@gonger, you are right. Of course, this is only my conclusion, and it's up to anyone to reach their own conclusions, but with a lack of information, I admit this is not too easy.
So let me explain a few points.
License taintIt is true that the source code is freely available. It is true that in the Free Software movement, source code is freely available. However, everything else in the PlaneShift project is protected by proprietary licenses. I am not saying that this is a bad thing or that PS authors are criminals for that, but this means that PlaneShift is not "free as in freedom." And that it means that it can't be put up to the same standards as other software that calls itself open source, because they usually imply the Free Software aspect of it.
To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, I recommend checking out the
Free Software Foundation, especially the part about licensing. Again, my point is not that PS devs are evil, just that this is not, and never was, the spirit that the open source movement is following.
Cover companyIn the FOSS community, everything is about not-for-profit organizations. There is no "working for" the organization, no sense of "employment" or "becoming a dev," everyone who wants to help just does that. While PS doesn't pay the team, the structure seems - for an outside viewer - closer to a traditional company than the openness of FOSS kinda organizations / foundations. You have to get in the team to be able to do anything. Their game content is secret and protected. They do not tolerate forks, and only even allow them because it's kind of impossible not to, with the source code being freely available. How is this not the very definition of "proprietary?"
And again, I am not saying that this means they are evil, only that you can't hold them to the same standards as "true" FOSS projects. For reference, check out the
Wikipedia article for the definition of proprietary. Keep in mind that a), Wikipedia is heavily biased towards the FOSS movement and doesn't hesitate to make the word "proprietary" sound like the most evil thing ever, and b) this obviously mostly implies to server-side, non-"free" (again, "as in freedom," that means: not freely available, rather than "as in beer," which means available at no cost) part of PS.
Anti-competitive behaviorThis one you should take with a grain of salt. I have seen evidence of this, but since I'm not producing it here, take it as a personal opinion. The PS team does not want other projects to use their source code. It is disallowed to talk about certain things in this forum (so I hope this post won't get deleted), but suffice to say that the team, or rather the team lead, is of the opinion that people who want to work with the PS source code should work on PS. And I can completely understand that, there's nothing wrong with that. But doing that while also claiming you are an open source project just doesn't seem to make sense, in my mind.
And of course I respect people sacrificing their spare time to make a completely free-as-in-beer game. You just can't compare that to a FOSS project, and that is what people are doing in this thread, and have done so many times before. That's why people get angry and frustrated, because they believe the project to be something it is not, because that was falsely communicated.
@Eonwind: I hope at least the last paragraph showed a bit why I think that this is precisely on topic. People hold PS up to the wrong standards, because they see "open source" and compare it with free-and-open-source software and wonder why nothing matches. I think that this confusion wouldn't arise if the game was marketed as a freeware game that allows access to its source code, and allows avid community members to join the dev team and help build it. And I don't think you're doing yourself a favor by posting ad-hominem attacks against someone who is trying to clear up a confusion, even if my initial post lacked actual information and I see how it could be understood as mean-spirited. I apologize if that's what happened.
And about having no idea about how the videogame world works, well I know that there is one large commercial company called Valve, who allows other people far more access to their IP than PS does, and even offers a platform that allows others to sell games they made that not only take inspiration from Valve's IP, but actually use it and develop it. Imagine someone trying to make a PS fan game called Yliakum Stories: Boeden, you would just laugh at them if they'd ask you whether they can use some of your protected secret art for it. Late alone charge for it! But again. That is okay, that is your decision. Just don't pretend like you're the holy grail of freedom, just because people are allowed to look at your source code and maybe even submit a patch that will be ignored forever.
