Discussion:
Do DRM free games matter even if the game is non-free?
(too old to reply)
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 14:13:02 UTC
Permalink
The Humble Bundle store is having a big sale right now and for many of these
games, they offer DRM free versions for GNU/Linux that can be installed
directly from the download in addition to Stem keys. I know the free software
community hates DRM and wants ALL of the code to be free software, but with
it just being DRM free, does it really matter?

What I am trying to say is that will any of you at least play DRM free games
not requiring Steam even if they are non-free or do you consider the DRM free
games useless as long as the program isn't free? As in they are wasting their
time.
moxalt
2015-09-05 14:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Regardless of whether they implement DRM or not, they are still non-free
software, and must be opposed on those grounds.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
2015-09-06 00:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by moxalt
Regardless of whether they implement DRM or not, they are still non-free
software, and must be opposed on those grounds.
And in addition from a security perspective, any non-free software one runs
has as much access to the computer as the user account under which it runs.

So any non-free software running as your normal login on your computer
could spy on you, open a backdoor (certainly a temporary backdoor when
running, possibly a backdoor that persists across sessions and reboots),
and more. Even highly-skilled technical users would have no easy way to
investigate this. Certainly nothing to compare with looking into the
security of free software. This is where I think examining this issue along
the type of software is pursuing a rather impractical argument.
j***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-05 15:04:24 UTC
Permalink
If I were to justify the use of a non-free game just because it was DRM-free,
I'd be able to justify running any non-free program that is DRM-free.
Games are software, just like any other program. It's just as bad when a game
is non-free.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 15:27:35 UTC
Permalink
I think that the first had some free stuff, at least after enough money was
raised:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/with-1-million-raised-humble-bundle-games-go-open-source/3

But this doesn't seem normal anymore though. You're totally right - They
should be selling only free software. I don't give them any money for that
reason.

One challenge I see with setting a particular funding level in order to make
a program free (like that link... raise one million dollars and it becomes
free) is that is seems kinda like a chicken and egg problem to get started. I
might be interested in supporting a free game, but I wouldn't until the
goal's been achieved. If they were to offer full refunds if they don't
achieve their goal that might sway my decision in the direction to support it
but if they don't achieve it (like maybe they "only" get $800,000) and don't
have such a policy then all I really would have done in the end is supported
a proprietary game.

I'd like to see more people doing what onpon4 is doing and developing free
games commercially. Free from the start. Not free code with non-free
graphics/sounds. Or that start proprietary and are made free later on when
the code is thrown over the wall (and no longer compiles or runs on modern
systems), etc.
s***@web.de
2015-09-06 22:57:08 UTC
Permalink
"I'd like to see more people doing what onpon4 is doing and developing free
games commercially."

Would you please open your eyes? It's obviously _not_ working.
I wished too that it would work and a lot of people could make a living from
developing great free software games; reality is different though.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-07 00:06:35 UTC
Permalink
"Would you please open your eyes? It's obviously _not_ working.
I wished too that it would work and a lot of people could make a living from
developing great free software games; reality is different though."

And this means that I can't "like to see more people doing what onpon4 is
doing and developing free games commercially"??? Good to know that people not
doing this means I can't want it to be done. I can't believe I've been so
blind all this time. Thanks for opening my eyes! *rolls eyes*
s***@web.de
2015-09-07 09:06:53 UTC
Permalink
"And this means that I can't "like to see more people doing what onpon4 is
doing and developing free games commercially"???"

You want more people do stuff that is not working and ends in failure?
Hmm you don't seem to care so much about them, but of course you're free to
"like seeing that."

"Good to know that people not doing this means I can't want it to be done. "

Read properly. People not doing it at the moment is NOT the point.
People trying it but failing is. Can you name at least three successfully
crowdfunded free software games?
0 a.d. once tried but failed;
o***@riseup.net
2015-09-07 11:49:44 UTC
Permalink
To be fair, I clearly suck at publicity. I need to improve on that. As of
today, there have been just over 3,000 visits to ReTux's contribution page.
That's not very many. An established publisher wouldn't have this problem.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 16:46:53 UTC
Permalink
There is no need for the conditional tense now that Cloud Imperium Games'
crowd funding campaign raised $89 millions to develop Star Citizen:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

And yes, it unfortunately looks like marketing is even more important than
development. According to
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96227-How-Much-Did-Modern-Warfare-2-Cost-to-Make
Modern Warfare 2 is supposed to have cost $40-50 million of development and
$200 million of marketing!
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-07 17:00:08 UTC
Permalink
"There is no need for the conditional tense now that Cloud Imperium Games'
crowd funding campaign has raised $89 millions to develop Star Citizen:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals"

Ssshhh... we're not allowed to point to stuff like this because it's clearly
not possible for free games to raise large sums of money. :)
s***@web.de
2015-09-07 18:16:57 UTC
Permalink
"Ssshhh... we're not allowed to point to stuff like this because it's clearly
not possible for free games to raise large sums of money. :)"

You don't make any sense.
Why should two proprietary games raising enormous amounts of money prove that
this is also possible for free games?
Did I misunderstand you or was it just a childish giggling-comment since you
can't come up with good arguments?
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 18:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Are you saying that Star Citizen would have raised less money if they would
have committed to release the engine as free software and if they would have
promised that their users would be free to non-commercially redistribute the
whole game? In other words, are you saying that, all other things being
equal, people prefer to donate money to projects that do not respect their
freedoms?

t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 16:23:10 UTC
Permalink
I'm still on the fence about the DRM free, yet non-free games debate. If the
software was a tool like lets say Python or nginx or an operating system like
Trisquel, then I 100% agree that it should be FLOSS.

A game though is pretty self contained and serves one purpose. It doesn't try
to run your web server. You don't use it to build things or surf the web. It
is an isolated experience and you use it to enjoy the storyline and consume
the media. Video games are art and should be in the same light as music and
movies.

I'm not going to deny something like Grand Theft Auto V (which the PC version
is clearly the best) in favor of something else "just because its libre" and
have to deal with lower quality.

Yes, the game does have software due to the engine, but it is entertainment.
Period.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 16:48:34 UTC
Permalink
"...and serves one purpose." Says who? Everyone deserves the fundamental
right to copy, modify and share. Period. It is the user's purpose that
matters, not the developer's purpose. The developer of the program is not
entitled to impose their purposes on someone else. All software is a "tool"
of some kind and should be free for the same reasons: Making a program
proprietary is a power grab. It's an attempt to have power over other people
("You have to agree to be a bad person and promise to never share a copy with
anyone. Have a bug in the game? You must come crawling on your knees to me
and pray "Please almighty developer! Please help us and fix this bug!" and
*maybe* I shall listen to you puny people." This should not be done.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 17:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Except that a budget for a video game is much bigger than developing web
server software or a JavaScript library. I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars (GTAV was like $250 mil and Destiny was $500 mil) that is not
possible with a pure FLOSS game. You are telling me that a company should
spend that amount of money and then give EVERYTHING away for free? What
bubble do you live in?

I personally think that the engine could be free and the art stays
commercial. So when you are developing a big budget game and spend the money
on artists and voice actors and the marketing team, they should be
compensated from the money they make from the art. It is a win-win situation
where free software evangelists can get the source code for the engine and be
happy that the software is open, but for them to earn the right to play that
game, they must pay for the media of the game so the development house can
stay afloat. If RMS is fine with game art being proprietary/commercial, then
what makes you think that your ideology that game art should be totally free
has any pull?

You do realize that the games you push like Xonotic are based off of
proprietary engines and if ID Software didn't have the courtesy to release
their old code as FLOSS, you wouldn't have anything now.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-05 17:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Except that a budget for a video game is much bigger than developing web
server

I am not sure about that.

You are telling me that a company should spend that amount of money and then
give EVERYTHING away for free?

He was praising onpon4's way to get money upfront. With a crowdfunding
campaign where large donations leads to requesting a feature. I am pretty
sure an hypothetical free software GTA 6 could be entirely funded in this
way.

If RMS is fine with game art being proprietary/commercial

RMS is not OK with any work people cannot freely redistribute in a
non-commercial way. It does not look like you are talking about such terms.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 19:16:38 UTC
Permalink
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html

"Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because
they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it
isn't software.)"

"Since the art in the game is not software, it does not need to be free."

Are you choosing to ignore those parts?
j***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-05 19:23:50 UTC
Permalink
RMS doesn't think a game's art assets have to be free-- he thinks everyone
should be able to redistribute art non-commercially, though.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 19:33:46 UTC
Permalink
So let's talk more about this art issue. You pay for the right to see a movie
in a movie theatre or steam a movie. Let's say you pay for tickets to go to a
concert a poetry reading. You and you alone specifically have the right to
view that medium for the duration. That guy off the street who didn't pay
shouldn't have the right to view it as they do not have the right to do so.
They created something for you and provide the best method to share with you
so they can have the income to continue to create in the future.

I'm talking about something in the realm of entertainment where it is not a
necessity. You can choose to view something or not. It isn't food and their
lives will go on if they choose not to consume your medium.

If you are the creator of that art, what benefit do you get from allowing
others to freely consume your media when you spent hours, months, or years
creating? During that time period you had to eat or pay rent or take care of
someone else. Where does the money come to if you cannot monetize it with at
least some restriction?
t***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 01:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Are we allowed to talk about an idealized society, with a radically different
economic structure than ours?
moxalt
2015-09-06 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Yes! Let's do it!
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-06 02:24:24 UTC
Permalink
You analogies are not correct. The copyright is right to copy and
redistribute. I believe the audience should always be allowed to record a
live performance and redistribute it.

Watching a record is nothing like the live performance... and that is why and
how many artists make a living. The rest of the artists are paid upfront or
are employed and do not get any royalties (certainly the case of the
info-graphist, actors, musicians, ... in video games). And, yes, there is the
1% (.1%?) of superstars that make millions with the copyright law. But the
main beneficiaries are, by far, not artists. They are wearing ties in the
offices of Universal, Warner, Sony, Disney, etc.

Less than two weeks ago,
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2015/08/23/magazine/how-artists-are-making-a-better-living-in-the-internet-age/s/culture-digital-economy-slide-VB5P.html
was writing about more and more artists make a living. In all the Arts.
Thanks to Internet and our copying machines we call computers. At the same
time, I am prone to believe that our superstars and executives in ties have
trouble renewing their private jets. I do not care.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 19:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Those artists are trying to make money from live performances because that is
the only way for them to make their own money these days. Gone are people
buying $20+ records (ever since Napster) and instead people would rather
download them on their smart phone, stream via a site like Spotify or
Pandora, or outright take the .mp3 and .flac files from a Torrent site.

If they could still make money from the "old way" of selling records, there
would be less of a need to push t-shirts at a concert at inflated prices or
turn to crowd funding. The reality is that many of these artists do have
bosses and need those bosses at the record companies to not only throw them
chump change once in a while, but to also market them and keep them relevant
via singing at award shows or the Super Bowl.

I'm totally for an artist going solo in creating their own legacy and getting
paid via donations on their site or through something like Patreon. But most
of those times, those artists have a big fanbase due to a media conglomerate
giving them a chance and making them relevant in the first place.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
You do not get it. If you forget about the tiny proportion of superstars who
are far too rich, no artist has *ever* made any income from selling records.
In the case of music, the average percentage that used to go to artist is
something like 2%. That is 15-20% if the artist is a superstar and 0% if she
is not! The percentage is even lower for files sold online. Buying records is
not supporting artists. The copyright law is not in the interest of the
artists!

Almost all artists who live from their arts have done so through live
performances. Be it before Napster or after it. In fact Napster (and, more
generally, the Internet) have made them richer! Because it has helped them
get some fame, hence more spectators at their live performances, hence more
income. And it turns out it is true for all arts. That is what the NY Times
reported. That is what any independent study (i.e., not funded by Universal &
co.) have concluded on in the past 10 years or so.

Now if you care about Britney Spears not being able to afford another $100
million house... well, I don't!
j***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-07 16:08:27 UTC
Permalink
"Let's say you pay for tickets to go to a concert or live standup or sketch
comedy. That guy off the street who didn't pay shouldn't have the right to
view it as they do not have the right to do so."

However, it's legal and a common task for fans to upload videos of concerts
and standup acts. You'll find a massive amount of them on Youtube.

"hey created something for you and provide the best method to share with you
so they can have the income to continue to create in the future."

If putting excessive fines on someone (and, perhaps, a prison sentence or
two) for sharing art is the "best method [...] so they can have income" then
that would be, perhaps, alright. But it isn't the best method so they can
have income, nor is it the only method.

For movies? Most films get a very good profit from being in movie theatres--
film companies could survive without even releasing to stream and DVD!
Merchandise also is a great way to make a profit-- have you even seen
Despicable Me 2's merch?! Merchandise makes a profit because a lot of people
have seen the movie-- the best way to make the film available to more people
and make a larger mech profit is to allow non-commercial distribution of the
film. There are also people that prefer to have a nice DVD (Or a $200
"extra-special" DVD for die-hard fans)-- these people wouldn't die out
because, in their eyes, MP4s just aren't the same as DVDs.

For TV shows? Mostly the same. But also, adverts. Under the hypothesized
copyright system of "non-commercial distribution allowed," derivatives would
still be illegal. The TV show could release it's digital formats with adverts
actually in the video, so that when you download it there would be short
commercial breaks in the media's file. Since users can't remove them legally,
you could still sue the living heck out of people that remove commercial
breaks and put the non-commercial-ed versions on The Pirate Bay or some such
thing. Not the best or most ethical outcome, but way better than what we have
today.

For music? Mostly the same, too. Concerts, CDs, signed stuff, merch, digital
copies. For smaller artists, donations are also an option.

For games? Offering online services for the game, like multiplayer,
leaderboards, etc. (Hell, you could sell hats for use on the online server.)
Physical copies of the game (And again, $200 uber-mega-special editions for
fan-fans), and merch. For smaller devs, donations are also an option. Also,
selling the game itself online, and not providing a gratis download. There
could also be a customer support "DRM" sort of thing. Upon purchasing the
game, you get a key to make an account for the online server, and this allows
you customer service you couldn't get without the key. Server hosting for
less centralized games (Think Minetest or Minecraft) is another way the devs
could profit. Perhaps a partnership with a server hosting company for an ad
on their page.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-06 14:07:55 UTC
Permalink
With a crowdfunding campaign where large donations leads to requesting a
feature. I am pretty sure an hypothetical free software GTA 6 could be
entirely funded in this way.

Even without the fame of GTA's developers, Cloud Imperium Games received,
from about one million players, 89 millions to develop Star Citizen:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

By choosing a license making the engine free software and authorizing
non-commercial redistributions of the whole game, they would have probably
got even more.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 17:36:04 UTC
Permalink
"You are telling me that a company should spend that amount of money and then
give EVERYTHING away for free?"
You of all people should know that when we're talking of free it doesn't mean
gratis. Free software and free culture aren't anti-money. Recall what I said
earlier that "I'd like to see more people doing what onpon4 is doing and
developing free games commercially. Free from the start. Not free code with
non-free graphics/sounds. Or that start proprietary and are made free later
on when the code is thrown over the wall (and no longer compiles or runs on
modern systems), etc."

"that is not possible with a pure FLOSS game."

So you say. Some people said developing GNU was impossible. If we really do
want proprietary stuff to disappear entirely then it needs to be possible for
people to make money from the stuff they make. All of the usual funding
suspects come into play: Crowdfunding, subscriptions, etc. People are only
limited by their own imaginations for what sort of funding models they can
think up. BUT... just because someone's unimaginative and can't think up a
way to raise a sufficient budget for what they want to do doesn't mean that
sticking with the old school model of "I must take the power and control away
from other people in order to make money" is valid. It assumes that the make
of the money is the most important thing. Money is a reward only and isn't
necessarily deserved. To quote RMS, "if anything deserves a reward, it is
social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results..." Society isn't free to use
proprietary stuff, because it's proprietary. So if someone making something
proprietary they don't deserve any money IMO.

