![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7c1d7a71-fb00-4e26-b5e5-4df14ea46987.jpeg)
![](https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/0b14d547-46f9-4d31-b01c-e73d037c22bf.webp)
That’s never been the case with any of the open source movement. If someone says their project is open source, then they give out files which are not the source, we would normally say that’s not open source. We don’t ask Microsoft if they feel that X, Y, and Z are ‘the core components’ of VSCodium. It’s just not open source.
Providing text is good, and you might say the text files are ‘open source’, if they have a licence which allows modifications and so on. But you can’t make closed-source pdfs out of them, and say ‘this has text, which is open source, so I feel like it’s open source’.
I get that it seems like a small distinction to some, but it’s been an important distinction since the inception of the open source movement, and without it, we won’t be able to tell open source projects from projects that have open components which people ‘feel’ are core.
I don’t know if Google docs count as a ‘source file’. It’s clearly the source. Is it a file? I guess everything’s a file if you go by the UNIX definition, so ‘close enough’?
Licensing riddles aside, it looks great, and it’s nice seeing a fast-paced intro that gets straight into what the game’s about.