Rejected games list
Hi all! I've imported a list of games that might be mistakenly seen as libre, but are not. Have a peek: https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/rejected-games-list
> A Tale In The Desert - Arx Fatalis "While the engine of Arx Fatalis was freed, this does not include the game data."
> Arx Libertatis - "Do I need a copy of Arx Fatalis to play Arx Libertatis? Yes. While the engine of Arx Fatalis was freed, this does not include the game data." http://wiki.arx-libertatis.org/FAQ (2013-10-19)
So what? What's the big deal with proprietary game data? (assuming that they allow non-commercial distribution)
>So what? What's the big deal with proprietary game data? (assuming that they allow non-commercial distribution)
That's the FSF official policy on the matter AFAIK. However Libregamewiki (which is the source for that material) and e.g. Debian disagree. I think that probably while not nearly as critical as code being free, it's pretty nice to have free media as well, so I'm bit of a fence sitter when it comes to this issue, everso slightly tilted towards the all has to be free stance.
I'm of the opinion that restricting the four freedoms is inherently unethical, so all works should be libre, and I make a point of putting a libre culture license (either CC BY-SA or CC0 for works that aren't programs) on all of my works. However, I don't think boycotting non-libre cultural works will do us any good, and it's not as if they're controlling your computing.
> I'm of the opinion that restricting the four freedoms is inherently unethical
So you say that all works need to respect four freedoms? Well mister, I hope you know what medicine to avoid, since chances are that vaccine/pill has various pattens, What food to avoid, because of the same, And that you have completely stop viewing all movies that don't respect four freedoms.
That's the opposite of what I said. Read again. I think it's pointless to boycott non-libre works, and even destructive. Personally, The Ur-Quan Masters and King's Quest VI (both of which are non-libre culture) are some of my favorite games, and I don't hesitate to recommend them. I'm also a fan of Dragon Ball, and I'm excited for the upcoming Dragon Ball Super series. I think it's wrong that the authors of these works chose to make them non-libre, but I still play/watch them and enjoy them, and I'm not shy about recommending them.
Computer programs are an exception, not because they do a practical job (as RMS suggests), but because they control your computer.
I apologies for the misunderstanding, but I tough you would agree with the idea that everything that have a good reason to be considered unethical should be avoided. But instead you have a view that is strange to me. You think that dragon ball is unethical, and yet you recommend it to other people, so they will watch, recommend and make even more popular a work that is unethical to you.
But why do you want unlimited freedom to sell dragon ball in the first place? Because in my opinion this render "pay what ever you want" impossible, anyone could set a site that looks somewhat official and sell your work. In fact, anyone could make more money from your work than you, the author. They just need to know how to sell. This is your conception of ethical?
I don't think that Dragon Ball is unethical. I think that the authors and publishers of Dragon Ball are doing something unethical when they restrict people from redistributing it. That's a very important distinction.
> Because in my opinion this render "pay what ever you want" impossible, anyone could set a site that looks somewhat official and sell your work.
Except for the part about impersonating another seller (which is absolutely unacceptable and would likely be trademark infringement), that's called competition, and it's perfectly legitimate. As a matter of fact, people can also compete by offering gratis copies, and that is perfectly legitimate, too.
It's how capitalism works. I'm sorry, but additional copies of works just aren't that valuable in the digital age, so if multiple people have copies, you should expect its price to quickly drop to 0. Artists need to find other ways to get people to pay for their work (e.g. crowdfunding, live performances, or asking for donations), or do their work without getting paid much and get their money somewhere else. By the way, this is the state of affairs with copyright anyway; it's the publishers who make money from copyright monopolies, not the artists.
> I don't think that Dragon Ball is unethical. I think that the authors and publishers of Dragon Ball are doing something unethical when they restrict people from redistributing it. That's a very important distinction.
Alright, the people behind do something unethical. However you haven't respond to that part of my message yet. Shouldn't be avoided just because you have a good reason to considered it unethical? (you have one, right?)
> (which is absolutely unacceptable and would likely be trademark infringement)
As far as I know, no. It's not if you (the author) are the one who gave them the freedom to commercially distribute your work in the first place.
> that's called competition, and it's perfectly legitimate
Oh, so you have to let everyone sell your work while you receive nothing or else you're against competition and doing unethical things?
> As a matter of fact, people can also compete by offering gratis copies, and that is perfectly legitimate, too.
What does that have to do with anything? The issue that we should be handling is how are this people going to make a living while doing what they like. I think that if you just give non-commercial distribution then you have a chance to make money in a "pay what ever you want" system. If you don't make money from your work at least no one else can, legally.
> It's how capitalism works. I'm sorry, but additional copies of works just aren't that valuable in the digital age, so if multiple people have copies, you should expect its price to quickly drop to 0.
So because you can easily make copies then the value of my work is 0?
> Artists need to find other ways to get people to pay for their work (e.g. crowdfunding, live performances, or asking for donations)
On videogames you can't do live performances. So that's one less from 3. Leaving us with crowfunding and donations. And with donations you would be lucky if you get enough for the servers, food and an almost decent roof. I haven't seen not even one game developer that made money (and a living) from donations, so I'll be thankful if you could give some examples.
