this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
35 points (92.7% liked)
Open Source
48147 readers
166 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't the LGPL make more sense for an engine? Otherwise it would be hard to make a proprietary game (read almost every game) even if you publish any changes you made to the engine.
Ooh, yes for for this case, the LGPL would be a good middle-ground for OP's concerns.
do mind that (and i'm pretty sure this still works with AGPL but this isn't gospel) you can have the engine be open source while keeping the assets proprietary and requiring they be purchased to actually sensibly play the game.
This is how the original DOOM works, there's an ocean of modified doom engines but you still have to buy the assets to play the proper actual DOOM game. You can use alternative asset packs but it'll look and sound like a fairly different game.
And of course it's vastly easier to create alternative assets for such a simple game, compared to the labour that would be involved in a larger modern game.