a proper FLOSS license.
14
u/robotic_rodent_007 8d ago
That would require admitting how terrible Chucklefish treated the starbound community otherwise.
4
u/rx915 4d ago edited 4d ago
I distinctly remember a dev making a blog post floating the idea of open sourcing Starbound 10 years ago... and flirting with Haskell too! I'll try and find it
edit: oh it was a now deleted Tweet referenced on the blog about Wayward Tide: https://chucklefish.org/blog/wayward-tide-technical-details/#:~:text=I%20think%20we%E2%80%99re%20going%20to%20open%20source%20Starbound%20one%20day%2C%20I%E2%80%99d%20like%20all%20of%20our%20games%20to%20be%20OS%20from%20now%20on
107
u/DoSomeStrangeThings 8d ago
I haven't heard about open starbound(ever) and this game in general for a long time. But it is actually a good thing to warn about.
So I am not sure what other two people are about.
8
11
17
u/mcplano 8d ago
Nobody in their right mind would try and make a commercial non-SB product using SB's source code as a base, simply because it's too SB-shaped to be worth the massive amount of effort needed to turn it into something unrecognizable. I think it'll be fine
7
u/Renkoto- 8d ago edited 8d ago
Disagree. From a technical and legal standpoint, working with leaked code carries severe risk, not only because you might get sued (though that too),, many other programmers and indie developers will refuse to work on OpenStarbound and other forks; anyone who possesses or contributes to that codebase becomes 'tainted' by it, also, trying to use the experience gained by working with leaked code in other projects is problematic, it's something most other studios would refuse to accept because if it turns out that traces of that tainted code somehow make their way into their own projects, it would put them on the radar too.
So yes, it's an important thing to take into account. It's the exact reason why certain projects flat-out reject contributors known to have worked with leaked code even if it's completely unrelated to the project, making it a matter of self-preservation to avoid getting blacklisted out there (there have been cases in the video game industry of programmers and developers being rejected for working with leaked SDKs and repositories by third-party studios precisely because that's like the equivalent of a bomb for them, if they find out that you're contributing to OpenSB for example they will reject to hire you too for the same reason.)
The community needs to pressure Chucklefish to clear this up and, if possible, make them to officially and properly release the game's code under a free or open-source software license. Otherwise, attracting contributors and gaining general community support will be extremely difficult, compounded by the fact that Starbound modding currently suffers from client fragmentation. Right now there are increasingly more mods that relies in the features of these forks, and having to install external stuff from places that are far too convoluted for the casual player, it compromises the Steam Workshop experience Valve was always aiming for, also friendly reminder that Valve isn't very fond of mods that links to unverified binaries.
And then there's the elephant in the room, the biggest issue right now isn't even the Tiy and Chucklefish of today, but what will happen in the future. What happens when Chucklefish changes hands and the new owners decide they no longer want illegitimate forks of their games floating around? They'll proceed to issue mass DMCA takedowns and even take more drastic measures, you guys won't want to be around when that moment arrives.
2
u/BrokenMirror2010 7d ago
From a technical and legal standpoint, working with leaked code carries severe risk, not only because you might get sued (though that too),, many other programmers and indie developers will refuse to work on OpenStarbound and other forks; anyone who possesses or contributes to that codebase becomes 'tainted' by it, also, trying to use the experience gained by working with leaked code in other projects is problematic, it's something most other studios would refuse to accept because if it turns out that traces of that tainted code somehow make their way into their own projects, it would put them on the radar too.
But also, people do make Pokemon Romhacks using decompiled roms, because working with, and modifying 'copyright code' is not the same as distributing it. There are also many legal questions about the scope of 'copyright' for programming because it's vague and ambiguous as to what you can actually copyright or how much is needed to actually be a violation. After all, a Program written in C++ is just C++. At what point is your 'copyrighted' C++ code, no longer your 'copyrighted' C++ code, and just C++ Code.
There are plenty of indie devs who got their initial experience and started their portfolio with stuff like Pokemon Romhacks.
