
Mari0=Mario + Portal ..Open source game - rjim86
http://stabyourself.net/mari0/marathon/
======
wsxiaoys
It's developed in love2d(<https://love2d.org/>), a 2d game framework in lua.

------
a3_nm
Just a small detail, but the license is Creative Commons BY-NC-SA, so this is
not really open source (not OSI-compliant).

~~~
pygy_
You can do opens source without being OSI compliant. They don't own the
concept. As long as the source is readable, it is open, even if you can't
redistribute it, or distribute a binary built out of it.

In this case:

<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/> says that

    
    
        You are free:
          * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
          * to Remix — to adapt the work
    
        Provided that you (paraphrased):
          * (BY) — give proper credit to the original the author,
          * (NC) — don't use it commercially,
          * (SA) — publish your modifications with the same license.
    

Beside the non-commercial clause, when applied to source code, it is roughly
equivalent to a BSD/MIT license.

~~~
mseebach
The BSD and MIT licenses make no mention of commercial usage? The NC clause is
exactly what makes it incompatible with all FOSS licenses.

------
firefoxman1
I think his license is the best one I've seen yet. In main.lua it says...

    
    
      *	NOT COPYRIGHT STABYOURSELF.NET
    	NO RIGHTS RESERVED
    	STEAL MY SHIT AND I'LL FUCK YOU UP
    	PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING BY MAURICE GUÉGAN AND IF SOMETHING ISN'T BY ME THEN IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS OR NOBODY CARES
    
      THIS AWESOME PIECE OF CELESTIAL AMBROSIA IS RELEASED AS NON-COMMERCIAL, SHARE ALIKE, WHATEVER. YOU MAY PRINT OUT THIS CODES AND USE IT AS WALLPAPER IN YOUR BATHROOM.
    	FOR SPECIFIC LICENSE (I know you linux users get a hard on when it comes to licenses) SEE http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
    	NOW GO AWAY (or stay and modify shit. I don't care as long as you stick to the above license.)*

------
beloch
Interesting mashup. Rad advert. How long before it gets taken down by lawyers
and will the programmer wind up working at Nintendo or Valve?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Ideally someone will create a FOSS tileset for it that transparently
substitutes for the current Mario set. The gameplay itself seems fine;
platformers seem perfectly safe as long as they don't use Mario graphics, and
as for the portal mechanic, that has plenty of precedent:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_hole>

~~~
rplnt
You cannot patent game-play mechanics. But then...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tetris_Company#Legal_enforc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tetris_Company#Legal_enforcement)

------
GoodIntentions
The author should put his talent to work on something that _won't_ get him
sued. :(

Wondering how long till that domain renders an ICE homepage.

~~~
missing_cipher
I don't see him asking for money anywhere, so at most he'll get a cease and
desist. Of course if he doesn't comply then things would get worse.

Plus from what I understand Nintendo has been pretty lax with these sort of
projects lately and I don't think Valve would do anything either.

~~~
icebraining
_I don't see him asking for money anywhere, so at most he'll get a cease and
desist._

Neither was Jammie Thomas-Rasset, and yet she was still convicted and ordered
to pay $222000 (now it has dropped to $54000).

~~~
JamesLeonis
This isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison. For the JTR case to be
fairly, one would have to compare ROM or warez distribution, downloading and
the resulting litigation.

This seems to be closer to the concept of mashups and remix culture for music,
where the copyright and trademarks are not as clear cut.

------
nitrogen
A note for Ubuntu users: there is a PPA for the unreleased 0.8.0 version of
LÖVE: <https://launchpad.net/~bartbes/+archive/love-unstable/>.

