Steam client coming to Linux. Will you guys still hate it?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
I believe as long as the engine is free the art in games can be licensed separately without violating the tenants of freedom. Freedom is primarily concerned with the source code.
So for example you could release a game with source code under the GNU GPL and then charge for the artwork and the game would still be free. It isn't about the price. It is about the freedom. And the game would still be free. It would be like shipping hardware with free software except in the context of a game and the artwork. While users could not sell the whole game they could sell versions of it using new artwork.
I believe Stallman uses paintings as an example where it is ok that it is "non-free". There is no source code to art and so there is no issue with freedom.
DRM is wrong for other reasons. Freedom respects and relies on copyright. Just because you support freedom does not mean you would violate the copyrights of the owner. If music, movies, or other artwork were being sold unencumbered by DRM a free software user can pay for these things and there would be no issue.
Feel free to correct this. I'm no expert on the intricacies of any of this and I believe most conversations involve arguments where the non-free supporter wins the argument solely based on a misconception about the goals and requirements of the GPL/and or free software.
As far as the guidelines for a free system distros they call stuff like artwork/maps/music "Non-funcational data".
For non-functional data the only requirement is that you are free to copy and redistribute for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
I am a member!
Some of the wording here is of an interesting choice. This is applicable to free distributions though and I think it is still unclear how it applies to say a single commercially produced song or a game.
If you look at a non-function book for instance like Free Software Free Society the copyright gives permission to copy verbatim although not make modifications. One might think this violates ones freedom. The reason behind this is it is non-functional and because it is a political piece/opinion/etc. I don't know if this copying is allowed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes as the page didn't print correctly and half the copyright notice is cut off for me. It is probably commercial or non-commercial distribution though.
In any case I just thought I'd point this out. It never occurred to me that DRM-free content might require a non-restrictive license to be considered freedom friendly. However I could see such a requirement existing. The question then becomes is purchasing "non-free" (not commercially re-distributable although ok to loan a copy of to a friend for instance, as is the case for most books, be ok) non-functional content ok.
As far as the
[https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
guidelines for a free system distros] they call stuff like artwork/maps/music
"Non-funcational data".
For non-functional data the only requirement is that you are free to copy and
redistribute for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
I am a member!
I believe as long as the engine is free the art in games can be sold without
violating the tenants of freedom. Freedom is primarily concerned with the
source code.
So for example you could release a game with source code under the GNU GPL
and then charge for the artwork and the game would still be free. It isn't
about the price. It is about the freedom. And the game would still be free.
It would be like shipping hardware with free software except in the context
of a game and the artwork. While users could not sell the whole game they
could sell versions of it using new artwork.
One more time: watch or listen the "Copyright vs. Community" talk of rms (who
is frequently called an extremist). He does not say at all that he is (or
should be) "entitled to be able to deconstruct any movie, song, or painting".
Not all all. Software and art are different in nature.
Ok lets think for a second. What if Valve released the Steam client for Linux under an Apache 2.0 licence and never released the source code? The reason I ask is that Apache 2.0 is not only a free software compatible license but also does not require the owner to release the source.
Then it'd be like all the binary blobs in the stock Linux kernel that are apparently licensed under the GPL.
[yet another unintentional double post]
You already know the answer. We would not include it. Look at freedom 1 and
3. Source code is a pre-condition. Even if it was under the Apache license
we would still be getting a proprietary version (binary only).
Again you are not new to this community. You should know the answers to
simple questions like this by now. If you don't I would advise you to see
our [https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/essays-about-free-software Essays about
free software] and bring yourself up to speed.
It's a given it won't be included from the start in the Trisquel repos. The main one was clarification of it being ok to install and run if it was under the Apache 2.0 license. So basically Apache 2.0 with source code is all good but Apache 2.0 without source code is bad even if the license if GPL compatible.
I know I'm not new around here and theres been plenty of posts here and there. Its just wishful thinking that Valve will release the source code for programs that pay their employee's bills and allow them to create future games. Sadly, it is the only way to get most of you to play AAA games.
I am a member!
If there's no source code than it's not free software. Simple as that. The four freedoms matter here. Source code licensed under Apache 2 is free because it grants users the four freedoms. I suppose technically a binary licensed under the Apache 2 would as well, since it allows us to decompile or reverse engineer it, but it wouldn't be free until someone has done so.
I am a member!
A binary released under the Apache 2 license is not free unless the source code is available. I'm not even sure that makes sense though. If you take code with an Apache 2 license, compile it, and release it with a modification that binary is non-free. The original code before the modification though would be free.
With a free program you would never need to decompile or reverse engineer it.
With this method of making it under an Apache 2.0 license and trying to keep
it free software, can the source code be unavailable by default but made
available to someone if that person requests it? Or does the source code have
to be immediately available from the same webpage or repository as the main
program?
I am a member!
If there's no source code than it's not free software. Simple as that. The
four freedoms matter here. Source code licensed under Apache 2 is free
because it grants users the four freedoms. I suppose technically a binary
licensed under the Apache 2 would as well, since it allows us to decompile or
reverse engineer it, but it wouldn't be free until someone has done so.
With this method of making it under an Apache 2.0 license and trying to keep it free software, can the source code be unavailable by default but made available to someone if that person requests it? Or does the source code have to be immediately available from the same webpage or repository as the main program?
I believe you can send the source code to the users only. It does not need to be universally available. However, I am not a layer and you need to read the specifics of the license of your choice.
One thing I am sure: if you deny a user the access to the source code, then you are not developing free sofwtare.
I've been on their press email list since 1999 when helped run a Half-Life website back in the day. I'll send an email asking about the license they will use and if Apache 2.0 is a possibility. It may be wasted effort because I am guessing it will be like 98% proprietary.
- Dup -
I believe you can send the source code to the users only. It does not need to
be universally available. However, I am not a layer and you need to read the
specifics of the license of your choice.
One thing I am sure: if you deny a user the access to the source code, then
you are not developing free sofwtare.
Hey this very video is relevent to this thread
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios