Support us on Patreon
PayPalRogue Legacy, a rogue-lite from Cellar Door Games, that originally released in 2013 has now had the source code released. The game has Native Linux support and is rated Steam Deck Verified.
In the announcement on Twitter / X the developer noted they've been working with game porter and FNA developer, Ethan Lee, to make this happen who will be maintaining it going forward.
The game is not open source though, to be completely clear on that. It's source available under a custom license with certain restrictions, much the same as VVVVVV and is actually based on the license that Terry Cavanagh used for it. This is also only the source code, it does not include the assets - so you still need to own a copy of the game.
In their own announcement, Ethan Lee posted on Twitter / X that they intend to take on community contributions to it, and they're in progress on upgrading it to use SDL 3 that's currently in Beta.
Really great to see more developers open up the code for their older games. This way they can practically live on forever. It would have been even better if it was fully open source, but having it open like this is still a great resource for developer curious on what goes on behind the scenes to learn from as well.
Check out the GitHub for the source code.
You can buy the game from:
See the original trailer for the game below:
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
Quoting: emphyLooks to me that if the code were released under a creative commons license, it'd be CC BY-NC-SA.That violates number 1 and 3 of the open source definition.
So, I'd be pretty comfortable with calling it OSS BY-NC-SA, despite it not adhering to one of the "official" open source licenses.
Creative Commons offers a lot of non-open source licenses.
Still an improvement though, so
.Edit: also I've a problem with how little the open source foundation enforces its trademark.
Source available is a fully functional term and if you want to fit within the open source trademark you should fit the definition.
Last edited by LoudTechie on 16 October 2024 at 9:34 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: scaineI find it a bit upsetting that some of the opening comments to this news are negative. It's like someone offering you a free apple pie and turning your nose up and saying you prefer pears. Can we not just celebrate the awesome work CellarDoor and Ethan Lee put into this with a bit of gratitude? That it might help future developers learn, not to mention the modding potential?
I think this is because it feels like a downgrade compared to most game source code releases in the 2000s (where the GPL was typically used, or sometimes permissive licenses). It's much less common to see games have their source code released nowadays, let alone under OSI-approved open source licenses.
These custom licenses can also hinder the game's modding potential due to their terms, e.g. for source ports that are intended to replace the original executable.
These days, when I see a game's source code announcement, I basically assume it's under a proprietary license now :(
Descent 3 is the latest exception I can think of right now.
Last edited by Calinou on 16 October 2024 at 1:33 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CalinouQuoting: scaineI find it a bit upsetting that some of the opening comments to this news are negative. It's like someone offering you a free apple pie and turning your nose up and saying you prefer pears. Can we not just celebrate the awesome work CellarDoor and Ethan Lee put into this with a bit of gratitude? That it might help future developers learn, not to mention the modding potential?
I think this is because it feels like a downgrade compared to most game source code releases in the 2000s (where the GPL was typically used, or sometimes permissive licenses). It's much less common to see games have their source code released nowadays, let alone under OSI-approved open source licenses.
These custom licenses can also hinder the game's modding potential due to their terms, e.g. for source ports that are intended to replace the original executable.
These days, when I see a game's source code announcement, I basically assume it's under a proprietary license now :(
Descent 3 is the latest exception I can think of right now.
I blame the reaction of the community to Meta's LLAMA.
People went wild about it and nobody clearly contested their "open source" claim, which resulted in the companies(rightfully) concluding that they can get comparable effects with proprietary licenses nowadays.
Last edited by LoudTechie on 16 October 2024 at 1:55 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CalinouQuoting: scaineI find it a bit upsetting that some of the opening comments to this news are negative. It's like someone offering you a free apple pie and turning your nose up and saying you prefer pears. Can we not just celebrate the awesome work CellarDoor and Ethan Lee put into this with a bit of gratitude? That it might help future developers learn, not to mention the modding potential?
I think this is because it feels like a downgrade compared to most game source code releases in the 2000s (where the GPL was typically used, or sometimes permissive licenses). It's much less common to see games have their source code released nowadays, let alone under OSI-approved open source licenses.
These custom licenses can also hinder the game's modding potential due to their terms, e.g. for source ports that are intended to replace the original executable.
These days, when I see a game's source code announcement, I basically assume it's under a proprietary license now :(
Descent 3 is the latest exception I can think of right now.
Thank you so much for explicating that, I've observed this trend too, it's almost as if proper F/LOSS isn't cool anymore or is viewed as 'too extreme' or 'idealistic' now, so projects w/ restrictively licensed proprietary public code are settled for. I just really wish people would quit settling for less than their full freedom/liberty & rights as end-users (as are properly defined by the fsf's four essential freedoms & the OSI's Open Source Definition) being respected when – as you pointed out – we just had a golden age of fully F/LOSS, GPL'd source ports, but now we're backsliding. It honestly chafes at me to see people implying it's no big deal one, for example, can't create commercial derivative works using the engine, when if it wasn't for Doom allowing that we wouldn't have the brilliant Selaco today.
Last edited by Lamu on 17 October 2024 at 8:55 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
if an game is made using an proprietary game engine, it dont matter if it get relased under source avaliable, open source or what, we still have an layer of code that we cant change (the game engine code), otherwise anyone can say that something is open source, despite now showing any thing but: call_magic_function1():
withotu any explanation of what this function do and how, its an api from an game engine made inhouse or from a thirdy party.
looks like they used FNA so... its we really can see how it works.
withotu any explanation of what this function do and how, its an api from an game engine made inhouse or from a thirdy party.
looks like they used FNA so... its we really can see how it works.
0 Likes
I think a big reason developers choose non-free licenses for their video game source code releases is that they don't want other developers releasing cheap knockoff titles, whilst putting in little effort to make their own derivative/knockoff substantially different from the original.
We also cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Most people don't want their code, writing, or artwork being used as AI training data.
Last edited by Talon1024 on 22 October 2024 at 10:02 am UTC
We also cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Most people don't want their code, writing, or artwork being used as AI training data.
Last edited by Talon1024 on 22 October 2024 at 10:02 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
See more from me