That said, you are correct. Whether or not it's legal actually doesn't matter because they can send DMCA takedowns regardless because the DMCA is a law written by psychopaths that place the burden of proof on the accused instead of the accuser, which means actually defending against a false DMCA claim is impossible for 99.9% of people because they simply do not have the resources to spend 10 years in court fighting against a company that keeps lawyers on payroll specifically to bully and harass small creators/competitors into submission.
3
u/Renkoto- 7d ago
Technically there's still a difference between decompiling your own copy of a publicly available game than reading and working with leaked source codes, also the private-copying right still protects you to a certain extent, remember that OpenStarbound is not a decompilation, and while the EULAs tend to forbid decompilations that's something rarely enforced and even then there's still a lot of scenarios where that can be considered fair-use at least in the US.
-4
u/ALEX2014_18 8d ago
I really doubt working with leaked source will get you any trouble unless you run around screaming that you did on the job interview.
1
u/creepig 8d ago
You'd be very incorrect. If it came up during your employment, you'd immediately have the company's legal department so far up your ass they'd know what you had for lunch the last time you touched that leaked source.
-1
u/ALEX2014_18 8d ago
What company? The one you being employed at?
What do they have on you? You're not doing anything criminal at this specific moment, not only that, but you haven't done any harm to it at all.
The only thing they have on you is cancellations culture shitass, but that's just cancerous bullshit and every company that practices it is basically not worthy to be around in the first place.
You MIGHT get screwed if you get called to the court by the company which interests weren't disturbed by your actions, but otherwise you're telling scary tales just for the sake of it.
3
u/creepig 8d ago
You just indicated to that company that the PIA you signed isn't worth the paper it's on, so you are now a liability. That's enough to start investigating you for any harm you might have done. You don't want lawyers investigating you, because they always find something.
You definitely have never done anything around software contracting. Sit down and color, junior.
-2
u/ALEX2014_18 8d ago
Bot only do these 2 factors do not correlate between one another, but also 1. You're still not any legal issues and they cannot even fire you properly unless your contract is shit. 2. Who says you I'm signing PIA?
You're living in your imaginary world thinking that everyone works under same condition and rules.
If you like being a slave - then it's your choice.
Also, as you called me a junior, would've been great if you provided your portfolio of achievements and repository projects for review, bug tech guy.
2
u/creepig 8d ago
Bot only do these 2 factors do not correlate between one another, but also 1. You're still not any legal issues and they cannot even fire you properly unless your contract is shit. 2. Who says you I'm signing PIA?
They absolutely can fire you for violating your PIA and
You're signing one or you don't get the paycheck.
You're living in your imaginary world thinking that everyone works under same condition and rules.
Tough words to a mirror.
If you like being a slave - then it's your choice.
I like having money to do things. I know this is going to be a mindblowing concept for you, but sometimes you have to follow rules to get money.
Also, as you called me a junior, would've been great if you provided your portfolio of achievements and repository projects for review, bug tech guy.
Nah, I'm not going to dox myself for your entertainment, immature internet manchild. If you've never signed a PIA, you've never worked even in medium tech, much less in big tech. Be as mad about that as you like.
0
u/ALEX2014_18 8d ago
Crying out loud at the first sight of someone wanting proof.
Oh no, anynomoys repository sharing is now considering doxing just because people will link your reddit and git accounts, too thin for this, aren't you?
You're incredibly delusional if you think you can get fired for PIA violation by basically reverse-engeneering game code. Maybe consider reading what you sign from time to time?
Perhaps your social media platforms are also being monitored by your company so that you won't say "bad stuff" out there or they will fire you too?
2
u/Renkoto- 8d ago edited 8d ago
reverse-engeneering game code
OpenSB isn't reversed engineered, it's literally a plain fork of the leaked Starbound source code, stop spreading misinformation.
The first thing you can see in the OpenSB's README is this:
By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. Inside, I found the 1.4.4 Starbound source code. OpenStarbound is derived from that source code. It fixes many bugs, adds many new features and improves performance.
→ More replies (0)
51
u/NoRound5166 8d ago
I hate this community sometimes.
-57
u/H1tSc4n 8d ago
75% of this game's playerbase are depressed furry compsci students, you think they know anything about licensing, copyright and distribution?
45
26
u/juanChor3y 8d ago
I learned about MIT, ISC, GPL, and BSD software licensing when I was in my second semester of a CompSci degree...