"If RMS is fine with game art being proprietary/commercial, then what makes
you think that your ideology that game art should be totally free has any
pull?"
Fortunately I am not the only person with this view.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 19:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Let's think about this typical scenario:

I have 10 employees (which is pretty low) and have the intention to create a
game. Since the game is aiming to use a pure FLOSS engine, either I or
someone on that team has to build it from scratch which takes time and
effort. Let's say I aim for a year to two years for an engine from scratch.
On top of that, I have to hire animators and programmers and artists and
sound engineers. Let's say I also have someone to handle the marketing as
well. Oh and don't forget an administrative assistant since we don't want the
engineers having to deal with paperwork and use up their time. I'm guessing
that you, Jason Self, wouldn't work for free since you have to eat.
Especially since you say you live in Seattle and it isn't cheap to live
there.

In that scenario, I have to pay these people rates relative to their skills
in the industry. They wouldn't work for free and even paying them $30,000 a
year would be peanuts and I'm guessing $50,000+ easily. Prior to hiring these
people, I would have to risk my savings or find some sort of capital to get
things going. The first year or two is going to be building through my
savings or that capital for not only the employees, but the rent and
utilities for the office.

Let's say we finally finish the game. In your ideal scenario, you would offer
ALL of the game available at no cost which includes the engine and the
artwork since you believe that artwork and video and sounds should be given
away for free.

Here are the scenarios:

1.) You sell the game for $20, which is under the average $60 price of a
game. Someone goes to your site to buy the game but then also notices they
can get the game for free. They will pick the free game.

2.) Let's say that person feels bad and REALLY wants to support you. But then
at the same time they look at the cost. In the era of Steam sales, people are
groomed to wait for $60 PC games to drop to $5. That could take years, but
they are conditioned to wait for these seasonal sales.

3.) That same person may not play PC games but is used to freemium or $1
games from the Apple or Google app stores on their phone or tablet. That
industry has conditioned those consumers to either get their games for free
or at bottom prices. With that mentality, do you think they will pay $10 or
$20 for your game? Never.

So where does that leave us? Now you are the owner of a company and you
poured all this money into your game due to having to pay employees and the
other costs associated. Don't give me the "oh you can get people to do things
for free" mentality. Good talent wants to be paid for it because they have
bills like everyone else.

That is why I leaned towards the scenario of having the game engine free and
the assets not when you sell your game DRM free. You could provide (or even
charge for the source code since that is also ok) the source code for the
code itself. Its true that the game won't really function without the assets
and is just a skeleton, but you can look in there and make sure its not
spying on you and is of quality work. When you buy the game, the assets are
tied to your email account or user id through a watermark of sorts to
validate your purchase. That way you can also see who is distributing the
game if it is pirated heavily on bittorrent. You can get to the source.

So that's my thought. I probably wasted my breath with the people on here
because you will always say "give me free code and free art and free video
and free everything" without the consequences. It just seems a little closed
minded and not realistic at times when you want to aim for something as big
as a video game and want quality work while still respecting freedoms.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 19:30:25 UTC
Permalink
In this post you still seem to be confusing gratis and libre. At no point
have I said everything must be gratis. Please correct your understanding. :)

"...when you want to aim for something as big as a video game and want
quality work while still respecting freedoms."

It seems interesting that you say that while also saying "having the game
engine free and the assets not."
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 19:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Ideally, you create a paywall for your game where they must pay for their
copy of it. But then realistically, once that tarball and source code is out
there after the first person buys it, it is distributed freely without
restriction according to the free software license. It reminds me of that
saying where you are the first one to get cable on your street, but the last
one to pay for it.

Art is not software and doesn't have to follow the freedoms associated with
free software. Therefore doesn't conflict with the free software ideology.
Maybe for you, with the free culture mentality, but that isn't software. I do
agree that there should be no restrictions in learning or access to museums,
but a game is a source of entertainment and not education.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 20:02:14 UTC
Permalink
"Ideally, you create a paywall for your game where they must pay for their
copy of it. But then realistically, once that tarball and source code is out
there after the first person buys it, it is distributed freely without
restriction according to the free software license. It reminds me of that
saying where you are the first one to get cable on your street, but the last
one to pay for it."

Paying for copies made sense when copying was hard, but it isn't anymore.
This goes back to finding other funding models. Just because someone is
unimaginative and can't think of how to raise enough to fund what they want
to do doesn't justify making stuff proprietary.

"Art is not software and doesn't have to follow the freedoms associated with
free software. Therefore doesn't conflict with the free software ideology.
Maybe for you, with the free culture mentality, but that isn't software. I do
agree that there should be no restrictions in learning or access to museums,
but a game is a source of entertainment and not education."

They can be education but I digress. You're clearly not onboard with free
culture. That doesn't mean others aren't and won't be pushing for it. Nor
does not mean they're being "closed minded" and "not realistic."
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 20:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Here's another question for you. Let's say someone develops a game that fits
your ideals of free software and free culture. Or maybe its free software but
has pay for assets. A customer goes on the site and buys the game and the
developer doesn't immediately offer the source code for that game and asks
$1.00 for the source code. Is that unethical to you that someone wouldn't
offer source code off the bat? Maybe if the person doesn't want to buy that
source code but then a month down the road puts in the request for the code
and not only has that piece of mind, but also supports the developer.

I totally support free culture but I have limitations. I believe in open file
formats for word processing, audio, video, and anything else that serves the
better good for the broadest appeal and offers no restrictions on archiving
that media for future generations.

But like I said before with games, it is specific to one purpose (art for
that one game) and is for entertainment purposes.

I'm just trying think of various methods of how someone can feel comfortable
developing freedom friendly games without having to rely on panhandling
(crowd funding) for the duration of the development and deployment.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 21:08:55 UTC
Permalink
There seems to be some confusion going on again.

"Or maybe its free software but has pay for assets."

Here you're again confusing libre and gratis. So for this purpose I'll try to
say libre. Saying "but has pay for assets" tells me nothing of that license
of those assets. Someone can pay for libre assets but also for proprietary
assets. Is it libre? Is it proprietary? You don't say and I can't really
answer vague questions.

It happens again when you say "the developer doesn't immediately offer the
source code." Why aren't they? Is it because they're witholding it and it's
not available at all? A game without source code is proprietary, as I'm sure
you know.

Or is it the case that it really is available, but just costs $1? In that
case I wouldn't describe it as "the developer doesn't immediately offer the
source code."

Not knowing the specifics makes it hard to answer but I shall take a stab in
the dark.

If it's the case where the source code is absolutely withheld like on a
delayed release ("buy the game and get source code in 6 months for $1"), then
I would not be okay with that because it is proprietary until the source code
is available to those that are getting the game.

If it's the case that the source code is available at the same time as the
game but for an extra dollar then that could be okay but only conditionally
because it seems to becoming a slippery slope. $1 is not much but letting
someone charge one amount for the binary and then another amount for the
source code potentially opens a loop hole where someone could charge $60 for
the game and then one million dollars for the source code and then no one
could afford to get it. The game would in truth be proprietary since no one
could afford the source code. (See "High or low fees, and the GNU GPL" from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html.)

"...it is specific to one purpose (art for that one game) and is for
entertainment purposes."

Not necessarily. Things under a libre license can be re-used. Even for uses
and purposes that the original developer never thought of, so this logic
can't really apply to libre things. onpon4 is re-using stuff in reTux for
example.

"I'm just trying think of various methods of how someone can feel comfortable
developing freedom friendly games without having to rely on panhandling
(crowd funding) for the duration of the development and deployment."

Panhandling and crowdfunding are not the same thing. If it helps, think of
crowdfunding as being similar to placing a pre-order but just with with
different levels and amounts. Someone pays $60 and they'll get a copy of the
same when it's done. If they a larger sum then they could get a copy of the
game and some other perk.

I understand that a similar thing is going on with the sequel to Destiny.
Pre-order now and get come bonuses:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/all-the-destiny-the-taken-king-preorder-bonuses-an/1100-6429170/

What they're doing here is exactly the same as what is commonly seen in
crowdfunding campaigns: Different amounts get you different things:

Normal Edition -- $40
Legendary Edition -- $60
Digital Collector's Edition -- $80

Are they panhandling? Of course not. Panhandling and crowdfunding are not the
same thing.

Using copyright to restrict people is commonly done under the guise of "we
need to restrict people in order to be able to pay for the development." But,
in the cases of crowdfunding (aka pre-ordering) where all of that money's
obtained upfront, what's the argument to be made for continuing to restrict
people after all of that money's been raised? There really isn't one because
their one argument's been nullifed by raising the money in advance and yet
people do it all the time.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 19:46:27 UTC
Permalink
For a while I have been trying to think of ways to encourage more people to
make their games more freedom friendly but also get paid to continue to do
what they love. I do agree that making games DRM free is a good step in the
right direction, but there should be more than that.

You do have to admit that being a strong free software supporter does put you
at ends of what the "average consumer" generally looks for in their programs
and entertainment. I really want to bridge that gap so more people can have
access to games that respect their freedom but also at the same time have
source code if they really want to.

So here is what I was throwing around for something in my free time since I
am a pretty decent programmer (mainly Python and PHP) and pretty good at
making web site designs and their backend.

1.) Create a storefront where you have a GPLv3 licensed piece of software
written in Qt either by hand or the Qt Creator program. Maybe in something
like PyQt5 as offered via
http://packages.trisquel.info/belenos/python3-pyqt5. Qt is a decent cross
platform library and I have written programs in it before with PyQt and
PySide.

2.) That program like GOG, Origin, and Steam would use the Qt5 Webkit to
render the storefront pages but of course the "buy" or "source code" links
will bring to a storefront on the site and when you go to install the game or
source code, it would call a special link to talk to the program but if you
are not in the program, directly give you the tarball.

3.) If you are a developer, you are of course able to offer the all-in-one
game as you normally would. In a .deb file, .tar.gz, or maybe down the road
in a Snappy package. Its their choice.

4.) When offering that program to the user, you either apply a hidden
watermark or tie the artwork in the program to the buyer's email address or
ID to make sure they are unique. While the software is free to distribute,
the buyer has rights only to the art in the game and if the game is heavily
pirated on like a torrent site, you can check the randomly placed watermark
to find the person who did it. Like stated before, this art can be libre as
jxself wants or can be commercial and when the person buys the game, it price
of the artwork is factored into the cost (if the developer wants it to be)
and not a separate payment.

5.) Offering the source code. The developer has pretty much two options.
Offer a direct link to the source code that corresponds to the version of the
game you are offering as either free or they have to pay for the source.
People like jxself would of course offer a free option, but some developers
may charge $10 for like a $30+ game. It is up to them. They would have access
to the source code and for people like jxself who NEED it, they can get it.
For average consumer, it may not be THAT big of a thing, but they have the
option to get it.

So what is what I have been throwing around. While it is great that there are
people trying to make free software games, there needs to be that "it" factor
to not only make it easier for gamers to get these games, but also for the
developer to have the comfort in creating them while respecting the views of
the free software movement.
m***@ruggedinbox.com
2015-09-07 14:58:44 UTC
Permalink
I'm no web design expert, so forgive my ignorance. can't the N°1 and 2
points be replaced by Wordpress or similar?
About offering the source code for a fee: I remember the guys at Ardour doing
that. But I wouldn't separate it from buying the program.
I think it's best to educate people to compile the program for themselves.
After all, the compiled package can be compiled from a slightly modified
source.

About the watermark: if it's very well hidden (or there are several instances
of it), it could "maybe" work as an identifier.
But then what? confront the offender? After saying he's sorry, then what?
What I'm saying is I wonder if it's effective.
The creators of Frogatto seem to have a good model.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
So, basically:

The freedom to study and modify the source code is only to players that are
rich enough;
The freedom to non-commercially share the game is only to people who accept
to be pointed out (I would say they are doing well, but you apparently seem
to think it is bad to non-commercially share).
s***@web.de
2015-09-06 23:05:50 UTC
Permalink
"Just because someone is unimaginative and can't think of how to raise enough
to fund what they want to do doesn't justify making stuff proprietary."

Are you more imaginative?
Have a plan for earning enough cash in order to make a free video game?

Hundred-thousands of gigantic masterpieces have emerged in the non-free video
game world, at those dimensions not a single one in the libre world.
Not all people are assholes who *want* to make stuff proprietary.
And not all people are unimaginative.
Maybe there _is_ no way, no matter how imaginative you are.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-07 00:14:49 UTC
Permalink
"And not all people are unimaginative."

I didn't say all people were. Just those that can't imagine any other funding
model as being valid.

"Not all people are assholes who *want* to make stuff proprietary."

Haha, but the reverse is true and all people that make proprietary stuff are?
Thanks for proving my point. :)
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 02:54:43 UTC
Permalink
I keep on seeing crowdfunding being mentioned as the best solution, but from
what I've seen, only the games that have a big name behind them or franchise
get the full funding. I'm talking about Shenmue 3, Mighty Number 9, and that
Castlevania spinoff.

All of these success stories result in the developer exceeding the goal and
part of the reason why they get that is they entice you with supporting a
platform that caters to non-free games. Want it on PS4 in addition to the PC?
Help them reach another 2 million dollars and they will remove that
roadblock.

That's why crowdfunding shouldn't be seen as the backbone of your project.
Like many things, the popular kids always get the success and continue to
have that success leaving no breathing room for others.

Crowdfunding is supposed to help with getting the original capital. What
happens when you need more money to deliver your project and sustain it for
years? Are you going to to alienate and piss off your original investors if
you cannot meet those demands?
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-07 03:15:35 UTC
Permalink
"Crowdfunding is supposed to help with getting the initial capital. What
happens when you need more money to deliver your project and sustain it for
years? Are you going to alienate and piss off your original investors if you
cannot meet those demands?"

If it turns out that the initial crowdfund goal was not sufficient to deliver
the project, that reflects poor planning on the project leadership (oops, we
underestimated the full cost of this) and not a fundamental flaw in the
crowdfunding project.

Crowdfunding's only one idea but could also be used for a second round of
funding too. Also there's subscriptions. This is especially good if it's a
project that needs ongoing support. I think the subscription model was used
for Ryzom. As I've said, you're limited only by your imagination. The
pre-order system's also been used and as I pointed out earlier has some
similarities to crowfunding such that there may not be a reason to draw much
difference between the two.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 14:20:14 UTC
Permalink
You seem to have a counter argument for everything don't you? :-)

I just don't see the point in continuously having to ask money from people
again and again through multiple rounds of funding. That's how you start to
irritate your backers and they just want to you to release the damn thing
already.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-07 15:37:04 UTC
Permalink
"I just don't see the point in continuously having to ask money from people
again and again through multiple rounds of funding. That's how you start to
irritate your backers and they just want to you to release the damn thing
already."

Yeah, if the people running the project are horrible and can't effectively
plan and are always running out of money. "Oh, I know I said $20,000 would be
enough but I was wrong and now need an additional $20,000 and then I'll be
able to finish it. Oh, now I need $20,000 more but this really is the last
time I promise." That shows poor planning and execution as I said.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 17:29:57 UTC
Permalink
If anything, getting the money upfront through a crowd-funding campaign is a
safer route than the one traditionally taken by proprietary game editors. I
mean what is your answer to the following question: "What happens when your
sales to not compensate for the development costs?". Getting the money
upfront allows to plan development expenses that will not exceed the amount
that was raised.
s***@web.de
2015-09-07 09:16:51 UTC
Permalink
You dodged my point using false logic.

"Haha, but the reverse is true and all people that make proprietary stuff
are? Thanks for proving my point. :)"

The correct reverse from the sentence is that there are people out there who
are assholes and want to make stuff proprietary - which is true.

With your set of arguments you _can_ justify
1. "Stop making proprietary games, it's unethical"
2. "Develop free software games in your free time"

You _can't_ justify
"Those unimaginative proprietary game developers could as well make their
games free and still earn money; they're just too evil for it"

because you have no idea how this can be done.
I hear all this time this stuff about LIBRE is not gratis - well yeah, in
theory maybe but there is a reason why most libre projects ARE gratis.
o***@riseup.net
2015-09-05 18:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Just out of interest, I want to point out what the numbers are like with a
500 million dollar game. I think you might be misinterpreting the statistics
(Wikipedia says that 500 million dollars was the total money earned from the
initially sold copies), but let's just assume you're right: at $60 from each
person (a typical cost for a copy of a game), that would take just over 8.3
million people. That's a lot, for sure. But Activision apparently managed to
convince nearly twice that number of people to buy copies. (Wikipedia
mentions 16 million as the number of "registered players" in January of this
year.)

A publisher with a reputation for delivering high-quality games, such as
Activision, Nintendo, or SEGA would probably adapt just fine to using the
sort of scheme I've been trying with ReTux if they had to. It's hard to say
if they would profit quite as much, but they wouldn't disintegrate.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-05 19:18:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/13/destiny-500-million/

It is the total package including the marketing in addition to the
development.

If that is inaccurate, there is another list at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
which has more info. Either way, most of these budgets are on the 10s of
millions of dollars on the lower end.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-05 19:26:51 UTC
Permalink
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/07/01/bungie-says-destiny-cost-nowhere-near-500-million-decade-long-story-planned/
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 01:25:17 UTC
Permalink
I think you have to ask this question: Should we even accept copyright in the
first place? It's taking away what is otherwise peoples rights to free
expression. The justification for copyright was the benefit of the arts and
sciences. However it was always intended to be "limited". That was originally
7 years. Now I don't see how you can argue that today those original claims
hold true. It's not a "limited right" (it's an extreme length of time which
means nothing you write today will likely ever be in the public domain in
your lifetime- short of someone explicitly putting it there- or government
works).

I think it's also utterly ridicules to try and enforce copyright in the
environment that exists today. It's a fruitless battle that can only destroy
the democratic institution. I don't think you can justify censorship and
copyright as the cost of freedom. Yet this is what is going on.

The internet is global and the world doesn't agree on copyright no matter how
much the entertainment industry wants to argue otherwise. There are
international agreements on copyright, but it's far from globally enforced.
There are dozens of countries which have sign none of the half dozen
international agreements in the last 150 years.

Where has copyright led us? It has led to censorship, violence against the
people, and unjustly benefited a small minority of absurdly rich individuals.
I don't think the elimination of copyright would necessarily be a bad thing.
The people doing the core work are not the ones benefiting from it, and I'm
coming at this from a perspective of being one of the people who have
benefits financially from my own creative works. It didn't take digital
restrictions, threats, or violence to profit off my labor. All it took was
merely a sane business model.

For example an author producing creative works can provide there works via
subscription. Those works may get copied, but the end result is those who
want those works *now* and continued access to new works from the same author
need to subscribe.

There are other totally doable models as well. The news industry survived off
advertising for the last 100 years. While it may be a failing industry today
it's not because of copyright infringement. It's because the newspapers have
failed to adapt to the ever changing environment and competition from other
outlets utilizing the advertising model.

There are certainly successful news outlets now that are even specialized and
successful. One need only look around. One such example is: torrentfreak.com.
While small they put out a consistent 2-3 articles a day on a topic that
attracts a niche readership. If they can succeed with a niche certainly
others can too with a wider audience.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-06 02:25:31 UTC
Permalink
"I think it may just be the only justifiable case for copyright today would
be those distributing content under copyleft licenses. These works truly are
for the benefit of all."

Indeed, and I think that any discussion of ending copyright needs to be
paired with a discussion of how copyleft would continue to function without
it. Some ideas for that were discussed in an episode of Free as in Freedom,
with our very own free software people Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn:
http://faif.us/cast/2014/jun/03/0x46/

Fast forward to exactly 1 hour, zero minutes, and 30 seconds in to hear what
I'm referring to.

As you can hear, it's not very easy.
z***@yahoo.de
2015-09-06 02:33:54 UTC
Permalink
I dont´t dislike copyright, but it just doesn´t work for anyone, at least
for long.
A game can be copied, just like many other things. It can get incompatible,
specially the DRM... (old incompatible CD-checks aren´t fun).
When Games are considered art, then they should be archived as good as
possible, ohh yeah DRM...and copyright.
There are some models: subscriptions, donations, advertisements, background
mining, part goes to charity, merchandise, sell support...
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 04:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Digital restrictions make a mockery of copyright system in denying the users
access to the works after the 'limited term' for which the public was in
theory suppose later benefit from as a result of more works. Obviously DRM
prevents that from happening in theory if it were ever to actually become
available in the public domain.
l***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 02:54:42 UTC
Permalink
And "free trade" agreements like TPP, TISA, TTIP will extend the copyright
term even further if passed :(
z***@yahoo.de
2015-09-06 02:37:12 UTC
Permalink
I personally bought many games that are closed source but have open source
engines, especially, when the developer of the game also develops the engine.

