> I'm only saying I don't care for games. They don't do "practical"
> jobs. It's entertainment. Some games are art.
I think games actually *do* something practical. The practical thing
they do is *entertainment*. It helps you to spend time you would
otherwise do nothing, can be good for (depends
"Conclusion: for you, there exists an emergency."
No, I have not stated that it amounts to an emergency. Please don't attribute
your conclusions of what I think to me.
"Instead of acknowledging our divergence"
Well I'm sorry for not doing that at the start. But really the divergence
seemed
If you did read it then why... when I'm talking about all creative works
being derivative not in the legal sense but in the sense of stuff building on
what came before... are you trying to change the meaning around to be in the
legal sense when you say "You must at least accept that an exact
There must be a typo somewhere? Because one of the one hand you say
"Businesses using people artwork in the course of their business can afford
to pay for that, and I do think it's an unreasonable use of copyright to
ensure that they do."
If you do think that it's unreasonable to use
Magic Banana:
"I do not recognize companies (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store,
the hairdressing salons, the bars, the book stores, the radio/TV channels,
the movie theaters, etc.) any right to redistribute recent artistic works
without giving a cent back to artists."
Neither do
"You do not "restrict the public's rights" by preventing it from doing
something it neither needs nor wants to do."
Other artists are not part of the public. Non-artists never have a desire to
have something changed? Ever? They can't have someone else do it for them?
Like me commissioning
"Our opinions diverge here. If the public does not need/want to modify the
work --- only artists do (again, the hairdresser can be a music artist in her
free time, she is not acting as one when running her haircutting business)
--- then the freedoms of the public are not harmed when it is
"But, sure, the current trend is, on the contrary, to always increase the
copyright term."
And everything that makes copyright stronger also makes copyleft stronger.
It's the judo move of copyleft.
Yes, there are two separate aspects to computer games; the software engine,
and the artwork, including graphics, audio, cut scene video etc. I think it's
essential for the software engines to be free code, for all the reasons
others have mentioned here relating to user rights and
Reducing copyright terms to 5 years might be nice conditionally (the
condition being on finding a way for copyleft to continue functioning without
copyright which is a difficult topic. Copyright is only bad in my view when
it's used to prevent sharing. When it's used as with copyleft to
"Only artists wants to modify artistic works, not
readers/listeners/spectators/hairdressers."
This creates a distinction where none exists and I think feeds back into some
of the other things you said. Every person in free software is a potential
developer. Every person reading or listening
"Free software is about the freedom of the *users*, not the *coders*."
Yes, I know. In this aspect I hope that you were able to at least pick up on
the sentiment being communicated, even if she didn't use the right words.
"in what way the freedoms of the readers/spectators/... of an artistic
"Until the enactment of the Statute of Anne publishers could pass on their
royal grants of copyright to their heirs in perpetuity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright#Battle_of_the_booksellers_.28UK.29
This is clearly wrong. Copyright should be short, only last a generation
Oh, and there's one more thing I thought of: Chris Webber makes some good
arguments about why free games are important for free software:
http://dustycloud.org/blog/why-faif-games-matter/
Yeah, but software shouldn't be categorized into whether someone considers it
practical or not. All software should be free ("We defend the rights of all
software users", says the FSF - not "We defend the rights of some software
users.")
I'm reminded of someone else that was also taking
I'm only saying I don't care for games. They don't do "practical" jobs. It's
entertainment. Some games are art.
I think a fundamental difference also has to be drawn in terms of types of
media. A book, even with the full force of reserved rights weighing down upon
it, cannot hurt you- there might be lawsuit if you choose to publish it on
your website, but the book itself cannot instigate that. By
Stallman:
"Works that are designed for use doing practical jobs must be free; [...]
As for works of opinion and art, I don't think they must be free. I advocate
some reforms of copyright for these works but I see no reason to abolish it."
"Works that are doing practical jobs -- free." Games
"I wouldn't expect games to be free since they are a product"
Oh, please clear your head from what you've probably heard from the
proprietary game companies. Rather: Games are software too.
Games can be free, freedom is not about price. The bigger concern would be
Nvidia's GPU drivers, which are proprietary as sin.
Linux=component for an operating system (not necessary must to be GNU)(Linux
it is not a program of GNU project)
GNU=operating system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
HURD=GNU Project program (kernel)(this kernel supposed to be GNU's kernel)
You can play any game if you have Nvidia's Kepler card, gtx770 and gt730 with
gddr5 are fine. You just reclock a Kepler card manually and play. Those card
are working with fully free operating system, blobless.
The libre driver is included in Linux (and Linux-libre), so you wouldn't have
to install it. That driver is Nouveau, and the Nouveau website has a page
documenting support for the various features of the cards:
https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/FeatureMatrix/
In general, the standard
"But would it be possible to use my nvidia card with free drivers and still
being able to run the 3d graphics when running a game?"
It would depend what model of NVidia card you have you can check If it will
work with free software here:
https://h-node.org/
If you have the right model of
I understand the difference now, someone sent a link with the
explanation of the naming convention.
On 2017-03-24 15:02, enduz...@riseup.net wrote:
The op thinks that GNU/Linux = Libre. GNU slash Linux is only a naming
convention, designed to put stress on the component parts of the
system so
Ok that explains a lot. Thanks! I could have worded that last question
differently, I wouldn't expect games
to be free since they are a product. But would it be possible to use my
nvidia card with free drivers and
still being able to run the 3d graphics when running a game?
On 2017-03-24
That's a malformed question. Fedora is a GNU/Linux distro. What you mean to
ask about is operating systems which are compliant with GNU FSDG. And the
advantage is simple: none of the official channels of software distribution
for these systems contain any proprietary software. That's the
"what's the advantage of using GNU/Linux distro over a distro like
fedora/redhat?"
Fedora and Redhat are GNU/Linux distro's many people in the free software
community chose to call what most people call "Linux" "GNU/Linux" the reason
for this is explained here:
28 matches
Mail list logo
