chungy
Doomworld is so about bullshit excuses
Posts: 879
Registered: 06-05 |
leileilol said:
Time to start a Free Data project(s)! I've been doing replacement stuff for Heretic the other day but they're guns :(
Bleh. What's so wrong with just buying the original games?
Edit: Since I pretty much know your response already, let's take a look at what Richard M. Stallman thinks about it:
code:
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Views on changing software policies...
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:24:57 -0500
I was wondering if you had specific thoughts about software that was once
non-free, but the company or developers have liberated it to be under a free
license (GNU, BSD, or whatever). Do you feel as the companies or developers
have done a right thing by turning over?
Yes. They formerly denied the user's freedom, which was unethical,
but they have changed to respecting the user's freedom, which is
ethical.
How do you feel if they continue to
develop/publish non-free programs, and only a specific set of software is
freed?
The free programs are ethical and the non-free ones are not.
I'm thinking somewhat on the lines of liberated games. Games like moria have
been entirely liberated; whereas others like Doom and Quake only have had
their engines freed, and their game data files remain nonfree (still make a
profit on the game data)... it seems that Doom and Quake might constitute as
only 'semi-free' as they still depend on non-free data (although projects
like FreeDoom (BSD-licensed) and OpenArena (GPL-licensed) exist to make free
game data, to allow an entirely free game to be distributed).
Game data is more like art than like software, so I don't think it has
to be free. On the other hand, free game data is a good thing.
Free game data is good, but it's not necessary. Free Software is about protecting the user's rights on the *software* he uses, art is art; no one disagrees that free art is a good thing, but it's not a necessity.
Last edited by chungy on 09-05-08 at 23:37
|
09-05-08 22:58 
