Morning,

Due to LFS mainly being an online multiplayer simulator, I believe it is one of the few current commercial closed-source games/simulators that could really benefit and still profit very much from being released under an open-source license.

We all know that development of LFS is painfully slow (not a complaint, as a programmer my self I fully understand delays and real life gets in the way) due to the very small development team - and releasing LFS under an OSI approved license (such as the GNU LGPL or GPL) could radically change this, and improve LFS beyond what most of us can imagine right now. Further more, LFS can continue to profit from sales even if released as open-source, since it is perfectly legal to sell open-source software (in fact, the GNU/FSF encourage you to do so).

People would still buy a (race) license as they do now, which will enable them to race on servers - which would still contact the master server(s) as it does now, so on the server-side there can still be all the checks available to ensure that people have a license to race.

Questions that I can see people asking/saying:

• But that means anyone can edit the code? No, not at all. Sure, the source would be available for all to see, however this does not mean anyone and everyone can edit the official source code that gets distributed. The current developers and copyright holders still have the final say as to what goes into the code, in fact - they still control who has access to edit the official code. People would be able to review the code and send in patches upstream (to the LFS developers) which would get reviewed and possibly applied to the official code, and will make its way into future releases.
  

• People will be driving around in modified cars, too unfair! Again, no they wouldn't. Checks can be put in place to ensure things are the same - and realistically, how many people out there who use LFS have the ability to download the source code, do the needed changes and then re-compile LFS? Not many (I'm sure some can, though). This really wouldn't be an issue.
  

• Users could disable the security checks and race on servers! No. I'm assuming here that the security checks are done on the server-side. Hence, nothing would change on this point. Even if someone recompiles LFS to not do the auth-checks, that does not mean they can race. There is nothing stopping the master servers from denying data to be sent to the client, so if they don't auth - they don't get data, simply. Anyone who has setup a mail server (such as Postfix) will know what I am on about here, a similar thing can be done.
  

Can anyone edit the source code? Yes. Can anyone edit the official source code that gets distributed? No. There is a difference in the two =)

Many of those annoying bugs or quirks could have patches sent into the developers by many many people, meaning more things can be fixed/implemented between development cycles and would allow the current developers to work on main features that they really want to work on.

Of course, this all could not be possible for legal reasons depending on what the code uses etc, though it would be fantastic if the developers would consider release even parts of the code as open-source. It would bring the community closer to making a game for them, and having a say in the direction that LFS goes in (and getting it there faster).

If it was done to speed up development through user-made fixes, patches, etc., I reckon it would slow LFS development even more. Think of the amount of testing and code reviewing that the devs would then need to do to make sure it fixes the problem, and doesn't cause any more.

I'd hope that the source would be made available to licensed users in the future, but I disagree about it being fully open sourced. Then any demo user can get their hands on the source, remove all license protection and distribute amongst themselves. Which means drastically reduced license sales

*groan*

Quote :

If it was done to speed up development through user-made fixes, patches, etc., I reckon it would slow LFS development even more. Think of the amount of testing and code reviewing that the devs would then need to do to make sure it fixes the problem, and doesn't cause any more.

If the current development team felt certain regular patch submitters were good enough, they could always welcome them onto the team to sort the patches out. Which would reduce the work load as things grew. Sure, no sane dev would just blindly accept patches into the code.

I also hope that the current development team have unit-tests or some sort of test driven development to catch regressions! Other wise, things are already bad.

Quote :

I'd hope that the source would be made available to licensed users in the future, but I disagree about it being fully open sourced. Then any demo user can get their hands on the source, remove all license protection and distribute amongst themselves. Which means drastically reduced license sales

The server-side would still be closed source like it is today, and I'm hoping even now that the license protection is mostly done on the server-side, if not there is still many ways to get around it to-date .

Quote :

Have you just woken up?

No, but it is morning somewhere in the world.

Never gonna happen.

Quote from AlexC :

The server-side would still be closed source like it is today, and I'm hoping even now that the license protection is mostly done on the server-side, if not there is still many ways to get around it to-date .

License checking is done server-side, but the call to check the license is obviously done client-side. Remove this, and it doesn't contact the server for a license check

It's a nice idea, sure, but it's never going to happen. It's just too complicated, and has too much potential for an epic fail somewhere

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Never gonna happen.

I praise your ability to read the future, but do you have anything constructive to add, even if negative, such as - what reasons make you think it will never happen?

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

License checking is done server-side, but the call to check the license is obviously done client-side. Remove this, and it doesn't contact the server for a license check

It's a nice idea, sure, but it's never going to happen. It's just too complicated, and has too much potential for an epic fail somewhere

There is nothing stopping the server from denying data to the client, if the client does not do the needed auth checks (if you've ever setup a mail server, a similar thing happens, and is perfectly secure).

This idea might work in Utopia. What you are saying is: "Why do you use security doors on your houses when you can just have curtains? It would make your life easier. It's not like if somebody came for a visit when you're on vacation."

Make LFS open-source and in one week you will have a s..tload of LFS clones for free download.

Quote from breadfan :

This idea might work in Utopia. What you are saying is: "Why do you use security doors on your houses when you can just have curtains? It would make your life easier. It's not like if somebody came for a visit when you're on vacation."

Make LFS open-source and in one week you will have a s..tload of LFS clones for free download.

No, that is not what I'm saying. Yes, people could re-distribute the binary for free (depending on the license) - but what is LFS main business model? Online multiplayer - of which the master servers would still continue to be closed source. Would these people be able to race on the official LFS servers with no license? Just like today - no, they wouldn't. Would they want to? Yes, because this is where the experience of LFS comes from, hence they would still buy a license like they do today.

This is what I mean by LFS business model is one of few that could make this a viable, profitable option.

IMO, most likely the developers are dreaming a state of the art simulator and sharing the source code might be end of this dream.
Maybe their primary target is not selling/licensing and distributing more copy of LFS. Or maybe there is a thin line between decisions about making money from LFS and its level of quality.

They are in this business since long time, so I am sure they are aware of the possibilities that they can use as a leverage to reach their targets.

Bringing relatively new options on the table is still good though since no one is perfect.

Quote from AlexC :

and realistically, how many people out there who use LFS have the ability to download the source code, do the needed changes and then re-compile LFS?

And if one guy upload a tutorial on youtube ?

Quote from halo :

IMO, most likely the developers are dreaming a state of the art simulator and sharing the source code might be end of this dream.
Maybe their primary target is not selling/licensing and distributing more copy of LFS. Or maybe there is a thin line between decisions about making money from LFS and its level of quality.

They are in this business since long time, so I am sure they are aware of the possibilities that they can use as a leverage to reach their targets.

Bringing relatively new options on the table is still good though since no one is perfect.

True indeed, they are more than welcome to protect their code. Though making it open source wouldn't mean standards would slip and code quality would decrease. Code would still very much be reviewed and if coding style guidelines were published, everything would remain clean.

A project can be open-source and yet still deny any community input as well, remember.

They'd just need to rewrite the clients to use a different master server that doesn't ask for license and can also share the host list. Who needs the master server sources when it would be comparatively easy to simply write a new one? Since you'd have the sources of the client you could make the client accept any communication format you'd like.

Also Scawen himself has stated years ago when those discussions first came up, that he doesn't want to manage other people or have other people meddle with his code forcing him to review it or rewrite it if it interferes with other code parts. And unless you have very strictly enforced guidelines and someone who is dedicated to keeping things in order, open source simply sucks in many many aspects.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Quote from alex_du_77 :

And if one guy upload a tutorial on youtube ?

Compiling isn't a traditional "double click an EXE 'next next next'" thing. Besides check can still be in place on the master servers to ensure things are valid.

Also, many existing closed source games (including LFS right now) can be modified by the end-user, even without access to the source code. So this isn't really a new issue related to the license of code.

Quote from AndroidXP :

They'd just need to rewrite the clients to use a different master server that doesn't ask for license and can also share the host list. Who needs the master server sources when it would be comparatively easy to simply write a new one? Since you'd have the sources of the client you could make the client accept any communication format you'd like.

Indeed they could, though what would be the appeal? How many servers would they have running in their own network compared to the current official ones? Users would get a far better experience running on the official ones, than third party - which would be the same incentive that people get to buy a (race) license currently

Edit:

Quote :

that he doesn't want to manage other people or have other people meddle with his code forcing him to review it or rewrite it if it interferes with other code parts. And unless you have very strictly enforced guidelines and someone who is dedicated to keeping things in order, open source simply sucks in many many aspects.

People wouldn't be able to jump in and change the code without permission. In fact, they would never get their hands on the RCS/DVS system that is currently being used. Patches could be sent, but the developers can freely choose to ignore/decline/accept them. No one can tamper with the code.

Quote from AndroidXP :

Not. Gonna. Happen.

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=263151#post263151
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=50402#post50402
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=50365#post50365

Quote from AlexC :

Indeed they could, though what would be the appeal? How many servers would they have running in their own network compared to the current official ones? Users would get a far better experience running on the official ones, than third party - which would be the same incentive that people get to buy a (race) license currently

How do you know that? Do you really think everyone would still choose to pay for a license if somebody was able to take the code, rewrite it so the official master server is not involved and then distribute it for free? It's hard enough to get demo users to buy licenses when they only have 3 cars, give them all of the cars/tracks and it would be impossible.

Quote from AlexC :

People wouldn't be able to jump in and change the code without permission. In fact, they would never get their hands on the RCS/DVS system that is currently being used. Patches could be sent, but the developers can freely choose to ignore/decline/accept them. No one can tamper with the code.

The whole point of open source is that anybody can change anything without permission.

Quote from AlexC :

A project can be open-source and yet still deny any community input as well, remember.

Since I am not in this kind of open source stuff, maybe its a good idea.
If your idea is good enough than the devs will be evaluate it.
Who knows, maybe they choose to use your idea.

Quote from spookthehamster :

How do you know that? Do you really think everyone would still choose to pay for a license if somebody was able to take the code, rewrite it so the official master server is not involved and then distribute it for free? It's hard enough to get demo users to buy licenses when they only have 3 cars, give them all of the cars/tracks and it would be impossible.

I don't (and can't) know, though I can make educated guesses based upon past experiences. People are more likely to use the official master server network and race, many (not all) naturally want to race with large amount of users - of which the current network has, and would still have. So while sure, private networks may pop up and people go to them, that I do not deny - but the majority of people would still race with a (race) license

Edit: They would still need a master server somewhere due to how LFS works, so it is not as simple as removing the auth-code and distributing that, they would also have to setup their own network and advertise that for people to join.

Quote :

The whole point of open source is that anybody can change anything without permission.

Far from it, if that was the case then incredibly secure open source projects (think OpenSSH) would be incredibly insecure, as anyone could edit it and whack a security hole on it. Open Source projects are incredibly moderated and controlled as to who has access to the source code.

If you rock up to an open source project and ask for access, you'll be questioned about who you are, coding experience etc and you most likely wont get access until you have proven your self to others.

Can anyone edit the source code? Yes. Can anyone edit the official source code that gets distributed? No. There is a difference in the two =)

Quote from AlexC :

Indeed they could, though what would be the appeal? How many servers would they have running in their own network compared to the current official ones? Users would get a far better experience running on the official ones, than third party - which would be the same incentive that people get to buy a (race) license currently

Edit:


People wouldn't be able to jump in and change the code without permission. In fact, they would never get their hands on the RCS/DVS system that is currently being used. Patches could be sent, but the developers can freely choose to ignore/decline/accept them. No one can tamper with the code.

1) What makes you think that? I think that you are being a little naive here.
2) Give me the LFS source-code and I'll show you how I can tamper with the code...and I am no David Copperfield either.

Quote from breadfan :

1) What makes you think that? I think that you are being a little naive here.
2) Give me the LFS source-code and I'll show you how I can tamper with the code...and I am no David Copperfield either.

1) What makes you think they wouldn't?
2) Sure, you can edit the source *you* have, but does that mean you've edited the version that they will distributed? No, since you wouldn't have access to that version they will release, since you just edited your local copy and never sent the patches upstream for them to consider to include. Therefore, you couldn't edit tamper with the code.

Quote from AlexC :

1) What makes you think they wouldn't?
2) Sure, you can edit the source *you* have, but does that mean you've edited the version that they will distributed? No, since you wouldn't have access to that version they will release, since you just edited your local copy and never sent the patches upstream for them to consider to include. Therefore, you couldn't edit tamper with the code.

1) In the spirit of answering each other's question with another question, let me ask you this: Why are there so many opern-source Linux distributions? And another question: If Microsoft released the Windows 7 source-code, do you think everyone would still rather pay a lot for the "oroginal" if they could have the same (or maybe even improved) version of the OS? I know it's not LFS but the principle remains the same.

2) I think that you are missing my point so let me explain. What I meant previously was that if the devs released the source-code, what stops somebody else from plagiarizing (is that the correct word?) it and creating a clone, that would be free for all? The LFS license sales will probably drop.

Quote from breadfan :

1) In the spirit of answering each other's question with another question, let me ask you this: Why are there so many opern-source Linux distributions? And another question: If Microsoft released the Windows 7 source-code, do you think everyone would still rather pay a lot for the "oroginal" if they could have the same (or maybe even improved) version of the OS? I know it's not LFS but the principle remains the same.

There are so many Linux distributions due to technical differences/opinions of the author(s), target audience and to give people choice.

A Microsoft Windows example here is very different, and to answer that question - sure, people would use the free non-official Microsoft version. However, that is because you use Windows as-is, LFS is different in how it works (and is why I believe it being open source can work).

With LFS, for most the gameplay experience is online, that is mainly what LFS is for. Because of this, a (race) license can still be needed to connect to the master network and so the servers on the network. That, as today, would still cost people (and they pay now, so).

Quote :

2) I think that you are missing my point so let me explain. What I meant previously was that if the devs released the source-code, what stops somebody else from plagiarizing (is that the correct word?) it and creating a clone, that would be free for all? The LFS license sales will probably drop.

Nothing would stop them, and they could edit it all they wanted. Measures can/could be put in place to allow only clients which meet certain requirements to connect to the master servers, which would stop people making their own version with modified content and 'cheat' online. No sales would drop, since a (race) license would still be required to play on the master servers/network.

Quote from AlexC :

Nothing would stop them, and they could edit it all they wanted. Measures can/could be put in place to allow only clients which meet certain requirements to connect to the master servers, which would stop people making their own version with modified content and 'cheat' online. No sales would drop, since a (race) license would still be required to play on the master servers/network.

Thanks for explaining but I still don't understand, what prevents someone from creating a different master server? There are cracked servers for Counter Strike, craked servers for Battlefield and cracked servers for XY other games and those games aren't even open-source.

If I had the coding skill and LFS source-code, why shouldn't I create a rip-off game with my own master server that wouldn't require any licences, it would just maintain a lobby for races to meet and start races (simply a server browser). The game server is in the game already so the source-code for that would be accessible.

Remember what happened with the Half-life 2 leaked code? It wasn't even a finished version and some russian guys managed to make it into a playable game (although I haven't tried myself so don't quote me on the playability aspect).