DragonBox OpenSource Coding Competition - Rules (DRAFT!)

[Linux-SWAT]

Also the idea of "closed-source coders are better than open source coders" is so ridiculous i can't stop laughing.

 

[crow_riot]

Well just throwing in my 2cent here.


I don't get why anyone should be forced to release the source code if he/she doesnt want to. There could be good personal reasons not to release the source; I'm totally with Iprice, he's creating great games for the openpandora for free and needs/wants to create revenue somewhere else with his games. And nowadays the only way to ensure that, is to keep the source closed. Specially having the android market in mind where opensource software gets sold and the original developers dont get a dime for their work.

 

[iprice]

I have said that i would prefer it to be open to all (closed and open software) - not that it SHOULD be or that the competition would be better for it.

Now you're just mincing words. "It is your preference that it allow closed source software" is, for all intents and purposes, the exact same as you saying "it should allow closed source software" for the purposes of the request: either you are in favour of EvilDragon allowing closed source software, or you have no objection to an "source code" requirement. You are in the former, _wb_ and I are in the latter.

Sorry but it is you manipulating words I have NO objection to open source being a requirement - I have said that all along. Saying I have a preference that the comp allows closed source isn't the same as me saying that it should.


I have stated that I am happy to abide by the rules, whatever they may be. Why on earth are you and _wb_ making such a song and dance about this?I wasn't even close to the first person that mentioned opening the comp to closed source.


I am NOT anti-open software. How many times do I have to repeat this.

 

[WizardStan]

Sorry but it is you manipulating words I have NO objection to open source being a requirement - I have said that all along. Saying I have a preference that the comp allows closed source isn't the same as me saying that it should.

ED asked for feedback. Your feedback was that you would prefer it to allow closed source. Whatever wording you want to use it amounts to the exact same thing: you want ED to allow closed source software. I don't even know what you're arguing about!

 

[iprice]

I wasn't arguing. At no point have I said that someone else's opinion is wrong. You have on multiple occasions stated that my opinion is wrong, without actually understanding what I've said at all.


ED asked for opinions. I gave mine. That doesn't mean I want ED to change anything. ED doesn't have to listen to opinions or requests or advice.

 

[WizardStan]

You have on multiple occasions stated that my opinion is wrong, without actually understanding what I've said at all.

Where did I say you were wrong? You said you want (or "would prefer" if you want to mince words, they mean the same thing) it to allow closed source software. What I have said, the ONLY thing I have ever said, is that it is my belief that a contest that is intended to promote open consoles based on open source software would be hypocritical in allowing closed source entries. I have since asked, several times, if that is an understood position, that you can agree that the position I present is reasonable. I have strived to make it very clear that this is my opinion and asked for feedback on whether or not my opinion is valid. Instead of simply answering "yes" or "no", you have told me that others have mentioned wanting closed source software; that EvilDragon first mentioned allowing closed source software; that there are benefits to allowing closed source software; and that you never said you "wanted" it to allow closed source software, just that you "would prefer" it to allow closed source software. Absolutely none of those things addresses anything that I have said.

 

[b_o_b]

Still discussing this? Where is a crisismanager when you need 'em


Lets face it. Pandora wouldn't be here without open source software. The engine for the Pandora is open source software. A developer is more generous and more in the spirit of the OpenPandora philosophy when he releases the code. So I think the prizes should me more generous for open source software too. One category for closed source software only (with less prize money) seems fair to me and will give everybody an opportunity to participate. Closed source software is and should be appreciated too. Also not giving any prize for closed source isn't fun, there should be something to gain from this to make the competition more interesting.


If ED agrees I might even join the competition with my astonishing, too good to share, closed source demo 'hello Pandoraworld'

 

[erico]

I´m with the open choice, now we can have both, I don´t believe open or closed. skilled or not dev brings any advantage to whatever side.


The part I don´t understand, where people want to enforce open source, is the actual need to ENFORCE it.

 

[cubelindo]

I'm a lame programmer myself so I don't think I'll enter the competition but I'd like to ask improving an emulator (for example adding a front-end launcher with snapshot previews) would be valid


To be honest that would be what I'd like the most. I love browsing the games in Panmame or Stella and it would totally rock to have the same thing for UAE, Vice, Colem, ...


Just an idea for the smart guys out there

 

[_wb_]

The part I don´t understand, where people want to enforce open source, is the actual need to ENFORCE it.

I don't get why anyone should be forced to release the source code if he/she doesnt want to.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, or am I missing something? Is participation to the contest obligatory now?

 

[Ziz]

I am with _wb_.


Most of the reasons to not release the code seem to be commercial interests.


