Mari0=Mario + Portal ..Open source game(stabyourself.net)
stabyourself.net
Mari0=Mario + Portal ..Open source game
http://stabyourself.net/mari0/marathon/
59 comments
It's developed in love2d(https://love2d.org/), a 2d game framework in lua.
Just a small detail, but the license is Creative Commons BY-NC-SA, so this is not really open source (not OSI-compliant).
You can do opens source without being OSI compliant. They don't own the concept. As long as the source is readable, it is open, even if you can't redistribute it, or distribute a binary built out of it.
In this case:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ says that
In this case:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ says that
You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
Provided that you (paraphrased):
* (BY) — give proper credit to the original the author,
* (NC) — don't use it commercially,
* (SA) — publish your modifications with the same license.
The BSD and MIT licenses make no mention of commercial usage? The NC clause is exactly what makes it incompatible with all FOSS licenses.
> Beside the non-commercial clause, when applied to source code, it is roughly equivalent to a BSD/MIT license.
More like the GPL, SA is CC's copyleft.
More like the GPL, SA is CC's copyleft.
Yes, "open source" is not a protected term, nor a trademarked term, so anyone can call anything "open source".
However for lots of people who deal with software, calling this "open source" is highly misleading and at worst disingenuous. Within the open source software (and wider software world), it's quite clear and non-subjective whether software is open source. There are numerous, nearly entirely harmonious definitions of "open source". Under those rules, within that community, this is not "open source".
However for lots of people who deal with software, calling this "open source" is highly misleading and at worst disingenuous. Within the open source software (and wider software world), it's quite clear and non-subjective whether software is open source. There are numerous, nearly entirely harmonious definitions of "open source". Under those rules, within that community, this is not "open source".
I think his license is the best one I've seen yet. In main.lua it says...
* NOT COPYRIGHT STABYOURSELF.NET
NO RIGHTS RESERVED
STEAL MY SHIT AND I'LL FUCK YOU UP
PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING BY MAURICE GUÉGAN AND IF SOMETHING ISN'T BY ME THEN IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS OR NOBODY CARES
THIS AWESOME PIECE OF CELESTIAL AMBROSIA IS RELEASED AS NON-COMMERCIAL, SHARE ALIKE, WHATEVER. YOU MAY PRINT OUT THIS CODES AND USE IT AS WALLPAPER IN YOUR BATHROOM.
FOR SPECIFIC LICENSE (I know you linux users get a hard on when it comes to licenses) SEE http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
NOW GO AWAY (or stay and modify shit. I don't care as long as you stick to the above license.)*Interesting mashup. Rad advert. How long before it gets taken down by lawyers and will the programmer wind up working at Nintendo or Valve?
Ideally someone will create a FOSS tileset for it that transparently substitutes for the current Mario set. The gameplay itself seems fine; platformers seem perfectly safe as long as they don't use Mario graphics, and as for the portal mechanic, that has plenty of precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_hole
You cannot patent game-play mechanics. But then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tetris_Company#Legal_enforc...
They would possibly need to redo all the levels too, as they are tile for tile taken from Super Mario Bros.
I was actually surprised it came out, they had some teasers on Reddit a few days ago and I thought Nintendo laywers would have showed up by now. Copying game mechanics is not a big deal, but reusing trademarked and copyrighted sprites (of the main franchise from one of the richest companies on the planet!) is a bit too much.
Yeah, this seems like an awful lot of work to be throwing at something that is crystal clear copyright and trademark infringement.
In all likelihood, all that will happen is he'll get a C+D letter, but it's dangerous territory, he's wide open to be sued for real money here, and this sort of case is a slam-dunk.
In all likelihood, all that will happen is he'll get a C+D letter, but it's dangerous territory, he's wide open to be sued for real money here, and this sort of case is a slam-dunk.
The author should put his talent to work on something that _won't_ get him sued. :(
Wondering how long till that domain renders an ICE homepage.
Wondering how long till that domain renders an ICE homepage.
I don't see him asking for money anywhere, so at most he'll get a cease and desist. Of course if he doesn't comply then things would get worse.
Plus from what I understand Nintendo has been pretty lax with these sort of projects lately and I don't think Valve would do anything either.
Plus from what I understand Nintendo has been pretty lax with these sort of projects lately and I don't think Valve would do anything either.
Really? That's cool if you're right.
It's obviously something done for the love of doing it and doesn't portray the original projects in a bad light. Hopefully they don't pull the plug on him.
It's obviously something done for the love of doing it and doesn't portray the original projects in a bad light. Hopefully they don't pull the plug on him.
