Update: Valve has now taken it down.
Here's a "fun" one for you. The developers behind the free and open source RTS named 0 A.D. (pronounced “zero-ey-dee”) have announced that someone (they don't know who) has put it up on Steam.
This is sometimes the perils of open source, as there's a lot of people out their looking to make a quick-buck and they don't care who they burn in the process. To be clear, the version of 0 A.D. that has released on Steam (with it missing the second dot in the name), is not actually from the people who make the game — even though Wildfire Games are listed as the developer on Steam it's not them. Confusing right? Valve allowed it and approved it, so it does make me curious what legal checks are even done for this to happen.
I was notified of this on Twitter, with the official 0 A.D. account tweeting:
Turns out the only reason @YouTube added the game back is because somebody uploaded 0 A.D. to @Steam without our consent. It also explains the typo in the name…
Another tweet sent today by the 0 A.D. team:
IMPORTANT: The person who released the game on steam today is charging 8€ for it. Please do not buy it. The game is free and always will be. It might contain viruses and other malware.
I imagine it doesn't have anything nefarious inside it, otherwise you really would have to wonder what Valve are doing…
Looking on the official game forum there's a topic asking about it, the developers seems to be at a loss as to what is happening.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: MilesWhile it's ethically sus, is that illegal or even against any of the game's open source license or Steam agreements/rules?
ig as soon as you charge money for it there will be something against that in the license
0 Likes
Looks like it is not visible on the store any more:
https://steamdb.info/app/2158440/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2158440/
https://steamdb.info/app/2158440/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2158440/
2 Likes, Who?
Worth pointing out that their licensing basically allowed this: https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
The source is GPL which specifically allows commercial redistribution, and the art is CC-by-sa3 which also specifically allows commercial redistribution. I can understand how the dev maybe missed that the GPL allows it since it's a wall of text, but the CC license is like 2 lines of text and half of it is devoted to saying this was fine. :-\ They could have just used a different CC variation that didn't allow redistribution.
I've been asked many times if I'm worried that someone could do this to my open source stuff, and I always tell them no. Like I didn't pick the licenses I do because it allows this, but I also... don't really care. Like sure, you can totally get a sucker to pay for something that's free, but reselling pirated stuff totally happens too. (shrug)
Open source users often have a certain attitude about how great it is that people make free stuff that they just give away from the warmth of their heart. Sometimes that's true, but it's usually much more nuanced than that. Sometimes you've got people that just want to give back and share what they learned, and sometimes you've got folks that openness as a moral imperative separate from the monetary aspects. Sometimes devs get caught up in the feelings too and forget what the legalese actually says. :(
edit: My point being: Open source is great, but make sure you know what you are getting yourself into!
Last edited by slembcke on 20 October 2022 at 6:22 pm UTC
The source is GPL which specifically allows commercial redistribution, and the art is CC-by-sa3 which also specifically allows commercial redistribution. I can understand how the dev maybe missed that the GPL allows it since it's a wall of text, but the CC license is like 2 lines of text and half of it is devoted to saying this was fine. :-\ They could have just used a different CC variation that didn't allow redistribution.
I've been asked many times if I'm worried that someone could do this to my open source stuff, and I always tell them no. Like I didn't pick the licenses I do because it allows this, but I also... don't really care. Like sure, you can totally get a sucker to pay for something that's free, but reselling pirated stuff totally happens too. (shrug)
Open source users often have a certain attitude about how great it is that people make free stuff that they just give away from the warmth of their heart. Sometimes that's true, but it's usually much more nuanced than that. Sometimes you've got people that just want to give back and share what they learned, and sometimes you've got folks that openness as a moral imperative separate from the monetary aspects. Sometimes devs get caught up in the feelings too and forget what the legalese actually says. :(
edit: My point being: Open source is great, but make sure you know what you are getting yourself into!
Last edited by slembcke on 20 October 2022 at 6:22 pm UTC
7 Likes, Who?
EagleDelta Oct 20, 2022
Quoting: slembckeWorth pointing out that their licensing basically allowed this: https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
The source is GPL which specifically allows commercial redistribution, and the art is CC-by-sa3 which also specifically allows commercial redistribution. I can understand how the dev maybe missed that the GPL allows it since it's a wall of text, but the CC license is like 2 lines of text and half of it is devoted to saying this was fine. :-\ They could have just used a different CC variation that didn't allow redistribution.
I've been asked many times if I'm worried that someone could do this to my open source stuff, and I always tell them no. Like I didn't pick the licenses I do because it allows this, but I also... don't really care. Like sure, you can totally get a sucker to pay for something that's free, but reselling pirated stuff totally happens too. (shrug)
Open source users often have a certain attitude about how great it is that people make free stuff that they just give away from the warmth of their heart. Sometimes that's true, but it's usually much more nuanced than that. Sometimes you've got people that just want to give back and share what they learned, and sometimes you've got folks that openness as a moral imperative separate from the monetary aspects. Sometimes devs get caught up in the feelings too and forget what the legalese actually says. :(
edit: My point being: Open source is great, but make sure you know what you are getting yourself into!
You're missing that the Steamworks SDK, which is required to distribute a game on Steam, and since the Steamworks License is incompatible with "copyleft" licenses, any exceptions to the GPL to allow a piece of software to be distributed on Steam must be agreed to/decided on by the Software Authors, not just anybody.
Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource
Last edited by EagleDelta on 20 October 2022 at 6:35 pm UTC
4 Likes, Who?
hi
this is not the first time this has happened Warzone 2100 has been added to steam but not by any of the official developers this version on steam is outdated and may be missing files and may corrupt your saves
this is not the first time this has happened Warzone 2100 has been added to steam but not by any of the official developers this version on steam is outdated and may be missing files and may corrupt your saves
1 Likes, Who?
dziadulewicz Oct 20, 2022
Quoting: CatKillerQuoting: dziadulewiczThat said, SuperTux does not launch on Linux in Steam because its a AppImage package and problems related to that. It's quite ironic that SuperTux does not work OOTB on LinuxIt works fine on Linux in Steam: it was the second game I installed on the Deck. The appimage had problems only if you were using flatpak Steam.
It may work yes, but the thing is it does not launch out of the box clicking Play. We are talking about the desktop here not Steam Deck. The Steam in question is most certainly not flatpak. Check out the discussions on SuperTux on Steam: it's filled with "not launching" or similar threads.
0 Likes
Valve has now taken it down.
Plus the licensing issue already pointed out, which they clearly did not have approval from the team on.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 20 October 2022 at 7:34 pm UTC
Quoting: slembckeWorth pointing out that their licensing basically allowed this: https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/LICENSE.txtCode and art are different to using the name of the game and the name of the developer.
The source is GPL which specifically allows commercial redistribution, and the art is CC-by-sa3 which also specifically allows commercial redistribution. I can understand how the dev maybe missed that the GPL allows it since it's a wall of text, but the CC license is like 2 lines of text and half of it is devoted to saying this was fine. :-\ They could have just used a different CC variation that didn't allow redistribution.
I've been asked many times if I'm worried that someone could do this to my open source stuff, and I always tell them no. Like I didn't pick the licenses I do because it allows this, but I also... don't really care. Like sure, you can totally get a sucker to pay for something that's free, but reselling pirated stuff totally happens too. (shrug)
Open source users often have a certain attitude about how great it is that people make free stuff that they just give away from the warmth of their heart. Sometimes that's true, but it's usually much more nuanced than that. Sometimes you've got people that just want to give back and share what they learned, and sometimes you've got folks that openness as a moral imperative separate from the monetary aspects. Sometimes devs get caught up in the feelings too and forget what the legalese actually says. :(
edit: My point being: Open source is great, but make sure you know what you are getting yourself into!
Plus the licensing issue already pointed out, which they clearly did not have approval from the team on.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 20 October 2022 at 7:34 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: dziadulewiczIt may work yes, but the thing is it does not launch out of the box clicking Play. We are talking about the desktop here not Steam Deck. The Steam in question is most certainly not flatpak. Check out the discussions on SuperTux on Steam: it's filled with "not launching" or similar threads.I just tried it on my Linux desktop. Absolutely zero issues out of the box. Hit Install, it installs. Hit Play, and it launches and runs fine.
1 Likes, Who?
dziadulewicz Oct 20, 2022
Quoting: CatKillerQuoting: dziadulewiczIt may work yes, but the thing is it does not launch out of the box clicking Play. We are talking about the desktop here not Steam Deck. The Steam in question is most certainly not flatpak. Check out the discussions on SuperTux on Steam: it's filled with "not launching" or similar threads.I just tried it on my Linux desktop. Absolutely zero issues out of the box. Hit Install, it installs. Hit Play, and it launches and runs fine.
I tried it too encouraged by your claim and guess what? IT HAS BEEN FIXED!
It DOES launch now!
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EagleDeltaYou're missing that the Steamworks SDK, which is required to distribute a game on Steam, and since the Steamworks License is incompatible with "copyleft" licenses, any exceptions to the GPL to allow a piece of software to be distributed on Steam must be agreed to/decided on by the Software Authors, not just anybody.That only refers to linking the binary with the SDK library, it's not a necessity to publish on Steam.
Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource
The SDK also contains shell scripts and helper tools to upload builds. Not a problem to use those with GPL licensed software.
3 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me