Libregamewiki talk:Rejected games list

Regarding El ocaso de Sara: It seems the reason this game was rejected because of it using the Newton physics engine. I read that Newton has been released under a free license now, so maybe this game doesn't have to be rejected anymore? /Cire

Moved to Libregamewiki:Suggested games. --AVRS 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Rechecking Stunt Rally

I suggest to check the status of Stunt Rally again. It may be now the case that this game can be removed from this list.

Stunt Rally was rejected because some of its media were non-free. Stunt Rally had now an update which replaced a lot of media files. The motivation of this was to have better quality and to get rid of copyrighted content in the process. I do not know if now all the content is under a free license now. --Wuzzy (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (CEST)

Poor usage of the term “freeware”

I suggest to remove usage of the term “freeware”, because there is no really broad accepted meaning. Some may mean by “freeware” only “software that costs nothing” and don’t imply any legal or other restrictions. Some others also imply restrictions by using the term. This page is even worse, it applies the term “freeware” to data as well. So I suggest to avoid the term “freeware” altogether.

Therefore, “freeware” should not be a reason to reject a game. Justify it with “proprietary software” or “copyright restrictions” (if this is actually the case), which is clearer than just “freeware”.

List of games which are definitately proprietary, I will rewrite the entries to replace the term “freeware” soon:

• Angband
• C-Dogs SDL
• Knytt
• Knytt Stories
• Nelly's Rooftop Garden
• Planet M.U.L.E.

List of games where it is unclear if the usage of the word “freeware” may just have meant “at no cost” with no other implications:

• OpenRA
• Within a Deep Forest

It needs to be examined wheather there are actually legal restrictions in place or not. --Wuzzy (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2014 (CEST)

Un-reject UFO:AI

The UFO:AI folks have made a serious effort to get rid of all non-free or unclear media. With the release of 2.5, this goal has been achieved. UFO:AI should be removed from this list.

Here is the full list of media licenses: http://ufoai.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ufoai/ufoai;a=blob;f=LICENSES

Here are the statistics: http://ufoai.org/licenses/index.html

Extract from today:

• 2983 - GNU General Public License 2.0 or later
• 2035 - GNU General Public License 2.0
• 559 - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
• 261 - Public Domain
• 85 - MIT/X11 license (GPL compatible)
• 60 - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
• 48 - GNU General Public License 3.0 or later
• 35 - Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
• 12 - MIT License
• 4 - Open Font License
• 4 - GNU General Public License 3.0 and Open Font License
• 1 - see umefont-readme_license.html

The last license ([1]) contains this: “These fonts are free software. Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute it, with or without modification, either commercially and noncommercially. THESE FONTS ARE PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ WITHOUT WARRANTY.”

Bye. --Wuzzy (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (CEST)

Hey Wuzzy! Unfortunately looks like there still is something not quite right. This file http://sourceforge.net/p/ufoai/code/ci/master/tree/LICENSES lists 5 items without a license, radiant/bitmaps/texwindow_uniformsize.png, contrib/7th.zip, contrib/scripts/compile_po.bat, contrib/scripts, update_potfiles_in.bat and src/tools/blender/md2tag_test.blend. Some items don't list an author. All and all they've done some nice progress and are getting awfully close to being free! GNUbie (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2014 (CEST)

Hi GNUbie! I have talked to the UFO:AI folks and I was told that none of the files you mentioned is part of the game anymore. Here is the reply: http://ufoai.org/forum/index.php/topic,8749.msg63171.html#msg63171 --84.159.143.57 22:20, 3 September 2014 (CEST)

Like DarkRain comments in that thread if they distribute something it must have a license. So not quite there yet it seems. Monitoring the thread. GNUbie (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2014 (CEST)

Greetings GNUbie. As far as I can tell, nothing in the contrib/ tree is distributed in the downloadable sourcecode tarballs that users and distributions would download. My understanding is that they are used internally by the developers.

The file src/tools/blender/md2tag_test.blend was removed on october 9 2014: http://sourceforge.net/p/ufoai/code/ci/87ba73ef685b7ccdae999dddd46925506063fa17/

The license for the file radiant/bitmaps/texwindow_uniformsize.png is fixed in this commit: http://sourceforge.net/p/ufoai/code/ci/2ef60f197d78a5e39de5878bfff7fccc0b8ba534/tree/LICENSES?diff=554e4258d6198e8ce06af9de51bb13d399f2884d

For the record, I'm the norwegian translator of the game.--Solbu (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2015 (CET)

Hey Solbu! Looks like you're right, great! I'll undelete the old ufo:ai article. GNUbie (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (CET)

RedEclipse

According to the RedEclipse-FAQ:

 Red Eclipse itself and the Cube Engine 2 are under the zlib License.
 All content in the game is Free, and no more strict than the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license.
 For more details, see license.txt and trademark.txt.