> or do their work without getting paid much and get their money somewhere else
Do you resort to this because you recognize that it is not possible for Akira Toriyama to make money from Dragon Ball if he put his work under CC BY-SA, so then he has to do Drangon Ball in his free time while he get his money from say, drawings for advertisings?
> it's the publishers who make money from copyright monopolies, not the artists.
Videogames is kind of the exception, the developer has to get paid or else is going to be angry (because developers can't do live performances). Still, is true that if you team with a publisher he's the one that's going to get most of the cake. Because people that know how to sell always get more (despite of the quality of the product and whether the competition has a better product). And you suggest that they should allow to freely distribute their game (even commercially) so this will happen even without having to team up with a publisher.
> Alright, the people behind do something unethical. However you haven't respond to that part of my message yet. Shouldn't be avoided just because you have a good reason to considered it unethical? (you have one, right?)
I'm sure a lot of the products I use were made, designed, or distributed by people who did unethical things. That doesn't mean I have to reject the products.
> As far as I know, no. It's not if you (the author) are the one who gave them the freedom to commercially distribute your work in the first place.
You're confusing copyright and trademark laws, which are fundamentally different. Please don't do that.
Trademark law is a limited monopoly on a particular image or name which identifies something, designed to prevent misleading consumers. For example, "GNU" is a trademark. It is illegal to use the name "GNU" in a way that would be likely to confuse people into thinking that something that isn't GNU is GNU.
Copyright law is a monopoly on distribution of works, designed as an incentive for authorship.
> Oh, so you have to let everyone sell your work while you receive nothing or else you're against competition and doing unethical things?
This statement makes no sense. I never said that I was against competition. It's essential in a capitalist economy.
> What does that have to do with anything? The issue that we should be handling is how are this people going to make a living while doing what they like. I think that if you just give non-commercial distribution then you have a chance to make money in a "pay what ever you want" system. If you don't make money from your work at least no one else can, legally.
Firstly, no one necessarily has a right to make money doing something just because they like doing it. I like watching certain shows, but it would be absurd for me to expect to be paid to do that. Heck, I haven't made much money from all of my programming, either (the only money I made was $50 when someone decided to sell one of my games in a bundle, and then decided to send me some of the money he made).
Secondly, why do you suppose that other people distributing gratis copies has no effect on your ability to distribute paid-for copies, but that other people distributing paid-for copies completely ruins your ability to distribute paid-for copies? Both of these are competition. If anything, the latter is much stronger competition.
Honestly, if there were two people selling a work and a few dozen people giving away copies of the same work gratis, you would have to have a damn good reason to pay for the copy sold by one of the two commercial distributors. That reason might be a higher-quality print than you can easily manage, for example, or just a desire to support the author. If you don't have such a reason, you're going to go with the gratis copy every time.
> So because you can easily make copies then the value of my work is 0?
The value of copies is 0, yes. If you're an artist and want to be paid for the work, you should probably be paid up-front, in full, not expect to get that money by selling copies. If you can't do that, then I'm sorry, but again, it's not justified to expect to be able to make money doing everything you like to do.
> On videogames you can't do live performances.
I'm talking about art in general, not just video games.
> So that's one less from 3.
Those three were just examples, not an exhaustive list.
> And with donations you would be lucky if you get enough for the servers, food and an almost decent roof. I haven't seen not even one game developer that made money (and a living) from donations, so I'll be thankful if you could give some examples.
I also never claimed to know that these methods would work. These are just possibilities to try.
I'm hoping to try crowdfunding myself, hopefully later this year. We'll see how it goes. But if it doesn't go well, that doesn't give me an excuse to restrict people from distributing copies of my work.
> Do you resort to this because you recognize that it is not possible for Akira Toriyama to make money from Dragon Ball if he put his work under CC BY-SA, so then he has to do Drangon Ball in his free time while he get his money from say, drawings for advertisings?
Actually, I think Dragon Ball is so huge that he wouldn't have any problem at all making money from it without copyright. Even ignoring the fact that crowdfunding would be more likely to be successful, there's the possibility of sponsorships.
> Videogames is kind of the exception
No, they're not. Commercial video game developers get paid very little compared to other programmers, somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 a year IIRC. People get into video game development because they like it, not because of money.
> I'm sure a lot of the products I use were made, designed, or distributed by people who did unethical things. That doesn't mean I have to reject the products.
But why do you think is unethical? I don't understand why you consider restricting commercial use of my work without my permission something unethical.
> Trademark law is a limited monopoly on a particular image or name which identifies something, designed to prevent misleading consumers. For example, "GNU" is a trademark. It is illegal to use the name "GNU" in a way that would be likely to confuse people into thinking that something that isn't GNU is GNU.
No problem, others can still rebrand the game. Actually is worse, if they know how to sell, their brand could be more popular than the original from the author. So the other one sell a lot more than the author. And this is an injustice, because the author is the one who did work in pro of society.
> This statement makes no sense. I never said that I was against competition. It's essential in a capitalist economy.
Oh, so I have to let everyone sell my work while I receive nothing or else I'm against competition and doing unethical things?
Does that sounds more concise?
> Firstly, no one necessarily has a right to make money doing something just because they like doing it.
Of course no, I meant to say when people do work that benefits society. Or even if don't benefits society, people has the right to sell what they produce as log as the product don't attack society. Then you're going to say that restricting commercial copies of my art is attacking society. So can you elaborate your ideas and explain why is this and attack to society?
> I haven't made much money from all of my programming, either (the only money I made was $50 when someone decided to sell one of my games in a bundle, and then decided to send me some of the money he made).
Alright, but you did made money, more over that other guy did made money with your work with your permission. But how would you feel in this scenario: You made a good game with the intention of sell it and live doing what you like, which is making games that people like. You sell it in the Internet and months after the exact same game appear with another game. The guy that copy your work pay some advertisement so the name that he created for your game grows in popularity. In the end you did all the work and receive $50/month while the another guy that simply copy your work is making $2000/month and living from your work. Can you still put a happy face and say that everything is as it should?
> Secondly, why do you suppose that other people distributing gratis copies has no effect on your ability to distribute paid-for copies, but that other people distributing paid-for copies completely ruins your ability to distribute paid-for copies? Both of these are competition. If anything, the latter is much stronger competition.
Having other people selling my work without my permission isn't competition, that's just steal.
> If you're an artist and want to be paid for the work, you should probably be paid up-front, in full, not expect to get that money by selling copies
Why?
> I also never claimed to know that these methods would work. These are just possibilities to try.
In other words, you're just babbling about it.
> I'm hoping to try crowdfunding myself, hopefully later this year. We'll see how it goes.
I wish you good luck, I would like to know more about this system too.
> Actually, I think Dragon Ball is so huge that he wouldn't have any problem at all making money from it without copyright.
Now is huge. Could it be that huge if it was CC BY-SA from the beginning? No one can know that, but still I would like to know how that could've played in their success.
> I don't understand why you consider restricting commercial use of my work without my permission something unethical.
Because it's not your place to tell me what I can do with my property.
Nabisco sells chocolate chip cookies (Chips Ahoy). It is my right to do the same with my own chocolate chip cookies if I choose to do so. It is also my right to give away chocolate chip cookies. It is not Nabisco's right to tell me that I'm not allowed to sell chocolate chip cookies because that takes away sales from them.
Conversely, it is not my right to tell Nabisco that they can't sell chocolate chip cookies because no one will buy mine.
It's the same here with copies of works. If I have a copy of a work on my computer, I should have the right to use it to make my copies of the work, and then I should have a right to distribute them to whomever I please, whether commercial or not.
> The guy that copy your work pay some advertisement so the name that he created for your game grows in popularity. In the end you did all the work and receive $50/month while the another guy that simply copy your work is making $2000/month and living from your work. Can you still put a happy face and say that everything is as it should?
Yes. I would be exceptionally happy about that. Why would I be unhappy that thousands of people are playing a game I developed? Seeing people enjoying and appreciating my work is one of my favorite pleasures in life!
Not only that, your evil boogie man would benefit me by making my work more well-known. He would be making it much easier for me to land a nice programming job elsewhere, or attract people to a crowdfunding campaign. It's not a matter of "he wins, I lose".
> Because it's not your place to tell me what I can do with my property.
Is that so? Let's take a look at your true actions, so then we can see if you're truly following what you say. Your web page for example: https://onpon4.github.io/
If we apply what you said, then the content of your web page is now mine. Because that information has been copied and loaded to my pc, alright. Now can I do what ever I want with my property or you're telling me what I can do with my property? Thing is, you're telling me what I can and can't do with my supposed property.
This is you telling me what I can do and can't do with my copy of the content of your website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
What about your games? Can I get a copy, made it my property and do what ever I want with my property? http://onpon4.github.io/games/
No, they are all under the GPL, here's you again telling me what I can and can't do with my property: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Do you even know how copyright law works? When you license something and give it to someone that thing isn't part of the property of that person. You just gave him a copy and a license telling him what can and can't do, but that thing has never been part of the property of that person.
If my copy of "Pacewar" by onpon4 was my property then I would be able to relicense it. But I can't while you can at any time (exept for the copies that you already gave). And you know why? Because it belong to your property.
If you truly believe in what you have just write, then renounce the copyright of all your work that you intend to share.
> Not only that, your evil boogie man would benefit me by making my work more well-known. He would be making it much easier for me to land a nice programming job elsewhere, or attract people to a crowdfunding campaign. It's not a matter of "he wins, I lose".
