Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 16:40:34 JST xianc78

   • Pawlicker
   • Outer Colony Theropod

   @PurpCat @RK7 The FSF has openly stated that art and level assets don't matter as long as the code is libre.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 16:40:31 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Pawlicker
     • Outer Colony Theropod
     • bonkmaykr: extra bonks
     @bonkmaykr @xianc78 @PurpCat @RK7 >I can understand why that may not be a good idea especially if you are borrowing some media i.e. you have licensed music in your game,
     Making a copy of an audio file is not borrowing, as both can have it and use it at the same time.
     
     It's a foolish decision to use music under a proprietary license, even for purely economic reasons, as that *will* screw over future distribution, with the forced removal of such music being common in ports of games to newer computers.
     
     If you have to delete some proprietary soundtracks from the free release, so be it.
     
     >if you want to incentivize people to buy a legit copy to use their free source port.
     If you want to incentivize people to pay you, you just ask for payment before you provide the binary and source code of the free software.
   • Embed this notice
     bonkmaykr: extra bonks (bonkmaykr@gameliberty.club)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 16:40:32 JST bonkmaykr: extra bonks

     in reply to

     • Pawlicker
     • Outer Colony Theropod

     @xianc78 @PurpCat @RK7 I am glad they've acknowledged the code-only situation that many formerly proprietary games are under (Doom, Quake, etc), but I imagine that someone will still complain about it because it limits the sharing aspect.

     Personally I believe the assets should be liberated too in most cases, but I can understand why that may not be a good idea especially if you are borrowing some media i.e. you have licensed music in your game, or if you want to incentivize people to buy a legit copy to use their free source port.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 17:44:41 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Pawlicker
     • Outer Colony Theropod
     • bonkmaykr: extra bonks
     @bonkmaykr @PurpCat @xianc78 @RK7 >But you cannot add DRM to try to stop people from copying it.
     The GPLv2 and GPLv3 do not forbid digital handcuffs - you are permitted to implement them - it's just that nobody bothers as you need to give the user everything they need to break them.
     
     >I don't think proprietary licensed music should entirely be off the table
     Maybe, but out of purely economic considerations alone, proprietary licensed music should be off the table unless the terms are perpetual.
   • Embed this notice
     bonkmaykr: extra bonks (bonkmaykr@gameliberty.club)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 17:44:42 JST bonkmaykr: extra bonks

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Pawlicker
     • Outer Colony Theropod

     @Suiseiseki @PurpCat @xianc78 @RK7 maybe you meant purchasing rather than donating and we're actually on the same page, if my comment is redundant then forgive me.

     I don't think proprietary licensed music should entirely be off the table for developers because there are artistic considerations for using such music.

     You make a good suggestion about simply liberating the game without the third-party music, though.

   • Embed this notice
     bonkmaykr: extra bonks (bonkmaykr@gameliberty.club)'s status on Wednesday, 15-Jan-2025 17:44:43 JST bonkmaykr: extra bonks

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Pawlicker
     • Outer Colony Theropod

     @Suiseiseki @PurpCat @xianc78 @RK7

     > If you want to incentivize people to pay you, you just ask for payment before you provide the binary and source code of the free software.

     Right, I agree.

     However it is important to note that (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer) The terms of the copyright license are agreed to upon acquisition of the software, not before. Almost no free software licenses require the author to give out free copies, the GPL entitles you to the source code if you have a free binary but you are allowed to paywall access to the software. You just cannot restrict what people do with it afterwards and you have to cough up the source to anyone who gets a copy (hence putting it on a public Git repo is the obvious choice).

     This means you can sell a commercial product for-profit that is also free software. You don't need to ask for a donation before opening it up for download. But you cannot add DRM to try to stop people from copying it.