35
u/Brambleback 8d ago
So the project is not open source, does not claim to be open source, is not claiming any license and your question is what happens if someone ignores all that and tries to fork and sell it?
They are retarded in that case.
5
u/Alternative_Cost8914 7d ago
A convenient reminder that this community loathes nuance. You’ll have braindead “nobody would ever do this lmao” takes getting bunches of upvotes and simultaneously a bunch of highly logical arguments getting downvotes too.
I honestly don’t get the curse on this place. I so badly wanted to enjoy this community, but upon trying to do any form of serious engagement it’s like you get acid launched in your face no matter what side you’re on.
I wish I had less of a valid reason to stop engaging.
1
u/HyperJuni Neki 6d ago
There's a lot of beauty in this community, too, you just have to look outside of the usual or "official" places to find it ♥
1
1
u/ALEX2014_18 8d ago
I don't think anyone who points at that genuinely does that to prove a point that it's community project.
Everyone understand the risks and the situation we're in right now.
It's like those Friday 13th private servers. They exist while they can, sometimes they die when publishers can enforce their will using DMCA strikes, but at the end - everything that was in internet stays there. And it will too, in any shape or form.
-29
u/urethral_play 8d ago
making a strawman and getting mad at it. reddit moment
53
u/NoRound5166 8d ago
Strawman? I'm stating facts, and the fact is that OpenStarbound isn't open-source. People keep calling it that.
1
u/beef623 6d ago
The term open just means the source is available, the license would determine whether or not you can use it for other things. It is your responsibility to determine the legality if it uses copyrighted material.
2
u/Convoke_ 5d ago
"Open source" is a category for certain licenses where the source code is open for anyone to use (both personal and commercial) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
1
u/beef623 5d ago
That is certainly a subset of open source.
0
u/Convoke_ 5d ago
No. "Open source" is just a license type. A repo being public is called a "public repo" not "open source"
1
u/beef623 5d ago
Licensed open source is a type of open source just as unlicensed open source is open source. Not all open source software is licensed, that is only a subset. The source is open, hence the term, open source. It doesn't have anything to do with cost or being able to contribute either, although most is free, licensed and able to be contributed to.
0
-1
u/SpecificVanilla3668 7d ago
OpenStarbound is not open-source.
Yesn't, openstarbound is actually open-source, cuz the source is, well... open and visible. On the other side starbound is close sourced, cuz well, you cannot see the the source as it is closed. Have a good day.
-1
-15
u/The_StarFlower 8d ago
who gives a shit? the game is dead, not worked on any longer plus the code is out now and the devs let it be. so what is the problem?
1
u/Darmak 6d ago
The problem is exactly what they said: despite the game being dead and the devs letting the leaked source code be, if someone were to ever try and take any of the code and make their own project with it then there COULD be some blowback from Chucklefish for their project and the OpenStarbound mod (and all the other mods that rely on the OSB mod)
-28
8d ago
[deleted]
34
u/NoRound5166 8d ago edited 8d ago
Here's an example comment in this thread which I referred to in this post.
Again, every time someone suggests making Starbound open source that's the kind of comments you get. This isn't something I'm making up.
Open source guarantess the rights to re-use and modify the code legally. OpenStarbound is not open source. So yes, as a matter of fact it does matter how it's licensed.
-19
8d ago
[deleted]
24
42
u/NoRound5166 8d ago
From https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
Only the original authors of proprietary software can legally copy, inspect, and alter that software. And in order to use proprietary software, computer users must agree (usually by signing a license displayed the first time they run this software) that they will not do anything with the software that the software's authors have not expressly permitted. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop are examples of proprietary software.
Open source software is different. Its authors make its source code available to others who would like to view that code, copy it, learn from it, alter it, or share it. LibreOffice and the GNU Image Manipulation Program are examples of open source software.
As they do with proprietary software, users must accept the terms of a license when they use open source software—but the legal terms of open source licenses differ dramatically from those of proprietary licenses.
OpenStarbound does not have an open-source license, and is legally still leaked source code. OpenStarbound is not open-source. Illegal but leaked code != open source.