I don't see him asking for money anywhere, so at most he'll get a cease and desist.
Neither was Jammie Thomas-Rasset, and yet she was still convicted and ordered to pay $222000 (now it has dropped to $54000).
Neither was Jammie Thomas-Rasset, and yet she was still convicted and ordered to pay $222000 (now it has dropped to $54000).
This isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison. For the JTR case to be fairly, one would have to compare ROM or warez distribution, downloading and the resulting litigation.
This seems to be closer to the concept of mashups and remix culture for music, where the copyright and trademarks are not as clear cut.
This seems to be closer to the concept of mashups and remix culture for music, where the copyright and trademarks are not as clear cut.
A note for Ubuntu users: there is a PPA for the unreleased 0.8.0 version of LÖVE: https://launchpad.net/~bartbes/+archive/love-unstable/.
Google failed me today while trying to find the syntax for adding a PPA from the command line (largely because Google will not search for punctuation, even inside of quotation marks), so after a long search trying to avoid pages about human colons and professional associations (eventually settling on the query "ubuntu ppa apt-add-repository"), I'm posting this here (ref: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/CommandLine):
Google failed me today while trying to find the syntax for adding a PPA from the command line (largely because Google will not search for punctuation, even inside of quotation marks), so after a long search trying to avoid pages about human colons and professional associations (eventually settling on the query "ubuntu ppa apt-add-repository"), I'm posting this here (ref: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/CommandLine):
sudo apt-add-repository ppa:bartbes/love-unstable
sudo aptitude update
sudo aptitude install love-unstable
love-unstable mari0_1.2.loveI remember I always wanted to play Mario when I was little but I couldn't because I was too poor. So, I do love that if I don't do ANYTHING with the Portal gun, it's actually just the original. (But, of course I'm still using the portal gun)
Whoa, that's pretty cool and happens to be two of my favorite games :)
Lots of lag on Mac OS Lion. Can't even play through because of it. But I think you'd be able to get used to the controls given some practice.
According to their forums, disabling sound (ie: turning the volume all the way down), fixes lag/stutter. In practice that seems to be mostly true. Still find the controls slightly unintuitive (but I imagine with an external mouse things would be better).
Fantastic! I can't say I'm enjoying the source code much but nice things are often quite messy under the covers. Nice work!
Loving the mashup, awesome idea. Also thanks for the link to love2d, looks like a brilliant framework.
This is a really cool concept, I love that it's open source and Lua adds a fun kick. I'll be honest, I'm awful at it though. It's extremely hard for me to control mario and the portal gun. It's strange because I love classic mario and like to think I'm pretty good at solving Portal fast.
Maybe I just need to practice more? Does anyone here feel proficient? I've seen videos of people doing some crazy things with it already, I'm jealous.
Maybe I just need to practice more? Does anyone here feel proficient? I've seen videos of people doing some crazy things with it already, I'm jealous.
I love that it's open source
Technically not open source. It's released under a Creative Commons CC-NC-SA which is not an open source licence, and is not approved by OSI nor FSF
However, the source is available, and it's CC, which isn't exactly a propriatry programme.
Technically not open source. It's released under a Creative Commons CC-NC-SA which is not an open source licence, and is not approved by OSI nor FSF
However, the source is available, and it's CC, which isn't exactly a propriatry programme.
I get that these terms do have specific meanings, but it bothers me that those meanings are so restrictive as to be unintuitive to someone not steeped in the dogma of the community.
These people made the source openly available and, by the CC license applied, can't it be modified and redistributed? That feels like "openness" to me. Thus, this feels like "open source", but technically the open source proprietors haven't opened the term "open source", so it's not.
Or have I misunderstood the license in this case? I admit, I am posting before looking, because the time it would take to look could make my post irrelevant.
Correction: I just went and looked. The license acts as I expected and has a digestible compact form for easy consumption.
Now I've gone and looked at the OSI site, and the CC license is not one they have approved. Yet they provide the material on the OSI site as CC licensed.
This distinction suddenly just seems dumb. Can someone elucidate it, or its use, please?
These people made the source openly available and, by the CC license applied, can't it be modified and redistributed? That feels like "openness" to me. Thus, this feels like "open source", but technically the open source proprietors haven't opened the term "open source", so it's not.
Or have I misunderstood the license in this case? I admit, I am posting before looking, because the time it would take to look could make my post irrelevant.
Correction: I just went and looked. The license acts as I expected and has a digestible compact form for easy consumption.
Now I've gone and looked at the OSI site, and the CC license is not one they have approved. Yet they provide the material on the OSI site as CC licensed.
