Post #1784601
2026-04-22 12:01 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2026-04-22 12:31
I like it. If the publisher no longer sells/supports the full game as purchased, then they no longer to get to complain about people pirating it. I don’t like instantly throwing it public domain, that’s the wrong license to use. I think Creative Common CC BY-NC-SA would be more appropriate. (Credit the original, no commercial use, and any modified/redistributed version must follow same license). This will prevent xbox from taking all the old PlayStation games, stealing an emulator, and selling them under game pass to people that don’t know those games are freely available. I’d also add the game must be available as an individual 1-time purchase. If it’s only available as a bundle or subscription service, that doesn’t count.
-
@SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 2026-04-22 13:40
If a studio is using the same base architecture for online services as a game that is currently active, you want developers to share their current live architecture and code?
-
@SpeedRunner@europe.pub 2026-04-22 13:16
Not only games. Goes for all electronics as well. Sick of supporting your ‘old phones’? You’re required by law to disclose all binary blobs as source code to let somebody else pick it up the slack. Feeling like bricking old Kindles? Fine, but users must be able to install alternative OS on your old device. Not providing software updates for your TV anymore after you removed features? That’s your right, but so is the right of the effing device owner to install something else on it. And it’s not just consumer electronics. (caugh John Deere caugh).
-
@iglou@programming.dev 2026-04-22 20:44
This would be the only type creative work that would be burdened like this. I find it paradoxical that we’re trying to save the gaming industry by burdening (mostly) small developers. Larger studio will no longer be able to abuse the system, but complying will be easy for them. For indies and small to medium studios though? They struggle enough as it is. Adding the burden of compliance on top is not a great idea. If we could legally categorize studios in a meaningful way, and therefore target the big ones and leave indies alone, I would support such an idea.
-
@gian@lemmy.grys.it 2026-04-22 15:31
Nah, if the publisher stop selling a game, just make him to release a docker image for the server and the game patched to use such docker image. No source code needed (even if it would be nice).
-
@SpaceScotsman@startrek.website 2026-04-22 15:33
This is one of the points that a French MEP brought up during the meeting. If this is pursued it could as a side effect open up space for digital "orphaned works" which would be fantastic.
-
@ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2026-04-22 14:37
Not sure about public domain. Perhaps a non-commercial license would be best - this way fans can carry on the work, but others wouldn't be tempted to profit off of the IP.
-
@Mountainaire@lemmy.world 2026-04-22 18:26
> whatever the European equivalent of the Library of Congress is Yeah! Um... what is that again?