Slashdot Mirror
StarCraft Is Now Free, Nearly 20 Years After Its Release (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Nearly two decades after its 1998 release, StarCraft is now free. Legally! Blizzard has just released the original game -- plus the Brood War expansion -- for free for both PC and Mac. You can find it here. Up until a few weeks ago, getting the game with its expansion would've cost $10-15 bucks. The company says they've also used this opportunity to improve the game's anti-cheat system, add "improved compatibility" with Windows 7, 8.1, and 10, and fix a few long lasting bugs. So why now? The company is about to release a remastered version of the game in just a few months, its graphics/audio overhauled for modern systems. Once that version hits, the original will probably look a bit ancient by comparison -- so they might as well use it to win over a few new fans, right?
Why? They are still planning on using portions of the code for the updated version, plus they are under no obligation to do so. They've already given away the game for free. Asking for the source now, just after they've released it for free, is pushing an agenda too far. Calm your crusade for a few hours, at least. Sheesh.
Within the open source community the word 'free' has always referred to price first and foremost, and freedom only after that. 'Libre' and 'open' are the words that have a focus on freedom of modification and redistribution. 'Gratis' is the word that has a focus on price, or the lack thereof. If you're going to criticize the submission's use of proper terminology, you should at least have a minimal understanding of what you are talking about, which clearly you do not.
The GPL enforces freedom, while MIT/BSD licenses do not.
I've often used the term "careless licenses" to describe MIT and BSD, because the authors of software under such licenses don't care how it's used. With the GPL, in contrast, they are requiring that you keep derivatives open-source as well.
That is the main freedom the GPL is concerned about: the freedom to view, modify, and use the source code for the software you run. Not only does the GPL require the author to release source code, but it requires redistributors to do the same, ensuring that that very specific freedom endures. On the other hand, MIT/BSD licenses are little more than a disclaimer of warranty, allowing unscrupulous enterprises to rebuild the software and sell it as a commercial product, effectively taking credit for the original author's work - which the SCOTUS has found to be of significant economic value.
In short, it's a matter of perspective. The GPL protects the users and original author by adding restrictions, while the MIT/BSD licenses protect nothing while requiring nothing. To an author, it is a matter of preference what they care about most.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I'm a little less jazzed to find that it installs Bonjour, without telling you, and it doesn't provide a visible uninstall option unless you do some research and learn that there's a command line uninstall. My system's performance dropped sharply and only recovered once i'd managed to pry Bonjour out of it.
Two things:
1. The PC version doesn't install Bonjour. Maybe the Mac version does, but the PC version doesn't (yes I know they should have used "Windows" instead of "PC", but that ship has sailed just like the "hacking" vs "cracking" linguistic saga)
2. Let the installer download and unpack the game files and archive the installation directory. The game itself is not dependent on any remote server and seems to be completely portable, so as long as you have the archive available, you don't need to worry. Installer stubs are becoming more and more common these days - getting riled up about such things is not worth your blood pressure.