This distinction suddenly just seems dumb. Can someone elucidate it, or its use, please?
The problem is the "NC" = non-commercial. It is, when you think about it, a very strong restriction on what you can do with it. I totally get that the author doesn't want somebody to come along and go make money on the back of his work.
But let's say that you download the code, enhance it and put it on your Github for the world to see. Great, you're allowed to do that[1]. But what if you're a contractor and your Github is part of your public profile, i.e. your professional marketing material? You could very well be in breach of the NC clause.
That's why FOSS enthusiast tend to be a little purist about it. OSI and FSF approved licenses contain no such ambiguity.
Also, there's the down-watering of the term itself. RMS actively opposes the term "open source" because it's less free than his "free software" definition, the success of which he considers OSI to leech on. I'm not even sure how open source is less free than free software (although I'm sure it is), but I agree with the concern that the term open source should be protected to include the concern of absolutely free usage.
1: Although you could construct the argument that since Github is a commercial entity that benefits from showcasing code on their website, it's actually a commercial usage.
But let's say that you download the code, enhance it and put it on your Github for the world to see. Great, you're allowed to do that[1]. But what if you're a contractor and your Github is part of your public profile, i.e. your professional marketing material? You could very well be in breach of the NC clause.
That's why FOSS enthusiast tend to be a little purist about it. OSI and FSF approved licenses contain no such ambiguity.
Also, there's the down-watering of the term itself. RMS actively opposes the term "open source" because it's less free than his "free software" definition, the success of which he considers OSI to leech on. I'm not even sure how open source is less free than free software (although I'm sure it is), but I agree with the concern that the term open source should be protected to include the concern of absolutely free usage.
1: Although you could construct the argument that since Github is a commercial entity that benefits from showcasing code on their website, it's actually a commercial usage.
Awesome! Thanks to you and icebraining for the responses. The Non-Commercial distinction makes sense.
To be clear though, would a CC BY or CC BY SA license be fine, then? It's not listed on the OSI Approved Licenses list (which is the issue others took earlier in the thread, or so I thought), but those would appear to serve the same ideals that approved licenses do. If that wouldn't be fine, I'd love to better understand why not.
To be clear though, would a CC BY or CC BY SA license be fine, then? It's not listed on the OSI Approved Licenses list (which is the issue others took earlier in the thread, or so I thought), but those would appear to serve the same ideals that approved licenses do. If that wouldn't be fine, I'd love to better understand why not.
I don't know what's the OSI position, but they're considered Free by the FSF/GNU, although they'd prefer if people used something else, since they're GPL-incompatible.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
The rhetoric that tends to be thrown around is that CC licenses aren't specifically designed for code, and that there are other licenses that accomplish the same thing but cover your bases better.
Is there an OS-type license that includes a NC clause?
(Yes, I understand that true OS licenses can't have that restriction by definition, but I hope the intent of my question is clear.)
(Yes, I understand that true OS licenses can't have that restriction by definition, but I hope the intent of my question is clear.)
Creative Commons like this project uses?
The FSF and OSI are both clear about what liberties a licence must give to people for it to be called open source / free software, and "must allow commercial reuse" is one of them.
Software that includes a non commercial clause doesn't get built upon much and so clauses like that don't get much traction.
The FSF and OSI are both clear about what liberties a licence must give to people for it to be called open source / free software, and "must allow commercial reuse" is one of them.
Software that includes a non commercial clause doesn't get built upon much and so clauses like that don't get much traction.
As far as I know, there isn't any free licensed license¹ for software that includes that clause, but in theory nothing prevents you from taking e.g. the MIT license and adding that clause yourself. IANAL, YMMV.
¹ As written works they are, licenses are themselves subject to copyright, so you can't just copy someone else's licenses and use it yourself.
¹ As written works they are, licenses are themselves subject to copyright, so you can't just copy someone else's licenses and use it yourself.
[deleted]
The definition of open source / free software is quite short and succinct, as can be seen by the Free Software Defintion (aka "Four Freedoms") ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition ), the Debian Free Software Guidelines ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) and Open Source Definition ( http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ).
The absolute deal breaker with CC-NC-SA that would stop it dead from being "open source" is the "NC" or "non-commercial" clause.
For someone just playing around, this isn't too much of a problem. But when you start building & distributing it, you start to run into headaches. e.g. If you were to improve this lots and make it way better, and put it on your website, would you be allowed to have Google Ads on your webpage? Is that a commercial use of this? You can never sell a computer fully loaded with linux and this game, cause that's a commercial use, etc.