... okay, good luck with that. You'll need it since you don't know if those alternative methods actually work. (maybe others do, but you said that you don't, that's why you'll need some luck)
danieru: You are conflating 3 separate concepts: [1] the abstract concept of a work, like “The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha”, [2] its physical representation (an exemplar of this work as found in most libraries) and [3] “work” as the action of making effort to build something (as in “it took Cervantes work to write Don Quixote”). In the same confusion, you are also conflating physical property with intellectual property. This is exactly the confusion that information (software, music, movies and similar) monopolies want people to make; they are spreading this confusion when they speak of “piracy” and “stealing”. I have marked in this message usages of these concepts to make it clear.
>So because you can easily make copies then the value of my work is 0?
I quote this as an example of the aforesaid conflation. Here onpon isn't saying that your work [1] is worthless, but that a copy [3] of your work [1] has almost zero monetary value since in the digital age it is extremely easy to copy information when not encumbered by DRM.
The argument of onpon is that the owner of a copy [2] of a work [1] should be able to use his copy according to his discretion; this includes making a reproduction of this copy and selling it.
When you put work [3] into making a work [1] and then somebody distributes copies [2] your work [1] without your authorization, they are not stealing or selling your work [3] (that is the fallacy behind the term “piracy”). You only have done as much work [3] as you wanted, and making copies of the product of that work [3], that is it, the work [2] does not entails a cost for you. You may be able to profit by first using law to make illegal for people to make physical copies of that work [1], then act as the sole provider of copies [2] for that work [1] and charge a fee, or sell the right to make those copies [2] to third parties (to a publisher if it is a book). However, it is a fallacy to conclude that somebody is stealing anything from you by producing copies [2] of your work [1] by his own means (bypassing your attempt to establish a monopoly), because he is not consuming anything from you or forcing you to make more work [1] that what you have already did by your own will.
A separate argument may be made on whether the artificial monopolies that Copyright grants (and the implied restriction of our ability to make copies of works without depending on the author) may be justified on the grounds that it provides a means to found production of works [2] in a capitalist economy. It is a mistake to think that Copyright exists or try to justify it because it enable authors to profit; that is backwards reasoning. By a similar reasoning we could try to “justify” an hypothetical law to forbid people to prepare their own food so that restaurants will profit more, because that way restaurants will profit more, then claim that somebody who prepares his own food is stealing from the restaurants.
I couldn't truly understand your message. Could you change [1], [2] and [3] with different words? Effort instead of [3] for instance.
You already identified another word that isn't so easily confused with work [1], so there is no point in changing my message since you can do it mentally. I intentionally used the same word for [1] and [3] with annotations (the ones between square brackets) so as to make it clear that the word “work” has at least 2 relevant meanings here, and how it easily leads to the fallacy of conflating information with its physical representation when not distinguished.
In any case, I see that notwithstanding my argument to the contrary, you insist in conflating information (a work [1], in the terminology above) with its physical representation [2], as you showed with your example of a couch. When arguments or messages are ignored or can't be understood by one of the speakers it is of no use to continue discussing, therefore I will not. I leave it to you to find the mistakes in your reasoning if you are interested in doing so.
> When arguments or messages are ignored or can't be understood by one of the speakers it is of no use to continue discussing
Oh, so you simply give up? And on top of that is my fault? Why you don't just accept that your message was cryptic?
> you insist in conflating information (a work [1], in the terminology above) with its physical representation [2], as you showed with your example of a couch
Then show me what are you trying to explain me with the example of the couch. Please, show me my mistakes with an example. If you don't want to further debate, then say so and leave. But don't simply imply that you give up because I don't understand. That's just dishonest.
> I leave it to you to find the mistakes in your reasoning if you are interested in doing so.
Oh that's so nice of you, you tell me that something is wrong with me, but instead of helping me you just leave because is my problem. Very kind, like onpon4 saying that artist have to find other ways to profit, gave 3 systems that he don't know if they actually work, and then leave the topic about other ways to profit.
Look back a few messages, because I was very careful with my wording here. I said that it is unethical to deny people the four freedoms, for all works. Note that I do not do so. All of the licenses I use are libre software and libre culture licenses.
> If my copy of "Pacewar" by onpon4 was my property then I would be able to relicense it.
What do you mean by "relicense"? Do you mean "impose a new legal monopoly on other people"? Because that's what that actually means. If you really have the power to impose legal monopolies with the rest of your property, please show me how you do it. Show me, for example, how you use your couch to forbid others from selling other couches that are the same as yours. You can't, because that doesn't happen.
And yes, if you have a copy of Pacewar, that copy belongs to you, not me. You own it. You deserve (and have been given) the freedom to copy it, change it, and redistribute it however much you want. The only thing I use my monopoly power for is to prevent you from denying that right to others.
> Look back a few messages, because I was very careful with my wording here. I said that it is unethical to deny people the four freedoms, for all works. Note that I do not do so. All of the licenses I use are libre software and libre culture licenses.
Now that have a lot more sense to me than just Because it's not your place to tell me what I can do with my property. The second one kind of reject any copyright law and even conditions like "give appropriate credit whenever is changed or shared".
> What do you mean by "relicense"? Do you mean "impose a new legal monopoly on other people"? Because that's what that actually means.
