What launcher do you recommend? I’ve been using Flauncher as it’s the only decent FOSS one I’ve found, but it’s pretty barebones.

You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

I’m not talking past it, because as I’ve said over and over, I agree. That singular group of people can just release that card pool under a Creative Commons license and any associated software under a FOSS license and they have made a FOSS card game. What is the problem?

Well, the point is that the advantages of centralized development don’t have to be given up, because development can still be centralized. The advantages of FOSS development I’m building this point upon aren’t like increased efficiency or something like that. It’s an ethical thing, allowing the game to be the public good it ought to be (and functionally kind of is, looking at proxies and homebrew). If those original designers ruin the game in a way that upsets enough people, a new designer or group could fork it and become the new standard. This isn’t really possible with a proprietary game without stepping incredibly carefully around the law. Homebrew and modified cards can exist, but if there was a modified version of Magic threatening to replace the original game, Wizards would be sending nukes your way real quick.

But I get that you seem to be coming at this from a different position, if you don’t consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. I believe that making stuff that belongs to everyone IS the value of free and open source development, not a means to an end.

you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

I’m not though! I am saying, repeatedly, that a single organized group or even singular designer, for-profit or non-profit (but ideally the latter, of course) can do ALL of those design activities and release it as open source. They can design every card, decide every rule, and decide every card that “counts”. Having a FOSS license doesn’t change any of that. It’s up to players if they want to just use that or use additional stuff others make…just like it is now, since homebrew exists and will always exist as long as there is paper to write rules text on.

I’d like to gently suggest you reread my comments, because my whole point is that design, rulesets, and declaring legality within their own system can all happen with a governing body that is not a for-profit company and released according to the same principles as free and open source software. There is not separation of those activities if you simply choose to play the original, say, Bizards of the Boast version as most players realistically would. Stuff made by others would effectively work just like homebrew does now.

That already is how Magic is, though. There’s a core base ruleset and cards deemed official by the original organizing body and tons of custom stuff out there that the original body doesn’t treat as part of their product. The organizing body can control power creep and all that within its own ruleset, and most players would likely choose to use that so they don’t end up with 999/999 epic dragon of doom for 2 mana, but they don’t have to. The only real difference in this sense is that the organizing body wouldn’t be a corporation driven by profit and that players would have more legal headroom and proper tools to make custom stuff rather than the current awkward position fan sets land in.

In fact, this would give the organizing body that stands in for Wizards more room to hold back power creep, as they wouldn’t have the constant nagging knowledge that increasing power a little more will net them more money. They would have maximum control over deciding what is best for their version of the game. I imagine we’d end up with a few standardized systems of play like we have now in corporate TCGs, the original organizing body’s version alongside scattered other custom versions for highly opinionated players who want something different.

Assuming you meant to type “wouldn’t,” I think you may be a little off on what you think free and open source software entails. It doesn’t imply an open design process or anything of that kind, though it does lend itself well to those workflows. It instead describes what the end user has the freedom to do with what they receive. This is true of both of the philosophically different but practically similar “open source” and “free software” definitions.

In the software world, FOSS developers can, if they want to, design entirely behind closed doors within their own organization and drop a disc with the software, the source code, and licensing guaranteeing you certain freedoms. In the case of adapting that philosophy to a game, I think this would probably be the best approach to avoid the problems of design by committee. The cards could be released freely and included could be project files for card design, art used, etc. to allow people to do whatever they want with em.

It’s worth mentioning that while developing in the open is the standard in the git era, it’s not a requirement for open source and for a project that would benefit doing otherwise they could easily just do big releases with the source available and the proper licensing.

That said, I think this is overcomplicating things. You could simply have a nonprofit organizational body who designs in-house just as Wizards does and releases the final product into the public domain or under Creative Commons licenses. Unofficial cards compatible with your game will more or less be the same as they are for Magic: optional modules that are clearly not part of your vision for the game and so playgroups must choose if they want to play the game your organization produces or an expansion to it.

You can still play Magic if you want to avoid Wizards, you can print proxies or (if you play online) use a foss client like Cockatrice. There are even tools to simulate drafts and such if you want some limits on what you can use.

The nice thing about card games is it’s actually very easy to not give the companies behind them anything and treating them as folk games we all own.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. It’s weird to me that Brave is a line too far for people when the scale of evil that Google and Microsoft has brought to the world is so much larger and Kagi was already sourcing from them, bothering no one who chose to use the service. Don’t get me wrong, Brave sucks ass. I’m queer and homophobia is of course a very close issue to my heart, but I can’t find any framing that makes Brave a bigger issue than fucking Microsoft. That said, I’d ideally like to see a response focused more on a pragmatic look at possible sources than a blanket “we won’t get involved in politics.”

I’d prefer a totally independent search engine ran entirely according to my principles if possible, but uh, have you used them? The search quality is horrific. I don’t think I’ll cancel yet, but the iffy response does put them on shakier ground.

They only support Pixel hardware because it’s currently the only line that meets their list of requirements. I’d guess that if something came around which beat the Pixel line, they’d support it…but I also don’t see anyone positioned to do that right now.

Though it’s worth mentioning that the developers don’t emphasize degoogling all that much and their community often have a bit of tension with degooglers who come to join them. The OS certainly meets the needs of those of us getting away from Google but the developers have no problem recommending workflows that go through Google (albeit with regular app access rather than the privileged and deeply integrated access on stock Android) when they’re more secure than the alternatives. For example, they’ll regularly suggest using sandboxed Google Play over F-Droid or Aurora Store, again because of their stance of prioritizing security above all.

It can sometimes be a bit annoying when your priorities are more about avoiding corporate surveillance than protecting yourself from attackers or a snooping government, but their work ends up supporting both regardless.

Maybe, but it’s a silly battle to pick regardless. Decades ago, tons of things that are now everyday commonplace computing were widely considered the realm of AI and pursued by AI researchers. Playing chess well was true AI until we did it, and now it’s nothing special. In reality, all “AI” has ever meant is doing something humanlike in a way that’s still novel at the time you use the term, and that’s fine. More precise terms still exist and can be employed when the distinction matters.

See the AI effect.