Fabio Pesari <[email protected]> writes: > On 03/07/2015 06:58 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote: >> so you would distribute a binary package that's only useful with artwork >> not available on repos? that's like a *nudge nudge* to go use unfree >> stuff outside them :P > > Well, we distribute emulators and they are only useful with nonfree ROMs > not available on repos, aren't they?
sure, but do they need to be distributed alongside them? > What about PDF readers? Web browsers? i think we should always have freedom #0 in mind. these are free software, we shouldn't mess with how people want to use them, while we don't need to distribute unfree things for them to be useful. > I personally would see it as a way to support free software and to > recognize it as such. Those programs are fully functional and free, > nothing stops users from providing their own assets (as long as the > required asset pipeline is also free, otherwise the game should be > blacklisted as a whole). > >> http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC > > I just finished reading it. One interesting thing is that even they > could not find any conclusions for content users, aside from "ask the > authors to change the terms of the license". > > If I run a free game, I can read its code and be 100% sure it's not > backdoored. If its assets are nonfree, I can still be 100% sure that > it's not backdoored. Let's say my main reason to use free software is > security or privacy, how would free assets affect me? > > From a content author perspective, I disagree with their conclusions. I > think the NC still offers a clear advantage: the end users are not > affected by it, only potential competitors. I think this article is > being overly optimistic regarding how people value their philosophical > integrity, especially when profit is concerned. I bet the developers of > games like UQM don't feel bad about themselves, and why should they? > They've done more for libre gaming than many other people. By releasing > a high-quality game, they made a lot of people realize that free gaming > does not necessarily mean Pac Man clones and text games and attracted > them to free software. > > And that's why I say that while similar in spirit, Free Software and > Free Culture are separate movements. Free culture is for the most part > content author culture while Free software is for the most part user > culture. in that case i prefer dmytri kleiner's distinction between free software and free culture :P http://telekommunisten.net/the-telekommunist-manifesto/ > Of course, a person which champions freedom in general will support > both, but in my opinion they do not hold the same importance. > >> i've heard of many lawsuits were there wasn't any commercial >> interest... maybe the gamer community is more forgiving, which i doubt >> :P > > Usually developers issue a cease-and-desist against noncommercial > developers, they go harder on those who profit from their IP. > >> ? > > The developers have agreed to free the code but the artists haven't > agreed to free the assets. > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev -- :>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