Yes, relicense is shorter though.
> If you really have the power to impose legal monopolies with the rest of your property, please show me how you do it. Show me, for example, how you use your couch to forbid others from selling other couches that are the same as yours
Step one:
Design a couch. Finish? Now you have the authorship for the design of that particular couch.
Step two:
Now, you can license the design and put any restrictions that you may want to. For instance: "You may not use this couch with commercial purposes, this includes but it is not limited to: Selling the couch, using the couch for parties in which the entrance has a price, rent the couch". I'm not sure if you can copyright the couch once it's build. But I guess that if you can have authorship and copyright protection from a statue, then you should have copyright protection with your couch, assuming it's original enough.
Step tree:
When you sell the couch, you tell the customer the license conditions or else he wont be able to get the couch.
Anyway, I thing we are a little bit out of scope now.
Going back to my original concern:
I think that anyone should have all four essential freedoms When it comes to things that serves for practical use, in other words, tools.
For non-functional things (art for instance). I thing it's fair to impose more restrictions as long as you give the freedom to make non-commercial copies of the work. So then people can share without entering in a moral dilemma and being self-destructed because of the infinite loop (just joking).
Additionally I think that copyright protection should expire in say 15-10 years starting from the day of the publication. that means that music, games and other could enter the public domain sooner. And with that being able to qualify as free culture. That will also mean that free software will enter in the public domain sooner though. Which means no copyleft for that software once it enter the public domain. I'm not happy with that, so I propose that all software that enter in the public domain should be freed. With this maybe proprietary software can use source code from free software, but in 15-10 years they are going to liberate his software too.
(I basically copied the ideas from Stallman, but who cares since ideas can't be copyrighted?)
But you take a step further and say that all works, functional and non-functional should respect four freedoms or else you're being unethical.
I agree with that in functional works. But completely fail on why non-functional works should respect all four freedoms.
> Now that have a lot more sense to me than just Because it's not your place to tell me what I can do with my property. The second one kind of reject any copyright law and even conditions like "give appropriate credit whenever is changed or shared".
Look, I know you're trying to pick apart my arguments for small inconsistencies, and maybe they do exist. I'm only human. But please, this is not constructive.
Copyleft licenses aren't the endgame. Copyleft licenses exist to create a power balance while copyright exists. I know it's not the perfect philosophical choice, but the perfect philosophical choice is suicidal. Sometimes you have to do something pragmatic. Copyleft is that pragmatism in action.
> I think...
I already know that your opinion on copyright and artistic works is a carbon copy of RMS's. You don't need to repeat it. It would be nice if you would actually justify that opinion, though.
> I already know that your opinion on copyright and artistic works is a carbon copy of RMS's. You don't need to repeat it. It would be nice if you would actually justify that opinion, though.
Commercial use:
Because I as an user of a videogame don't need the freedom to sell the game. If I'm willing to buy a game and the license say "you have the four freedoms for the code but you shall not use the art for commercial purposes". Then I buy it without ever felling restricted by the license. If I want to sell the game then I contact the author and ask him. Maybe we can reach an agreement, but if we don't then that's alright. Is his game, so if he don't want to team with me at selling the game. Then why should I say "you're being unethical"?
Actually, if I did sell the game from one someone, say one of your games with assets and all. And don't give you anything I would feel bad. Even if you give me the permission to do so in the license. Why shouldn't I feel bad? I took the work of someone and profit without giving anything in change. I would only do that if I need to because I'm starving and need to buy food. But I know that you and any human in his right mind will allow that at the very least. Anyone who wouldn't allow that in that scenario shouldn't be allowed to profit with society. So, if I feel bad in both sides (either as a developer or a customer), then it's probably because it's bad. And if that's bad, then why should be allowed?
Source of the art:
I suppose that you also think that derivate works should be allowed. I think that derivate works that are for non-commercial purposes should be allowed. This enables fans to do mods in videogames, and MAD videos in music, movies, TV shows, etc. On videogames this means that if a model is in the assets, then the .blend file has to be provided. But even if the .blend file isn't provided it's not a big deal. If the source is available and under a free license. Then any copy-protection would be even more useless than what can it be in the proprietary world.
But I disagree with derivate works for commercial purposes for the same reasons that I disagree with allowing exact copies for commercial purposes.
Because in my opinion this render "pay what ever you want" impossible, anyone could set a site that looks somewhat official and sell your work.
As long as you agree that non-commercial sharing must not be forbidden, you can have sites (or P2P networks) where copies of the digital work are available at no price. That is financially unbeatable. Prohibiting non-commercial sharing does not change that fact.
This is your conception of ethical?
Enabling or disabling business models does not make a license more or less ethical. Notice that your arguments would apply to software and you would argue that licenses that forbid commercial sharing (i.e., non-free licenses) would be more ethical.
I actually consider that licenses that prohibit non-commercial uses and/or derivatives are OK for artistic works. Because artistic works are non-functional (rms' point you have already mentioned), forbidding non-commercial uses and/or derivatives is not denying the control of the audience's work. Arguably, the audience does not achieve anything by reading a novel or listening to a song, or watching a movie, etc. On the contrary, using software (or reading cooking recipes or manuals or encyclopedias, etc.) aims to achieve a work. The user deserves the control on her work, the four freedoms.
That said, even if the audience does not deserve a control over an artistic work, they must be allowed to non-commercially share it. Anybody should always be allowed to share things (anything) with her friends. Sharing culture is the basis of any community (from a family to a civilization). Forbidding non-commercial sharing is ethically wrong. It is destroying what makes us social animals. You can call that a moral argument is you wish.
> As long as you agree that non-commercial sharing must not be forbidden, you can have sites (or P2P networks) where copies of the digital work are available at no price. That is financially unbeatable. Prohibiting non-commercial sharing does not change that fact.
In a "pay what ever you want" system that allows 0 as the price to pay, putting the content in P2P networks loose it's sense if you seek for obtaining the data gratis. Wired, but people upload software that is both libre and gratis to P2P networks. I have always though that it's to make a backup in case the official site goes down.
In any case. This is actually good, if people like the content and are willing to pay, then they just go to the website and pay what ever they want as the price.
> I actually consider that licenses that prohibit non-commercial uses and/or derivatives are OK for artistic works. Because artistic works are non-functional (rms' point you have already mentioned), forbidding non-commercial uses and/or derivatives is not denying the control of the audience's work. Arguably, the audience does not achieve anything by reading a novel or listening to a song, or watching a movie, etc. On the contrary, using software (or reading cooking recipes or manuals or encyclopedias, etc.) is achieving a work and the user deserves the control on her work, the four freedoms.
I agree with almost everything.
Though artist shouldn't be more "affected" by allowing non-commercial than what they have been since people share. non-commercial distribution is important for people to share in freedom. I would still buy some non-functional data that says "you shall not share". But only if I'm sure that none of my friends will ask me for a copy.
In a "pay what ever you want" system that allows 0 as the price to pay, putting the content in P2P networks loose it's sense if you seek for obtaining the data gratis.
Then, why would a site proposing copies of the same work at a price make any more sense than the one distributing them at no price? In other terms, how is that an argument in favor of accepting licenses forbidding commercial uses?
Because if some one has to profit from a work. Isn't the author the one that deserves that right? He is the one who made the effort to produce the product after all.
You did not get my point. You wrote:
In a "pay what ever you want" system that allows 0 as the price to pay, putting the content in P2P networks loose it's sense if you seek for obtaining the data gratis.
My follow-up was:
Then, why would a site proposing copies of the same work at a price make any more sense?
I mean, according to your own argument, "if you seek for obtaining the data" (gratis or not), you would then take it from the author's site.
I actually do not agree with your argument. The price is not everything. For instance, most of us go buy food in supermarkets even if farmers sell the same food (actually a fresher food) for a much smaller price. But it is faster to go to the supermarket, there is more choice (of food and beyond food), etc. The same holds for the distribution of immaterial works. For instance, Popcorn time is more convenient than using a Web browser and a regular BitTorrent client (that downloads the pieces in any order) or than renting a DVD in a local store.
My main point in my initial post was this one:
Enabling or disabling business models does not make a license more or less ethical.
> For instance, Popcorn time is more convenient than using a Web browser and a regular BitTorrent client (that downloads the pieces in any order) or than renting a DVD in a local store.
I don't think popcorn time is a good example. Popcorn time offer movies gratis (non-commercial) and that's the primarily reason why people in general use it. I know of two good examples of this fact where I live, this two guys don't use it because Netflix is a complete bastard who lobbied to implement DRM in HMTL5 or because it requires you to run proprietary software. In fact, if this two guys were something more than mere pigs who avoid the price whenever they can, I know they will be using Netflix instead because I heard them considering the possibility before they knew of popcorn time. But as soon as they found popcorn time thanks to a third party who wasn't neither interest in libre software at all, they started using it all day without even knowing how it works and that they where relying on other people's bandwidth. I truly hate people as this two, but I know that they act like that because of their ignorance, if only I where better with the language maybe I could make them a little more wise. But even if I can't still prefer that rather than Netflix.
In any case, popcorn time is non-comercial, so it's not a good example because I said I'm in pro of that, neither the farmers and supermarkets since supermarkets has to buy or ask for permission at the very last from farmers before the supermarkets can sell their food.
Let's put and hypothetical scenario that is more adequate in my opinion:
Suppose that there's a copying machine for statues that almost everyone has in their house, but not for food. Sculptors still need to buy food if they want to live and has strength so they can continue sculpting.
This are my questions for this scenario (that is very similar to videogames actually):
Why should the sculptor allow everyone to sell his sculptures without paying him anything? Why if only the sculptor actually did and effort to imagine, sculpt and in the processes he also had to buy food?
> My main point in my initial post was this one:
Enabling or disabling business models does not make a license more or less ethical.
