Openfront Has Been Stolen

Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago

SigmundurM

11 points

8 comments

old.reddit.comTechstory

supportivenegative

Debate

20/100

Game DevelopmentIntellectual PropertyPiracy

Key topics

Game Development

Intellectual Property

Piracy

The developer of OpenFront shares their experience of having their game stolen and discusses next steps with the community, who offer advice and support.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

Peak period

0-2h

Avg / period

1.6

Key moments

01Story posted
Sep 29, 2025 at 11:30 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Sep 29, 2025 at 11:36 AM EDT
6m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
4 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Sep 30, 2025 at 7:11 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (8 comments)

Showing 8 comments

jqpabc123

3 months ago

1 reply

Moral of the story: If you publish something as Open Source, someone may actually make use of it.

SigmundurMAuthor

3 months ago

1 reply

Yeah that looks to be the case. Reading the OpenFront readme, it looks like they transitioned to the AGPL believing it to be stricter (which it might be?).

What's also funny is the FrontWars fork's readme.md [1] has not been changed at all, and still credits the OpenFront maintainer as the project maintainer:

> The project maintainer (evan) has final authority on all code changes and design decisions

[1] https://github.com/Elitis/FrontWars/

TheCleric

3 months ago

It is stricter in the sense that AGPL says you have to release source code even if you only distribute the software to a user via a network (i.e., browser) as opposed to a direct/binary distribution.

So in my lay (possibly incorrect) opinion the AGPL made the difference in them having to release the code at all. So in that way it did help. If the user thought this would stop clones then they don't understand software licensing (nor open source).

Spivak

3 months ago

1 reply

And on Free Balloon Day too, the absolute monsters.

How many times are people going to join the software hippie commune that believes as its fundamental principle that software shouldn't be bound by IP restrictions, and who wrote a bunch of licenses to realize that belief within a strong-ip system, then get confused when they can't enforce IP restrictions.

OpenTofu, Valkey, OpenSearch, NextCloud, OpenSSH, VeraCrypt, OpenBao, OPNsense are all apparently stolen software.

scrps

3 months ago

Don't forget GPG! Bunch of dirty hippie export control dodging hooligans! (/s)

littlekey

3 months ago

2 replies

All the people saying "actually there is no moral argument because this was completely legal under the license" are driving me crazy. The whole point is that something like this can be legally defensible but still be a dick move.

Not saying this is or isn't. But "legality and morality are the same thing" is a pretty scary mindset to have.

xign

3 months ago

What is a dick move is releasing an open source project and then getting mad at people cloning it and then go on a PR blitz to try to destroy said fork. You are basically saying "please take my $100" and then 1 week later accuse them of stealing.

When you make your project open source you are basically inviting people to clone and modify them. If you actually read the terms of MIT and GPL licenses you will realize that they aren't just legal documents but also a social contract telling people it is ok to do so. Otherwise why the F would you make it open source to begin with…?

This matters on a concrete level too. Contributors are much more likely to contribute to open source, so you immediately gain clout and contributors by doing so. So to use such a license and then renegade on the implicit promise is a dick move on the OpenFront's creator's part. Also, note how he keeps referring this to be his game and how it's his copyright? No it isn't. Legally the copyright belongs to each contributor for every bit of code each contributor wrote.

TheCleric

3 months ago

I normally would wholeheartedly agree with you on this, but in this situation it seems to be a bit ironic that his project is a derivative of another project, and they unilaterally changed the code they forked under the MIT license to AGPL.

So while moral != legal. In this case I find it both legal and morally a bit of just desserts.

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45415059Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 4:53:34 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN