It's free elsewhere first and partially funded by taxpayers.

So what freedoms exactly GPL guarantees that, say MIT, Apache and Zlib does not? Because let's just look through the emty talk and misleading promises of the "preamble" and look what it actually does and how it works in practice. Shall we? If we do that then we discover that not only GPL dos not give any more "freedoms" that are already guaranteed by law but it actually tries to take away your freedoms that you otherways would have. Right? Burdening with obligations and taking away freedom is quite the opposite of "Freedom" and "Libery". So that definitely makes it godawful.

More precisely GPL tries to take away your freedom to modify and distribute (by bundling them together). Which, by the way, ARE guaranteed by MIT, Apache and Zlib. Which is no surprise since those licenses were designed to advance science and technology. Unlike GPL which was designed only to advance monopolies. So if we are talking about freedoms then GPL fails on it's own promises, making it double godawfulness.

Awesome,,, Thanks for this free game,,, Hope thats your next game will be a success.

I'm assuming you don't know Stallman or don't understand him...

GPL was made to protect the (any)user, but above else; it prevents that your work is not misused and hidden in some obscure, proprietary software, and all changes benefits others as you are required to share it. I mean, in a perfect world we all share, but we all know some don't like to share. Yes, some could use the "clean room" method but that's beside the point.

MIT and Apache (they're almost the same) have no restrictions which means your work or any derivatives might end up closed and dead (end), and you don't have to share any modifications.

Further, the MIT license doesn't say anything about "open source" or even "source" and for some it's too little specific. Unlike computer crashing and backups being lost or something, patents here are a wildcard - you can get sued long after if someone decides to patent something down the road.

In short, they all prevents you from being sued, and we all know how everyone loves to sue anyone over everything in the US, but GPL and Apache gives you the most protection (in different ways).

The way I see it; GPL for the individual author that want to protect their work and their users, and Apache for organizations that don't want to share.

GPL is protected against patent trolls, and in a sense, the Linux Foundation protects you as a user and/or as an author, also in the future. F.ex. in 2019, Rothschild Patent Imaging tried to extort GNOME, and years before that SCO tried to attack Linux... and now SCO is at it again:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/sco-linux-fud-returns-from-the-dead (2021)

EDIT: And no (unless I've forgotten something), GPL doesn't say you can't get money for your work (as it's beer < libre).

Oh I hadn't seen all the answers, sorry for the late reply
A link no... I read it on his Discord.

I just found the place, (Image for English speakers)
He said a week ago: "i though about putting it complete open source".
Yes sorry I remembered that Loria had a great chance to become Open Source, and seeing it free here I thought it's done!
I didn't remember the exact phrase.
Maybe I was a bit fast, if nobody finds the code.
If that's the case I'm sorry.

https://liquidationgame.com/

You used Galaxi, the PMs don't come to you.

Thanks GOG and thanks to the developers.

The freedom to use and study modified versions of free software. GPL v3 also guarantees the freedom from tivoization, ie dishonest hardware vendors who deny you freedom to choose which software to run on hardware you purchased from them.

GPL ensures that every released modification of the free software will also be free, and you won't find yourself in an embrace-extend-extinguish situation after a nefarious corporation takes a popular free program, "enhances" it with proprietary extensions locked with patents and a proprietary license, and then suddenly everybody uses proprietary version and free software gets abandoned.

GPL does not burden the users with anything. The only thing that may be regarded as a burden is on persons who want to release a modified version, and that is just an obligation to release it under GPL.

It works great in practice, ensuring that many foundational software pieces are and will forever be available in source form.

It does not, where did you get such nonsense? You're free to modify and not distribute GPL'd software. You're also free to distribute and not modify. The only thing you must do is that if you do modify the software and do distribute it, then you must license it under GPL (and that means you must allow your customers access to the source code, which guarantees their freedom to use it however they want).

You evidently don't know what you're talking about.

GPL is a creation of Free Software Foundation designed to prevent corporations from taking free software and turning it into proprietary software.

Like many others have said already, thank you for the game and it also looks like Warcraft II to me (at least visually that is). Definately reminds me of the good old '90s. Just a shame I'm terrible at these kind of games, ahah. ._.

Loria developer Vinclav acknowledged that Most of RTS networking is based on Deterministic simulation engine - and unity is not one of those. This quote was taken from a 2019 news post in which he goes on at length why there isn't going a multiplayer mode even though 2 months prior he promised they'd make it work. Source Unless someone is willing to implement a third-party solution, because Unity obviously doesn't offer one of its own, for an instance Mirror or MLAPI, there will be no multiplayer. Allegedly Unity developers are working on their own solution now. It remains to be seen how theirs is going to look like and what types of genres it will be good for.

I also got a question in re source code. Can someone point me to where Mr. Vinclav says that Loria is not only offered free of charge but also released as open-source? If it's indeed available, where can I download and/or take a look at it? In case someone has had the chance to take a look at it, what's the language used to write the game? C#? Mono-Script? Java?

If it's a Unity game, then it was written in C#. That's the only language Unity has support for.

This is true - but an indie game is typically not an industrial product but a personal piece of art.
When people care and want to create something, it is not only about the money - and if a program is created
in the right spirit, it is not that difficult to keep it up running ...
Fire and forget is not the right way - and such a game is never good - even such games are called triple A -
lack of love and thus quality shows ...

Thanks for sharing this!

The way I understand what he wrote is that Liquidiation will be based in part on Loria's code. Because he is afraid to compromise their new project he is not going to share Loria source-code. This means that there is no source code available for download right now.

Merci pour l’explication.
Après l'avoir lue cent fois, je n’avais toujours pas réussi à obtenir cette clarté.
Désolé pour tous ceux qui voulaient utilisé Loria dans un projet personnel, je me sens un peu honteux.

You are welcome! Imho. you've got nothing to be ashamed of. I also had difficulty understanding what it was he was trying to say.

Rereading what he said: technically I could release liquidation if the codebase came out of it can also be interpreted as follows:

It would be technically possible to release Loria's code once Liquidation has been released and its source code has been removed.

It doesn't make sense, though. Since Liquidation is based on Loria's source/framework/assets, why on earth would he ever remove any of Liquidation's code to clear the way for Loria to going open-source?

The only realistic chance for us to see Loria going open-source is when they fail to meet Liquidation's kickstarter goal of Euro 25.000 until July 10. They are still 13.947 short and there's not much time left so good luck!