> Games are not works of general use (even though they are software). They > are pure entertainment and one can work without them just fine.
We can work without 3d graphics cards, video players, or other things not needed for typical work. I don't consider it a reason to not have such things free. > I see no > issue at all in using Wine to play commercial games. Buying commercial > games doesn't harm the cause of free software either. How should it? They being commercial is completely unrelated. I believe changing them to not need Wine would be useful, so they being free would be more useful. > I'd even go so far, as to tell that consoles are allowed to have > proprietary operating systems as long as the console isn't meant to deal > with everyday computing like browsing the net and whatnot. "Isn't meant to" means that their manufactures decide to not allow using them for it? There are clear problems with that. > Besides that, games are supposed to be > works of art to some point. To wish to make them free and open source is > besides the point, you are supposed to look at them as is, it's not an > instrument that can only measure it's value in how well it fits your needs. Software is art. There are beautiful programs like TeX which uses interesting algorithms designed for it to solve real problems. It's good that some people modify TeX into programs better for some uses. With literature making derivative works by changing a part of a book isn't as useful as writing a new book inspired by the previous one. So the freedom to modify texts like novels or essays explaining someone's opinions isn't useful. (It would be different assuming that not everyone reads the same language.) Your arguments could apply to game data (although having it free would make them more fun for some people, e.g. if someone translates it in their natural language).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