I'm done here, there isn't any more I can do to prove my argument when people willingly don't want to understand.
-39
u/Partonetrain 8d ago
you're right, but I think a court of law would probably find Chucklefish basically lost the right to enforce their copyright..? At this point they have DEFINITELY known about it for 2 years. This is called estoppel but then again I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how that would work across borders.
28
u/H1tSc4n 8d ago
Why exactly would chucklefish have lost their rights to Starbound?
Abandonware is not a legal thing.
4
u/Xywzel 8d ago
There is requirement in most copyright laws that right holder must enforce their copyright equally and in timely manner. So if I made a fork of OpenStarbound, and chucklefish sued me, I could point that they did not sue or sell license to the original oSB or any of the other forks, so its fair use for me. The original oSB having been present on chucklefish forums for few years and having not received cease and desist order earlier, if sued now, would have good grounds to argue implicit permission.
6
u/BastetFurry 8d ago
They might have a hard time arguing about the sourcecode, ie. the engine, as they let the people do what they did right under their nose.
But the art and assets? No problem there enforcing any form of copyright.
In essence, if someone wanted to make their own game with the engine the chances are high that any judge would let them. But woe them if they took a single tile from the tilemap...
7
u/H1tSc4n 8d ago
Yeah but they don't lose the rights to starbound, they would just have a harder time suing you.
That is trademark you are thinking about, not copyright. Not defending a trademark can lead to you losing that trademark, while not defending a copyright only implies consent towards that one specifing infringing party, not anyone else.
So if you did make a fork and they decided to sue you but not the original oSB holders they'd actually have a much easier time against you.
6
u/Xywzel 8d ago
lose the rights to starbound
They won't loose these rights even if they do make it open source, open source authors still have all the copyrights, they just also grant some or all of these rights to others. So that is not really relevant to this.
The equal enforcement rules might not be the same in different parts of the law, but they are still very good defence in this case. If you are working under agreement of licence of the oSB, they either don't have right give out that license, where you would be suing them together with checklefish as a victim of license fraud, or they have the right, in which case you are allowed to do that under the license of the oSB. And in case oSB doesn't have public license and doesn't give it privately for people forking them, they should be the ones suing me, as I'm not copying Chucklefish's work, I'm copying oSB's work.
Yeah, its messy. But them not suing oSB absolutely matters in this.
-41
u/Spicy_Grievences_01 8d ago
Yes it’s not open source, but why be upset it’s said to be when the game has been long dead? I do understand why you need to manufacture a problem from a solution to a problem? What do you want us to respond with aside from “yes you are right”?
23
u/Caelinus 8d ago
Because it can result in a cease and desist and a DMCA of OpenStarbound if it becomes an IP issue.
I think they explained that.
-15
u/Spicy_Grievences_01 8d ago
This is already known, yet nothing is likely to happen given the game is dead
11
u/Caelinus 8d ago
Unless someone start distributing their code for profit, then it is suddenly alive again, and the have to defend their mark and copyright.
-11
u/Spicy_Grievences_01 8d ago
Yes true, but you seldom see any sub complaining - with their games about the same issue - why make this an issue now
10
u/juanChor3y 8d ago
OP is not making it an issue, OP is pointing out that in this sub when people pine about wanting to develop a new Starbound or "revamp" it or make their own Frackin Universe or whatever pipe dreams they have, a common response is "Starbound is open source thru oSB, you can achieve all your dreams!" And OPs rebuttal is "HELLO THAT IS ILLEGAL SIR, PLEASE STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT IS ALLOWED"
5
u/Spicy_Grievences_01 8d ago
Fair point, I misunderstood and actually OP is fully right in his/her complaint against us
-14
u/ScoobyDouche78 8d ago
Im interested in making a derivative of it and i am just got other priorities at the moment tho
-16
u/Choice-Mango-4019 8d ago
this is the biggest nothingburger never gonna happen "what if" I've seen this week
-27
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/secretiveconfusion 8d ago
They haven't said anything about it but that doesn't mean we can treat it as ambiguous. Lack of a license is not permissive by default, so people using the code should only do so knowing it's entirely possible they get burned.
324
u/impaladin87 8d ago
this post is the definition of “why are you booing me i’m right”