There is nothing to say against commercial interests, but in my opinion, you should choice, whether you want to gain a 200€ price money or money from selling your application/game.


I saw the RIOT competition, unfortunately most of the projects released there, only were for one or two different handhelds. :-\


With the code an in the game interested user has the possibility to compile the application/game for the system, (s)he wants.


However. You has still the option to pass the competition. Nobody is forced to take part.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

Not to mention cheating is easy when hiding the sources.

 

[diligentcircle]

I was considering writing essentially a Pandora-exclusive (free software, but dependent on the Pandora's controls for the proper game experience), but I don't think I'll do that if it is proudly shown alongside proprietary programs in the interest of "open handhelds". If you want to make the handhelds less "open" by introducing "closed-source" games, that's fine, but I'm not going to participate in the cheerful celebration of it.

 

[erico]

The part I don´t understand, where people want to enforce open source, is the actual need to ENFORCE it.

I don't get why anyone should be forced to release the source code if he/she doesnt want to.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, or am I missing something? Is participation to the contest obligatory now?

I´m not discussing participation on the compo, I´m discussing draft rules as presented.


The way I see, we have 2 branches on the open/closed source rules discussion:


1-it must be a rule to open source.


2-it must be a dev choice to either open or close.


I go for number 2, and that dosen´t mean I´m not going to release the source, depending on the project and my actual time ability to participate, it may be my interest to release it and also open gfx+sounds and info about the production process, etc.


I would like to see compo rules that could accomodate both wills, hence my choice for #2. At the end, I believe number of entries is a better outcome. The quality and, mostly, the idea behind an entry is the point for me.


The argument of open source meaning others can port or contribute or study or use is valid but I believe the idea behind is much stronger on this side.


Minecraft was a good idea but closed source, the closed point never stopped people around the world producing hundreds of clones, variations, open or closed, discussions etc.


The idea is the key and this is always open.

 

[PowerGod]

If you want to make the handhelds less "open" by introducing "closed-source" games...

Come on, just don't make this thing bigger than it is, "closed source games" were already introduced in the last competition, and no one complained...


All this discussion is born because of the title ED used... if it had been called "Pandora Rebirth Competition 2" there would be no problems...


Anyway the important thing is to know the purpose of the competition... gathering more applications/games or gathering sourcecode

 

[emilio]

Last Competition was Pandora only, this is for general handhelds, so if a dev is only supporting ONE of them, there will be no for one the rest. When the source is availabe you can port them for every system.

 

[WizardStan]

Come on, just don't make this thing bigger than it is, "closed source games" were already introduced in the last competition, and no one complained...

The goal of that contest was clearly defined to just get quantity of high quality entries for a specific platform. This one is still nebulous: it looked like it was started to promote the openness of these various consoles but with the name change it isn't so clear.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

On the openpandora.org website it says "Since the Pandora has mainly been developed as perfect OpenSource device, every developer can easily code and port software to it."


Need more examples?

So the website uses the word mainly? That certainly says to me that there is nothing open source exclusive about it, just says that the community has released a lot of software which is open source, but I see what you are showing, there is certainly a link there for people who have read it. For the record, when I received my Pandora (ordered within an hour of the orders going up), it came in a brown cardboard box, with no fancy writing on it, certainly nothing about open source. Since receiving my Pandora I have never compiled anything on it, and I don't think I have grabbed any source for existing projects and attempted to cross compile, so for me the Open Source side of it is not a primary concern.


I don't think anything more is really getting added to this thread. We said open source only may limit entries, however most people have said that if it is indeed open source only, they are fine with that. Any talk about whether open or closed source is better just seems to be the same old argument that gets brought up from time to time. I'm not sure if there has been a survey/poll done which compares open source preference against Windows/*nix OS, but at a guess I'd say Windows users are less bothered about source compared to *nix users, which may point at a fundamental different way of working/different expectations. Just for laughs, I'd also be interested in throwing in whether the person is employed or not into the statistics, and if they are, whether they use open/closed source in their workplace.

 

[urjaman]

Ok so I will say my 2c on this. I'd prefer the competition to be open-source only, but I think that my word should not mean much since I dont plan on participating - i have so little time. I mostly use linux at home (except one XP machine). I am employed and write mostly closed source code for work and use a win7 machine to do that, but the target is an embedded device and the cross toolchain is gcc based (running on cygwin), etc.

 

[TrashyMG]

^ In a similar situation, for one I'm busy with a lot of projects at work and secondly my employer has some odd rules about Intellectual Property, They have rights to anything I code while employed with them. So Open Source or Closed source projects I generally can't participate in unless I drag in my employer into it.


But yeah, Good debate on both sides.. I Personally like it to stay Open Sourced, but I can see where the closed source proponents are coming from.