Akashi-Font is released under OFL (SIL Open Font Licence 1.1), so that shouldn't be a problem either

see: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130429/1009029.html or http://code.metager.de/source/xref/redeclipse/data/fonts/akashi-license.txt --Dr. Azrael Tod (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2014 (CET)

The very first entry in this list says "Omitted" for copyright and license fields for several files... http://redeclipse.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/redeclipse/doc/all-licenses.txt?revision=5993

That means it's not free and thus cannot be included. GNUbie (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (CET)

Looks like RedEclipse and its data is now in Debian's main repository in the upcoming Debian version suggesting it's free, should be investigated. GNUbie (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (CET)

these directories (bin/* src/include/* src/lib/* src/enet/* src/site/* src/xcode/* game/mek/*) neither contain code nor content original to redeclipse, and are thus excluded from beeing declared as zlib/CC-BY-SA. That still doesn't mean RE is nonfree. Hell.. it's even called include/site/xcode/whatever. You can see that with one simple look at what you just read. --Dr. Azrael Tod (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (CET)

Unless there is a distribution without the non free files, RedEclipse does not comply with the requirements of LibreGameWiki. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (CET)

what? did you even read what i wrote? That these files aren't declared that doesn't mean they are closed-source parts. Just look at /src/lib, there you have SDL, enet (network-lib, BSD-Style) freetype and zlib. None of that is unfree. looking at src/xcode doesn't make any sense at all, same for binary-dirs with generated content. Why don't you go and claim what's unfree in your opinion instead of repeating this? --Dr. Azrael Tod (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2015 (CET)

I am referring to http://redeclipse.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/redeclipse/doc/all-licenses.txt, which says "Files: bin/* src/include/* src/lib/* src/enet/* src/site/* src/xcode/* game/mek/*, Copyright: Omitted, License: Omitted". Omitting copyright and license information is not acceptable, unless -as I sayed- there is a distribution without those files. --13:42, 18 February 2015 (CET)

yes, you repeated that now at least thrice. But still: that this file doesn't note that SDL is opensource doesn't make SDL closed-source. And that SVN is outdated since RE switched to a git repo on github. See: https://github.com/red-eclipse/base/blob/master/doc/license.txt

The correct address of the file in the git repository is https://github.com/red-eclipse/base/blob/master/doc/all-licenses.txt. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2015 (CET)

https://software.opensuse.org/package/redeclipse ships it officially which means it underwent strict commercially grade legal review to pass. I don't understand your concerns. This is about making a wiki entry, not getting sued for redistribution. Matthias (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2021 (CET)

Article Red Eclipse was created 2016-03-18 --Kribbel (talk)

C-Dogs SDL

Please remove C-Dogs SDL from the rejected list; the original data has been released as CC-BY - https://github.com/cxong/cdogs-sdl/blob/master/doc/README_DATA.md --Congusbongus (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2016 (CEST)

Article C-Dogs SDL was created 2018-12-20 --Kribbel (talk)

Unvanquished

Unvanquished does not contain any non-free shaderlab code anymore:

https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/blob/a395fc4f3f9c09024f8503220dbf845f8fe2c531/COPYING.txt

Time to unreject it?

CruzR (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2019 (CEST)

Unvanquished has been un-rejected. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2021 (CET)

Simutrans

Even Debian ships it. It uses an Open Source compliant license. While the Artistic license may not be the best choice, you are clearly overdoing it with your "libre" standards here. Matthias (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2021 (CET)

OpenRA

Given that OpenHV is now available using the OpenRA engine, I think it's time to remove OpenRA from the list since completely free games can be played in it. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (CET)

Article OpenRA was created 2022-06-06 --Kribbel (talk)

Warsow

There is now http://warfork.com/ which aimed at solely distributing via Steam, so they started out freely licensed but then quickly went proprietary again. According to the developers, it should be possible to create a "LibreSow" using https://github.com/TeamForbiddenLLC/warfork-free-soundpacks and https://github.com/TeamForbiddenLLC/warfork-free-textures while the engine was free the whole time. Matthias (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2021 (CEST)

Article Warfork was created 2021-12-27 --Kribbel (talk)