Talk:ZAngband

The license to (at least some of the files) reads:

* Copyright (c) 1989 James E. Wilson, Robert A. Koeneke
*
* This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, and
* not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement are
* included in all such copies.

So it does not seem to fit the free software definition, since there are restrictions on redistribution. This game fits the same license as Angband, which, unfortunately, cannot be categorized as free or open source.

A game that fits the free, open source category is nethack.

Mikelima 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following is my personal opinion: I think that's splitting hairs. It's true that it isn't GPL-licensed, but it's certainly free and open source in the literal senses of the words (actually I don't know if it is for this variant, but I know that Moria and at least some of its descendants do in fact have full sources available). In a non-literal sense, you could say that it's copyrighted open-source freeware. Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL/BSD/whatever license to be considered free and open source - it just has to have full source code available, and have a license that permits free distribution of it. --HunterZ 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It does not need to be in any particular license; however; both free software and open source licenses require no restriction like "for educational purposes only". This does not allow the program to be bundled on a CD with a Linux distribution, fo example. I think a more fitting classification would be freeware. This distinction made my screenshot be dumped from the Italian wikipedia, so it's not splitting hairs. — Mikelima 08:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The issue I have with the freeware label is that it doesn't say anything about the fact that the source is open (albeit with a non-commercial only license), which is a huge difference in my opinion. Maybe non-commercial freeware would reflect this? --HunterZ 10:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

But the Open Source Definition clearly states in its first article "the software can be freely given away or sold". Angband (and other UMoria derivatives) cannot be sold. So it cannot be classified as Free or Open Source. This kind of restriction was common in the early days, and it stuck. It's annoying but it's life. The best we can do is categorizing it as freeware, or create a new category. There are many software projects in the same situation, so that can be a possibility. Mikelima 14:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see - thanks. Also, given the example above I thought you might be interested to know that Wilson and Koeneke (and most others) have recently redeclared their contributions to the original Moria/Umoria sources (from which Angband was derived) to be GPL or public domain: http://free-moria.sourceforge.net/ Of course, this doesn't cover much (if any) Angband-specific code though. --HunterZ 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is great — I knew current Angband maintainers and contributors were hoping to be able to GPL it. If a free UMoria can be gathered, Angband will follow, I think. — Mikelima 09:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to rake the coals on a discussion that seems to have settled down, but I want to discuss the issue of "free." I think it could be usefull to, in a short line, describe the games *effective* status, and it's technical status. By this I mean that to the "average reader" who has heard about ZAngband, and come to this wiki page to learn about it, the word "free" very exactly communicates something the general reader would understand: that you can go to a website and download the game without being required to pay for it. Getting unduly focused on the nuts and bolts of (and from the general reader's standpoint, the microscopic munitae of) licenses could have the net effect of causing confusion or unclarity instead of communicating a readily understandle meaning. People who are very familiar with the often contentious topics of licenses should remind themselves that the vast majority of people really have no idea what it's all about.

It would be unfortunate if every page on an open-source piece of software had a confusingly worded paragraph about the exact technical legal status of the software resulting from a blood-fued on the discussion page. If the authers of this article feel it pertinent, then perhaps a separate page could be created in which the discussion on the confusing world of software licenses, and the importance of of the details involved. Either way, we should remember that while many of the congiscenti have very specific definitions and understanding of the word "free" as it related to open source software etc, the huge bulk of the planet has a much more basic definition: "you mean I don't have to pay for it? Cool! It's free!"

"ZAngband may be freely downloaded and used, and is available under <LICENSE HERE>". Dxco 16:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fair to use "free" in the "no cost" sense. I don't see why the FSF-y definition of "free software" should take precedence over the common understanding on Wikipedia. "Open source" is trickier, because the definition does exclude non-commercial licensed stuff like ZAngband. Perhaps Freeware games is a better category to use here. — Matt Crypto 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

the term for software that is free is freeware; free software is a more restrictive term. dab (𒁳) 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

"freeware with downloadable source-code available on the website", perhaps?68.105.191.162 18:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weren't there surveys on rec.games.roguelike.angband about variants relative popularity? And doesn't angband.oook.cz provide chardumps, that can be used to compare relative usage? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes to the latter. Also, ZAngband inspired ToME and maybe a few other variants. I also think that it was the most popular variant, or the first really popular/successful one, but I could be wrong. EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed there was a deletion notice on this article (due to lack of verified notability), and felt that a merge would be better, if this problem is not fixed. Martin (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I've been meaning to merge both this and what once existed at List of Angband variants to the Angband article, but wasn't sure as to how to go about it. Do you have any suggestions? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply