It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Added the question about keeping the current API and the future of Galaxy to the GOG Q&A:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/questions/are_you_going_to_keep_the_current_downloader_api_after_the_galaxy_comes_out
Post edited October 14, 2014 by shmerl
I have seen some people are messing around concepts. Open source is not free software (or libre software which I prefer to use as free can stand for both "freedom" or "free of charge"). Open source is just that, everyone can see the source. Libre software is that and more: use it for any purpose, see the source and change it to suit your needs, redistribute copies and improve the program and share your improvements.

I think the ideal would be Gallaxy to be libre software, but if not it should be at least open source.
avatar
DracoMagister: Open source is just that, everyone can see the source.
No, it is not.
"3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works..."
avatar
DracoMagister: Open source is just that, everyone can see the source.
avatar
siulebuo: No, it is not.
"3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works..."
Sorry, I'd have to do a little research before posting, I didn't know that open source allowed derived works. But my main point is that libre software is a much wider concept.
avatar
DracoMagister: Libre software is that and more: use it for any purpose, see the source and change it to suit your needs, redistribute copies and improve the program and share your improvements.
The two concepts you mention let you use the software in the forms you say.
And, by the way, some people here name FOSS (Free Open Source Software) that is the union of the two: Free Software + Open Source Software (o como tú los conoces: Software libre y Software de código abierto).
Please continue the discussion for the new wishlist entry here, since comments in the wishlist section aren't very suitable for it.
avatar
DracoMagister: I have seen some people are messing around concepts. Open source is not free software (or libre software which I prefer to use as free can stand for both "freedom" or "free of charge"). Open source is just that, everyone can see the source. Libre software is that and more: use it for any purpose,
Or, less... be careful with the FSF/free software movement, they are willing to trade of usefulness for political goals... (see GCC/emacs disaster, the balkanization of the community due to GPLv3 or the freeCAD sabotage)

Infact, the Open source movement is really concerned with re-usability of software and code and providing solutions to the people, the FSF movement is focused on the political goal of making everything GPL-software (and not caring about practical results).

(Also, it seems you mixed up open source with source available/shared source licenses.)

avatar
DracoMagister: Sorry, I'd have to do a little research before posting, I didn't know that open source allowed derived works. But my main point is that libre software is a much wider concept.
Seeing the practical work of the FSF I find their self-claim here more and more suspicious.,,,
Post edited May 11, 2015 by shaddim
avatar
shmerl: Please continue the discussion for the new wishlist entry here, since comments in the wishlist section aren't very suitable for it.
No problem. In general I like open source but I see that open source is often not really suitable for businesses, so I would not recommend it for GOG. I also guess they won't do it anyway.

Let's look at the (dis)advantages from a non-ideological point of view:

Pros of an open source Galaxy client:
- more contributions from volunteers
- more transparency
- faster security response
- easier forking
- more competition

Cons of an open source Galaxy client:
- spread of knowledge (also to competitors)
- loss of control

The pros certainly would improve development but only indirectly and maybe not that much to outweigh the cons which for any company certainly look very severe. So I could understand if GOG does not want it.

However I would prefer if they make the API open and stable, maybe also the internal workings to some extent, so you can have a bit of competition.

If custom open source downloaders are possible, I would be satisfied.
Post edited May 11, 2015 by Trilarion
From the Galaxy FAQ:
10. Can we edit, modify, or tweak GOG Galaxy?

If you like to tinker, feel free to start building your own features or even entire clients compatible with GOG Galaxy, assuming you can figure things out right now. We won't actively work against attempts to improve the GOG Galaxy experience, although we can't promise not to break anything as we continue to develop our own tools and infrastructure.
https://www.gog.com/galaxy#glx-faq

That’s not a free license, but it sounds like a good starting point.
avatar
Trilarion: Cons of an open source Galaxy client:
- spread of knowledge (also to competitors)
- loss of control

If custom open source downloaders are possible, I would be satisfied.
There is no loss of control. GOG retain control of the master branch and can reject pull requests at their discretion. To claim loss of control is simply FUD.
avatar
themadnun: There is no loss of control. GOG retain control of the master branch and can reject pull requests at their discretion. To claim loss of control is simply FUD.
This is a misunderstanding. I meant loss of control over how their content is used. If they only have one official closed source client there is only one way to use it. If there is an open source client instead, there will be also competing open source clients which might make things different = loss of control for GOG. That's how I meant it.

Hope that settles the confusion.
avatar
themadnun: There is no loss of control. GOG retain control of the master branch and can reject pull requests at their discretion. To claim loss of control is simply FUD.
avatar
Trilarion: This is a misunderstanding. I meant loss of control over how their content is used. If they only have one official closed source client there is only one way to use it. If there is an open source client instead, there will be also competing open source clients which might make things different = loss of control for GOG. That's how I meant it.

Hope that settles the confusion.
I fail to see how open-sourcing the client would result in a loss of control. Given that there's no Steamworks DRM, it's all in the protocol and that can be reverse-engineered. (The old GOG Downloader protocol already has been in the form of LGOGDownloader)

Heck, from what I've seen Galaxy is quite similar to the Desura client (a shell around specialty web pages) and the only hiccup that had was when Linden Labs (briefly) bought Desura and ended up having to toss out a bunch of contributions because their contributors didn't want to change to a different license.
Post edited May 11, 2015 by ssokolow
avatar
ssokolow: ...it's all in the protocol and that can be reverse-engineered. ...
But that is work and may not be a 100% reliable. I say that not wanting to make FUD, or is there for example a reverse-engineered, open source Steam client? Given the higher user numbers of Steam it should come earlier than a reverse engineered GOG client.
Post edited May 11, 2015 by Trilarion
avatar
ssokolow: ...it's all in the protocol and that can be reverse-engineered. ...
avatar
Trilarion: But that is work and may not be a 100% reliable. I say that not wanting to make FUD, or is there for example a reverse-engineered, open source Steam client? Given the higher user numbers of Steam it should come earlier than a reverse engineered GOG client.
Steam is a DRM platform.

1. There's insufficient impetus. If you demand the kind of control Steam's official client doesn't grant, you'll probably already be going the easier routes of either buying the game from a service like GOG or Humble or cracking it.

2. There's fear that Steam could exercise their contract-given right to revoke your entire library if they don't like what you're doing. Even if GOG didn't come across as generally friendly and accommodating, DRM-free games can be backed up offline.

3. Any successful DRM client is going to put a fair amount of work into obfuscating their binaries and protocol that'd just be a massive waste of effort in a DRM-free system.

Plus, no Windows or MacOS equivalent to LGOGDownloader exists. It came about because there was no official Linux client.
avatar
themadnun: There is no loss of control. GOG retain control of the master branch and can reject pull requests at their discretion. To claim loss of control is simply FUD.
avatar
Trilarion: This is a misunderstanding. I meant loss of control over how their content is used. If they only have one official closed source client there is only one way to use it. If there is an open source client instead, there will be also competing open source clients which might make things different = loss of control for GOG. That's how I meant it.

Hope that settles the confusion.
That's incorrect, since GOG plan to publish the protocol enabling third party clients anyway, which means they don't plan to exercise the "control" in your sense. So what are they losing exactly by opening their own client?

I can think only of one downside that open source projects bring - they require more management. I.e. someone has to review bugs filed by the community, work with the community in general and so on. If resources are very limited - then it's an extra burden which some can't cope with. But hopefully GOG is not in that position, and they already allow filing bugs for Galaxy and get community feedback. So opening their client won't change much in this regard.
Post edited May 11, 2015 by shmerl