The Ren'Ai Archive (renai.us, RAA) all-in-one thread

[Samu-kun]

Wooaahhh... So that's why. ._.; Thanks for the explaination.

[denzil]

When talking on IRC, and idea occurred to me, that it would be good to have a view, where you could see games that don't obfuscate their script. This could be very helpful for people starting with Ren'Py. But on the other hand there would be probably some very old code that would cause more trouble than it would help.
So I wonder what other people think about it. Helpful or not?

[Adorya]

I think it's been already talked somewhere else, but obfuscating keep the player from looking in the source to beat the game too easily and ruining it so people tend to do it, and some do it only to partially protect their art, not their script.

[denzil]

I think it's been already talked somewhere else, but obfuscating keep the player from looking in the source to beat the game too easily and ruining it so people tend to do it, and some do it only to partially protect their art, not their script.

I know, but there are games that don't protect the script. I wasn't trying to ask others to open up their scripts. What I was trying to say was, that it could (possibly) be good to have a list of those games.

[PyTom]

I would suggest that we flag open source games. These are games that meet the open source definition, where the user is able to modify and redistribute the games. (Such games would be eligible for inclusion in various Linux distributions.)

[mikey]

I know, but there are games that don't protect the script. I wasn't trying to ask others to open up their scripts. What I was trying to say was, that it could (possibly) be good to have a list of those games.

Maybe such a list (games with unobfuscated script) is better suited for the Ren'Py wiki, as it's development-related? The Archive is more for those who play.

As for flagging open-source games for the purposes of redistribution - there are some games that I believe aren't explicitly open source, but the author has explicitly given permission for redistribution.

In any case, my view:
script information >> ren'py wiki
license information >> RAA (though personally, I think this is information that most people will not use - it's enough for visitors to know that the game is free to play)

[DaFool]

This could also be interpreted to be an underhanded encouragement of open-sourced free games. Not that Ren'Py can be used for commercial and obfuscated games, but pointing out this additional distinction would in fact be considered 'discriminatory' (not necessarily in the negative sense.)

I also wonder if the games which have more emotional investment in the art (i.e. the 'better' games) would tend to be non-open-sourced.

[PyTom]

This could also be interpreted to be an underhanded encouragement of open-sourced free games. Not that Ren'Py can be used for commercial and obfuscated games, but pointing out this additional distinction would in fact be considered 'discriminatory' (not necessarily in the negative sense.)

IMO, open source is something that should be encouraged, as it tends to move the state of the art along faster than closed source.

All categorization is discrimination, but in this case I don't think it's bad, any more than assigning age ratings or romance types to games is. Perhaps it might make sense to flag freely redistributable games and open source games as separate things.

[mikey]

I also wonder if the games which have more emotional investment in the art (i.e. the 'better' games) would tend to be non-open-sourced.

For me, obfuscation is mostly to prevent the player from "leafing to the back of the book to see the ending". It's more about protecting the player from himself than protecting the game from some unspeakable acts of copyright violation. Plus, obfuscation is a gentle reminder that the maker did not want people to see the inside of the game - for those who respect that and are willing to experience the game the way it was intended, this is often a clear enough sign. It's being polite, for me - I know that in a theatre the curtain is there for a reason, and that it covers up the technical bits and props that they don't want me to see. So I tend to respect that. And if I want to make a play myself, that's another mindset and I'm going to go the developer way in that case - registering as a helper or so. Then, it's okay to see the back stage.

In any case, I think that open source games are already developed more or less as open souce - generous feedback, open development and all. So there can be a lot of emotional investment, but it can still be okay to open source it. If on the other hand you like to work in a closed circle and not having people peek over your shoulder, so if your involvement is more private (not necessarily more emotional, just more private), then I think those people will tend to close source - so this is another factor in my opinion

EDIT:

IMO, open source is something that should be encouraged, as it tends to move the state of the art along faster than closed source..

To be honest, I think the choice should still be with the maker - I can generally see the encouragement in software programming somewhat as a logical argument, but in artictic expression, it's not so easy - in fact it really depends on the person. In any case, encouraging open source is fine, but at the right places - and I'm not sure I see the RAA as one of them. (even though, it has to be said it would be an extremely subtle encouragement - but again, an encouragement nevertheless).

Of course the RAA may re-evaluate its purpose, and then encouraging OS can be a valid message to have.

EDIT2:

All categorization is discrimination, but in this case I don't think it's bad, any more than assigning age ratings or romance types to games is.

In general, I agree with this, but I see this information as relevant to the player - the OS indication is not really relevant for the experience. Age rating and romance can give you a feel for what to expect, as can the fact that the game is free and made by enthusiasts. Whether or not the game is OS will not change the experience IMO, that's why I wrote in my post above that this information won't be all that useful to the majority of visitors.