Imagine
The absolute deal breaker with CC-NC-SA that would stop it dead from being "open source" is the "NC" or "non-commercial" clause.
For someone just playing around, this isn't too much of a problem. But when you start building & distributing it, you start to run into headaches. e.g. If you were to improve this lots and make it way better, and put it on your website, would you be allowed to have Google Ads on your webpage? Is that a commercial use of this? You can never sell a computer fully loaded with linux and this game, cause that's a commercial use, etc.
Imagine
Just to explain it: It's the "NC" (noncommercial) part. From the OSI:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling (...) the software
And the FSF:
A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling (...) the software
And the FSF:
A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.
I'm curios, the difinition of open source implies (demands) more than making the source code available?
Just in case I'm not talking in a broad sense, I'm asking whether just being able to see the code is enough to consider a piece of software open source.
Thabks
Just in case I'm not talking in a broad sense, I'm asking whether just being able to see the code is enough to consider a piece of software open source.
Thabks
the difinition of open source implies (demands) more than making the source code available?
Yes.
Essentially, you have to provide the source, and also allow people to make & distribute derived works based on it. This CC-NC-BY licence does not allow you to distribute derived works for commercial purposes. Lots of companies use open source software in commercial purposes.
Yes.
Essentially, you have to provide the source, and also allow people to make & distribute derived works based on it. This CC-NC-BY licence does not allow you to distribute derived works for commercial purposes. Lots of companies use open source software in commercial purposes.
[deleted]
It depends who you ask. The OSI have a definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). It isn't the only definition, but it's probably the only definition self-important enough to have its own webpage. Some people get angry if you don't agree with that definition, but there's no real reason to consider it privileged above the lay definition ("the source is available").
Thankfully OSI was unable to get a trademark on "open source" so people are at liberty to use the term as they please. I accept the OP's use of the term. You might reject it but please say why you don't think it should be considered to be open source.
It's open source, but not free software.
The OSI tried to get a trademark on the term "open source" to prevent it being used outside what they want, but it was denied as too broad a claim IIRC.
As such there is no canonical definition of "open source", however in the context of open source software, this would not be considered an open source code.
There are very very few things that are "open source" but not "free software". The main difference is ideological and/or tribal.
As such there is no canonical definition of "open source", however in the context of open source software, this would not be considered an open source code.
There are very very few things that are "open source" but not "free software". The main difference is ideological and/or tribal.
Not according to the OSI. So I guess you could say it's open source, but not Open Source.
I've always been fond of referring to such a thing as "source available" - and commercial software such as Radiator where you only get an un-obfuscated version of the source with a purchase as "source supplied".
"Available" just seems like a better word than "open" for this sort of case.
(the author apologises for overuse of quotes in the above but preferred to be consistent even at the potential cost of some irritation and/or incorrect usage)
"Available" just seems like a better word than "open" for this sort of case.
(the author apologises for overuse of quotes in the above but preferred to be consistent even at the potential cost of some irritation and/or incorrect usage)
I've been playing Super Mario World for 15 years and I died a couple of times in the first level. I think running and jumping does not "feel right" as in SMW.
I've just tried to compare the controls and they seems to behave exactly the same, so I don't know what it is — probably it's because I play this kind of game better with a controller.
I've just tried to compare the controls and they seems to behave exactly the same, so I don't know what it is — probably it's because I play this kind of game better with a controller.
No, it's not just that. I've played the NES and SNES versions of Mario on an emulator. The controls on Mari0 do feel rather clunky in comparsion. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is though.
yup control's are one of the most important aspects in a platformer of this type. Look at a game like super meat boy, which imo has control's even better then the mario games(which is saying quite a bit.) They spent A LOT of time just experimenting and fine tuning because they completely make or break the game. Anyone that played super meat boy knows exactly what i'm talking about the, the game would just be too frustrating if the control's wheren't so tight.
As an aside i think a good setup for this type of game would be using an xbox360/ps3 controller, the directional pad to control mario, shoulder button L1 to jump and L2 to run/shoot fireballs, the right analog stick to control the portal gun and shoulder buttons R1/R2 to shoot the portal gun
As an aside i think a good setup for this type of game would be using an xbox360/ps3 controller, the directional pad to control mario, shoulder button L1 to jump and L2 to run/shoot fireballs, the right analog stick to control the portal gun and shoulder buttons R1/R2 to shoot the portal gun
I second that. Loved the concept, but the portal gun in the game is very inconvenient.
The former submission with links to other Portal mashups: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2939097
Not played Mari0 yet, but I loved Not Tetris from the same authors.
Not played Mari0 yet, but I loved Not Tetris from the same authors.