No one forces them to have supported partners? This sounds fishy to me.
so what, free software is more important than feeding your kids? I'm
lost here.
On 08/01/2012 12:23 PM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in
entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the
experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the
artist.
Except that most money from these things don't go to the artists and
there is no right to restrict what information others can copy (there
are only artificial monopolies).
Like the previously mentioned movie
or music, it is meant to be consumed and not a tool to create
software.
So you decide what every user of software considers to be its purpose.
I don't agree with this reasoning, the user should be able to e.g. adapt
it into a tool to use in other software.
(RMS doesn't consider artistic works not for practical use to need to
provide the same freedom to users as software, while I believe that any
cultural work could be used for an unforeseen practical purpose. Like
making typing prediction dictionaries from novels, this would be
prevented by nonfree cultural work licensing.)
If I am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I
really need to look at the source code files as a consumer? No, I
would be more interested in the interactive experience.
When I'm enjoying editing programs using Emacs, I don't look at Emacs's
source code. I don't see a difference in these cases.
Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and
developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community
project does not.
No one forces them to have supported partners or children and no one
forces them to work for selling software licenses. There are many
people getting money in other ways. (It's possible to get money for
selling free software or from donations of satisfied users, I don't have
data on the effectiveness of these methods.)