Well, if I follow my own theory, then the year when the game was made is also not relevant. And to be honest, thinking about this... it really isn't.

[Wintermoon]

It seems to me that there are three separate issues here: permission to redistribute, permission to modify (and distribute the result), and availability of source code. Open source is generally understood to require all three.

[Jake]

It seems to me that there are three separate issues here: permission to redistribute, permission to modify (and distribute the result), and availability of source code. Open source is generally understood to require all three.

Not at all. Free Software is generally understood to require all three. "Open Source" just means... you know, that the source is open. That you can look at it. Not necessarily that you can distribute it or distribute your modifications.

Richard Stallman might like us to all believe the two are the same thing, but he's a dangerous loon. ;P

[PyTom]

Not at all. Free Software is generally understood to require all three. "Open Source" just means... you know, that the source is open. That you can look at it. Not necessarily that you can distribute it or distribute your modifications.

The open source definition does require that you are able to modify source code and redistribute your modifications. For all intents and purposes, Stallmanesque free software and open source software are the same thing, it's just that "free software" can have several other definitions ("I can download it for free"), while "open source" didn't exist as a term back in 1998 or so when it was coined.

[Jake]

The open source definition does require that you are able to modify source code and redistribute your modifications. For all intents and purposes, Stallmanesque free software and open source software are the same thing, it's just that "free software" can have several other definitions ("I can download it for free"), while "open source" didn't exist as a term back in 1998 or so when it was coined.

That particular definition requires that you are able to modify the source code, and that happens to be the one that the OSI uses. But then it would, since they deliberately based it on the Free Software ideals. The term has and still is used by people who aren't Free Software people to mean - well, source, that's open. In fact, Stallman himself wrote, in an article apparently dated 2007 (although I'm sure I recall reading it earlier):

However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code,” and most people seem to think that's what it means

He goes on to cite Neal Stephenson, someone who is not entirely ignorant of all matters technological, as describing Open Source software as exactly that - software that you can get the source code for. Admittedly, he goes on to use this as an argument for why people should use the term "Free Software" instead of "Open Source", and he's quite fanatical enough to be misinterpreting evidence to gain support for the phrase he likes instead of the one someone else likes, but regardless, I see the same opinion at work, and I work in a fairly large software house with many programmers. The generally understood meaning is that open-source software is simply software you can get the code for, and that it's a different thing to free software. What some arbitrary organisation has defined it as is fine for that organisation and for anyone who wants to meet their certification, but the OSI isn't nearly big enough to affect what the man on the street thinks. Evidence suggests that they're not big enough even to affect what the average programmer thinks.





Anyway, this is largely beside the point. What I'd note is that this definition is probably more useful, from a visual-novel game-making point of view, than the free-software one. Don't call it 'open-source' if you prefer to promulgate the OSI definition, but really, when it comes to the source code of a visual novel, I expect more people are interested in - say - the techniques DaFool used in creating the intro to Triona than in actually directly modifying the exact intro and using it in their own game. (And personally, since the "source code" files for a visual novel necessarily include all the dialogue and prose, as a creator I'd tend to be far happier making my own work 'source-accessible' or whatever you want to call it than FSF-free anyway...)

[Wintermoon]

Richard Stallman would say that, but

• He's pushing his own "Free Software" term as an alternative to "open source".
• He's a dangerous loon. .

Personally I use "open source" to describe software that is freely redistributable, modifiable, and has the source code available. I use "free software" to describe freeware and "Free Software" as a label for Stallman's belief that the GPL is the one true software license and all other software licenses are a crime against nature. I don't think I'm alone in this.

[ficedula]

You're certainly not alone, but Stallman and (to a lesser extent) the OSI have a lot to answer for, for promulgating terms which have a meaning related to yet crucially different to that which a straightforward interpretation of the words would give.

Anyway, this is largely beside the point. What I'd note is that this definition is probably more useful, from a visual-novel game-making point of view, than the free-software one. Don't call it 'open-source' if you prefer to promulgate the OSI definition, but really, when it comes to the source code of a visual novel, I expect more people are interested in - say - the techniques DaFool used in creating the intro to Triona than in actually directly modifying the exact intro and using it in their own game. (And personally, since the "source code" files for a visual novel necessarily include all the dialogue and prose, as a creator I'd tend to be far happier making my own work 'source-accessible' or whatever you want to call it than FSF-free anyway...)

True enough. Certainly one would imagine it's the particular way an effect was achieved that's of interest to most people - right?