Google failed me today while trying to find the syntax for adding a PPA from
the command line (largely because Google will not search for punctuation, even
inside of quotation marks), so after a long search trying to avoid pages about
human colons and professional associations (eventually settling on the query
"ubuntu ppa apt-add-repository"), I'm posting this here (ref:
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/CommandLine>):

    
    
      sudo apt-add-repository ppa:bartbes/love-unstable
    

Followed by the obvious:

    
    
      sudo aptitude update
      sudo aptitude install love-unstable
      love-unstable mari0_1.2.love

------
omega32
I remember I always wanted to play Mario when I was little but I couldn't
because I was too poor. So, I do love that if I don't do ANYTHING with the
Portal gun, it's actually just the original. (But, of course I'm still using
the portal gun)

------
randyburden
Whoa, that's pretty cool and happens to be two of my favorite games :)

------
INTPenis
Lots of lag on Mac OS Lion. Can't even play through because of it. But I think
you'd be able to get used to the controls given some practice.

~~~
rbxbx
According to their forums, disabling sound (ie: turning the volume all the way
down), fixes lag/stutter. In practice that seems to be mostly true. Still find
the controls slightly unintuitive (but I imagine with an external mouse things
would be better).

------
fictorial
Fantastic! I can't say I'm enjoying the source code much but nice things are
often quite messy under the covers. Nice work!

------
jawr
Loving the mashup, awesome idea. Also thanks for the link to love2d, looks
like a brilliant framework.

------
drivebyacct2
This is a really cool concept, I love that it's open source and Lua adds a fun
kick. I'll be honest, I'm awful at it though. It's extremely hard for me to
control mario and the portal gun. It's strange because I love classic mario
and like to think I'm pretty good at solving Portal fast.

Maybe I just need to practice more? Does anyone here feel proficient? I've
seen videos of people doing some crazy things with it already, I'm jealous.

~~~
rmc
_I love that it's open source_

Technically not open source. It's released under a Creative Commons CC-NC-SA
which is not an open source licence, and is not approved by OSI nor FSF

However, the source _is_ available, and it's CC, which isn't exactly a
propriatry programme.

~~~
wcarss
I get that these terms do have specific meanings, but it bothers me that those
meanings are so restrictive as to be unintuitive to someone not steeped in the
dogma of the community.

These people made the source openly available and, by the CC license applied,
can't it be modified and redistributed? That feels like "openness" to me.
Thus, this feels like "open source", but technically the open source
proprietors haven't opened the term "open source", so it's not.

Or have I misunderstood the license in this case? I admit, I am posting before
looking, because the time it would take to look could make my post irrelevant.

Correction: I just went and looked. The license acts as I expected and has a
digestible compact form for easy consumption.

Now I've gone and looked at the OSI site, and the CC license is not one they
have approved. Yet they provide the material on the OSI site as CC licensed.

This distinction suddenly just seems dumb. Can someone elucidate it, or its
use, please?

~~~
mseebach
The problem is the "NC" = non-commercial. It is, when you think about it, a
very strong restriction on what you can do with it. I totally get that the
author doesn't want somebody to come along and go make money on the back of
his work.

But let's say that you download the code, enhance it and put it on your Github
for the world to see. Great, you're allowed to do that[1]. But what if you're
a contractor and your Github is part of your public profile, i.e. your
professional marketing material? You could very well be in breach of the NC
clause.

That's why FOSS enthusiast tend to be a little purist about it. OSI and FSF
approved licenses contain no such ambiguity.

Also, there's the down-watering of the term itself. RMS actively opposes the
term "open source" because it's less free than his "free software" definition,
the success of which he considers OSI to leech on. I'm not even sure how open
source is less free than free software (although I'm sure it is), but I agree
with the concern that the term open source should be protected to include the
concern of absolutely free usage.

1: Although you could construct the argument that since Github is a commercial
entity that benefits from showcasing code on their website, it's actually a
commercial usage.

~~~
alttag
Is there an OS-type license that includes a NC clause?

(Yes, I understand that true OS licenses can't have that restriction by
definition, but I hope the intent of my question is clear.)

~~~
rmc
Creative Commons like this project uses?

The FSF and OSI are both clear about what liberties a licence must give to
people for it to be called open source / free software, and "must allow
commercial reuse" is one of them.

Software that includes a non commercial clause doesn't get built upon much and
so clauses like that don't get much traction.

------
ranit8
The former submission with links to other Portal mashups:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2939097>

Not played Mari0 yet, but I loved Not Tetris from the same authors.

