> No we cannot work without 3D graphics cards. Modeling architecture or > moving parts of a mechanism in order to understand it better has nothing > to do with gaming yet requires 3D rendering.
True for some people. Maybe there are also non-gaming uses of software written for games (clearly are for 3d rendering algorithms used in games). > And video players are needed as well, come on. It's not like we are > using them only for watching blockbusters from DVDs, right? There are useful jobs done with nearly only texts or speaking to people, like programming or editing texts. Videos aren't as effective at teaching people about such things as text. I don't see how this argument treats games differently than such programs. > "Isn't meant to" means that their manufactures decide to not allow using > them for it? There are clear problems with that. > > It means exactly that. What's the issue? I see no problem, my freedom > hasn't been harmed if I use a device that isn't meant to access the > internet and do my everyday work. Is your freedom harmed just because > your TV can't do all that, or your microwave? No problem here, I like using devices designed to do one thing well. It's different when it is limited by disallowing running certain programs from it instead of by not having hot and complex chips to run them. > Software is art if you look at the code itself. Code is poetry and all > that. But while using, no one experiences the art in it, for the user it > is just a tool for work. Tools aren't supposed to bring some artistic > message, they are supposed to be useful at a particular task. Thus you > need the freedom to change it, which of course involves the freedom to > study the code and have that same code available. Are tools for playing games different? > You would not > like it if everyone was able to change, say, Star Wars movies at will > and redistribute them just like originals? The changes made in the > remasters are awful enough and people complain about them, wouldn't it > be even worse if everyone could make his own version and put it out > there, so no one could really distinguish where the original is? Most free software licenses require marking modified works as different (e.g. by renaming it or adding a changelog entry). The freedom to copy unmodified versions would prevent being limited to the newest version supported by the author (not sure if original Star Wars movies are as available as the changed ones, but there are books made worse in newer editions).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