I now see what you mean. And yes, you're right. It was foolish to say that "it's right because otherwise you can't do PWYW". I apologise for that. It's just that this seemed like a good system that actually work, so it was one of the firsts things that pop up in my mind. What I was trying to express from the beginning is:
As I said before the author put his effort to produce the product. So as a reward I think he deserves to sell it. Whether he actually profit or not is a different issue. Now, why should other be allowed to sell the product and profit without asking or giving anything to the author? Just because they have a copy? Why if the author was the one who actually put his effort?
Why should the sculptor allow everyone to sell his sculptures without paying him anything?
There are reasons she could want to do that. I could cite the famous artist Nina Paley. But Gwenn Seemel is closer to a sculptor: http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/copyright/
Anyway, the sculptor *can* "allow everyone to sell his sculptures without paying him anything" but he does not *have to*. Like I wrote before, I do not consider that forbidding commercial uses of artistic work is unethical.
Now, why should other be allowed to sell the product and profit without asking or giving anything to the author?
They do not *have to* be allowed to "sell the product" because it is nonfunctional (not because of the effort put by the artist; the same could be said of free software developers). They *can* do that if the author allows it though. The artist decides and either way is fine. What is not OK in my book is to forbid non-commercial sharing.
> There are reasons she could want to do that. I could cite the famous artist Nina Paley. But Gwenn Seemel is closer to a sculptor: http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/copyright/
Thanks for the links, I'll take them a look for what's rest of Sunday.
> Anyway, the sculptor *can* "allow everyone to sell his sculptures without paying him anything" but he does not *have to*. Like I wrote before, I do not consider that forbidding commercial uses of artistic work is unethical.
We share the same thought.
> They do not *have to* be allowed to "sell the product" because it is nonfunctional (not because of the effort put by the artist; the same could be said of free software developers). They *can* do that if the author allows it though. The artist decides and either way is fine. What is not OK in my book is to forbid non-commercial sharing.
I agree with you.
I agree too, is nice to have media that respects the four freedoms. But the issue that I see here is the position of that wiki page on what's good and bad, and the position of Trisquel. As far a I know we follow GNU FSDG not DSFG from Debian, so what DSFG has to say doesn't really apply here.
And GNU FSDG says:
Non-functional Data Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it. Thus, we don't insist on the free license criteria for non-functional data. It can be included in a free system distribution as long as its license gives you permission to copy and redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
So as far as I know that's the position of Trisquel concerning non-functional data. So I agree with not including games that forbids commercial use of the data in the Trisquel repo. However, I'm against with discourage games that only allow non-comercial distribution of it's non-functional data. Doing that will mean no commercial free-as-in-freedom games. I want those too, I want people making money from their games while respecting user freedoms.
If memory serves, Trisquel has a policy against proprietary art (game data), thus this policy should be enforced in the Trisquel wiki.
> Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs - commercial close source http://www.aamfp.com/ (2013-08-18)
> Marina Attack - close source, commercial http://www.scirra.com/arcade/shooter/540/marina-attack-extended (2013-08-06)
> Game Dev Tycoon - close source, commercial http://www.greenheartgames.com/ (2013-08-06)
> Jack Haunt: Old Haunting Grounds - close source, commercial http://www.evolvingpoet.com/jack-haunt-old-haunting-grounds/ (2013-08-06)
> Nihilumbra - commercial close source http://www.beautifungames.com/p/games.html (2013-08-18)
Using the word commercial there could be misinterpreted as "is bad because of being commercial and propietary" better get rid of that word when used in a negative context, unless you want people to call us a communist movement.
Edit: Actually this is in the words to avoid[1], So this page needs to be corrected.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
> AssaultCube Reloaded - Several data files are under non-commercial license
Under this context I suppose this means that forbids non-commercial distribution. But if you read it alone is confusing, could mean that or the opposite. Better make it clear with something like "Several data files forbids non-commercial distribution".
> Be The Wumpus - contains sounds under CC Sampling+. Most of them are from Freesound; some are PD or CC0; but tens of sounds made by two people (including the author) are under CC Sampling+.
What's the deal with Creative Commons Sampling Plus license? https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
It says that you have a couple more freedoms than just non-commercial distribution. And having non-commercial distribution for non functional data is enough.
"What's the deal with Creative Commons Sampling Plus license?"
To qualify as a Free Culture work (which seems to be the standard is being used here by the OP) it must be available for both commercial and non-commercial distribution. If you understand their viewpoint, then you'll understand their objection to it. :)
To qualify as a Free Culture it has to be in the public domain or basically in the public domain (like CC0). If that's the intention of the wiki page then the name has to be changed. "Rejected games list" sounds like this is position of Trisquel.
Hi,
I love the idea, we must however note that, if the game engines are free
software, free games can be made from then. See Freedoom for example, if
the PrBoom game engine wasn't free software
(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/PrBoom), Freedoom wouldn't be considered
a free software Doom IWAD (IWADs are what Doom players call "games")
(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Freedoom).
As such, I would suggest you to emphasize that free games can be made
from these engines.
As for Alien Arena... I'm speechless, as I recall seeing Alien Arena
being approved as free software
(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Alien_Arena). Perhaps we'll have to
subdue Alien Arena to some scrutiny once again, either in the Free
Software Directory, or in this list.
Arx Libertatis: Another game engine, that shouldn't be missed. Not yet
approved at the Free Software Directory, but this is still a highlight.
If we take on the same premisse, OpenMW
(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/OpenMW) would have to be removed from the
Free Software Directory, as it's just a game engine for games like The
Elder Scrolls: Morrowind.
Really Rather Good Battles in Space: Needs scrutiny once more, either
here or at the Free Software Directory
(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Really_Rather_Good_Battles_In_Space).
Red Eclipse: Needs scrutiny once more, either here or at the Free
Software Directory (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Red_Eclipse).
Stunt Rally: Needs scrutiny once more, either here or at the Free
Software Directory (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Stunt_Rally).
Trigguer Rally: Needs scrutiny once more, either here or at Trisquel's
repositories (http://packages.trisquel.info/belenos/trigger-rally).
VDrift: Needs scrutiny once more, either here or at the Free Software
Directory (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/VDrift).
Besides, one must take note of what Richard Stallman discussed at the
engineering tech at Google
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/google-engineering-talk.html), mainly
about freedom 2, and copyright art vs. software. As a follower of the
free software philosophy, I also agree that non-software data should at
least give to the user the freedom to share such data, even if
restricting to non-commercial purposes and even if restricting
derivative works, and for the followers of the philosophy, going beyond
that is just an extra since we assume that artistic works which other
than software aren't an issue because the user doesn't do functional
things with it.
Respectfully, Adonay.
Have a nice day.
--
Assinatura automática – português brasileiro:
– Página de usuário na wiki do LibrePlanet.org:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
– Em favor da aprovação da Lei ODF em Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina), e para garantir os direitos humanos de igual tratamento pelo governo ou lei, de circulação dentro das fronteiras de cada nação, de participação no governo, e de igualdade no acesso aos serviços públicos, não estou aceitando arquivos do Microsoft Office ou do Apple iWork. Por favor, use o LibreOffice(https://www.libreoffice.org/) e seus formatos do padrão ODF (.odt, .odp, etc.).
Automatic signature – North American English:
– User page on LibrePlanet.org wiki:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
– In favor of the approval of the ODF law in Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina), and to ensure the human rights of equal treatment by the government or law, of circulation inside the boundaries of each nation, of participation on the government, and of equality on the access to the public services, I'm not accepting Microsoft Office's files or Apple iWork's files. Please use LibreOffice (https://www.libreoffice.org/) and its formats from the ODF standard (.odt, .odp, etc).
I am a translator!
good idea pizzaman! If only your pizza was half as good as this list you made.. arr
:P
name at domain wrote:
> Hi all! I've imported a list of games that might be mistakenly seen as
> libre, but are not. Have a peek:
> https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/rejected-games-list
This list claims that Wizard of Wor HTML5 has "No license information on
the SF.net page" but on
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wizardofworhtml5/ I see the license
listed as "Affero GNU Public License".
I have no idea if this information is authoritative -- the text on the
aforementioned Sourceforge.net page reads "I did not made this code, it
is made by a great programmers!" which suggests to me that this
program's copyright holder might not be the person who posted this copy
to sourceforge.net.
Red Eclipse is definitely okay, it's in Debian main. The logo font has been SIL OFL'd for a long time now.
Removed Red Eclipse from the list.
This is misleading. Debian “main” repository includes software which is proprietary (according to the FSF) including some under the Artistic License 1.0. Therefore not all software from Debian main “is definitely ok” in the sense of being suitable for a fully free distribution that uses the GNU FSDG, like Trisquel.
I am a translator!
It is true that the Debian main repo includes packages with Artistic License 1.
In fact I went to read the license and then I went to check each package that I have installed on my computer (Debian 8) with the command grep -i '^License:.*Artistic' /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
Every installed package on my lappy that contains the Artistic Licence 1 also contains the GPL1 or GPL2 or Expat or BSD 3/4 or several of the aforementioned. Every single one of these packages are double or triple licensed, which, in my very humble opinion means that every single one of these packages are fully free software (the user can choose under which license he modifies and redistributes the code).
In few words: Debian is 100% libre software.
What about Exult and OpenMW? They have their own editors you could make 100% libre games with.
No one published free/libre replacement data for them yet. Same goes for most "liberated" games such as Quake 2 or Doom 3.
With the editors also being free software this isn't a problem. You can ignore the old games and just use the engine/editor to make an entirely new and wholly original games with new art and assets...
Right, but the game doesn't exist. Someone has to make it.
Thats exactly why they should not be excluded though. They are free software engines with free software editors, it just so happens can be used as a drop-in replacement for old non-free engines(by design granted).
LibreGameWiki is designed to help people find games to play, not to help game developers find engines to use. The latter purpose would probably be better served in a place like freegamedev.net.