I find it stupid, when games, specially the engine, are kept close source. It
just hinders fans from keeping it up to date.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 16:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Most Developers go for the convenience like the "I have to use Adobe" world
of Content Creators. When it comes to Games, they use middleware that have
re-licensing restrictions and in a lot of cases, making non-free software
free is just as hard as legally making a non-free fork of GPL Code, you need
the consent of everybody that ever contributed to your source code because
you didn't add a "it's not your code, it's mine and I just pay you to improve
it" clause in the contract. There's no middleware for developers that's
convenient, exports to evil Consoles and can be re-licensed however the
license wants to. I like what Id Software used to do, they made their engines
libre but if a developer wanted to make it non-free, said developer would
have to pay Id Software for their branch that can be re-licensed however the
licensee pleases.

I think said middleware that's like unity would be a great idea for a
non-profit lobbying organization. Even RMS has likes the idea of libre
software with paid exceptions better than BSD licensed software.

All that said, I am looking forward to OpenMW and I'm glad Morrowind is on
gog.com . You can play one of the best games ever made using a completely
free software stack. That's no more unethical than buying a non-free Flac
song on Bandcamp. "Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are
unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different
issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it
is not having or running nonfree programs on your computer. That much is
clear."-RMS

Now, I don't have a complete free software stack, but I would like to try it
as an experiment. I want to buy that dual AMD Quad Core Opteron Motherboard,
install Coreboot and get the GPU that performs the best on a free software
stack and see what I can do with it. Though I do wish a newer Xeon
Motherboard was Coreboot compatible, AMD CPUs aren't very good and it uses a
lot of juice for the performance it has :/
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 20:31:26 UTC
Permalink
This is the point I was trying to make in my original post. It is stupid that
the engine is closed source, but it is ok for the artwork to be not "gratis"
if you are trying to sell an actual game.

Some games like Team Fortress 2 are free to play but the only thing you pay
for is cosmetic items. You may want a hat or sunglasses to add flair to your
character. These don't give you an advantage since they are cosmetic and you
can playing the game without buying anything.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-07 07:35:04 UTC
Permalink
I don't know why there aren't any nonprofit game developers that develop
games with libre engines. By "non-profit" I mean they make money, but the
primary goal is their mission and it could be lobbying to make cracking DRM
legal and reverse engineering game engines.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
I do not know how many times, people told you that: free software does not
mean it is gratis. Crowd-funding the development of free software basically
is paying for that free software and it is perfectly fine:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

In other words, it is OK for anything "to be not gratis". What is not OK is
to deny the users her fundamental freedoms.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 04:08:29 UTC
Permalink
I'd encourage people to avoid playing, paying for, contributing to, or even
discussing the games dependent on non-free code. Talking about them furthers
the publicity of the game. I'm not going to suggest we *censor* users who
choose to talk about them as that too would be wrong.
s***@web.de
2015-09-06 12:34:08 UTC
Permalink
" we'll never get to a free solution tomorrow if all we do is respond to
ignorant comments defending our position. In this case it's not even entirely
true."

So let's shut ourself up from new impulses so that we can stick to our
opinions that we currently have?
I think that's a bad way and qualifies as what you call ignorant.

Doesn't your shop also ship notebooks with stuff like linux mint?
I think it's a compromise differing from the standard hard-liner attitude in
this board; i don't think that's bad or anything, but i don't really like
this doubletalk here like "everything non-free is bad, let's ignore the
comments that say otherwise" while even selling it, and i'm not sure if
people would be so tolerant about it if think penguin wasn't one of the
biggest financial supporters of trisquel.
I don't doubt that you do a lot for free software and for me personally it's
perfectly fine to make some compromises, but normally people here have way
stronger criteria for calling something ethical.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 20:36:25 UTC
Permalink
One example is
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-pocket-wee-gnu-linux-desktop

"Default configuration: Ubuntu
Compatible with Microsoft Windows 7"

If Chris was 100% to free software like he preaches on here and fights with
people, he wouldn't offer Ubuntu or even mention it. Same goes for Windows 7.

The reality is that he owns a business and pays his bills like the rest of
us. If he just sticks with Trisquel only systems and isn't making money off
of it, he goes out of business and sells tacos on the street or caves in to
the demands of the market and offers Ubuntu.

I find it funny that all of you blasted me for having an alternative to the
free software games problem by not requiring artwork to be libre/free culture
while still keeping the engine libre, but then you have people like Chris who
sell computers with Ubuntu. LOL.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 21:07:24 UTC
Permalink
It's not about the money. It's about reality. Sometimes to move forward you
need to take baby steps. * We don't tell users what distribution to get *. We
ask them what distribution would you like? And if they don't know they get a
'default'. The default is based off the assumption they don't know anything
about GNU/Linux. Which is a very fair assumption. A good percentage of our
customers are coming from Microsoft Windows land. You don't want people
returning systems because they think "GNU/Linux" is too hard for them. It's
best to get them onto something which is less likely that they'll run into a
problem with and position them so they'll be able to run with a 100% free
software operating system later.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 20:59:04 UTC
Permalink
1. Your not following what I'm saying. If you waste time trying to get people
to understand your view point who aren't listening you might as well be
talking to a brick wall. It's better to spend time addressing the problems
which are holding people back from being able (due to lack of competency with
technology) to adopt a 100% free software operating system. There are more
people who will listen and get it- but not be able to figure it out.

2. We ship with whatever operating system a user chooses. Our main goal is to
get people off of hardware dependent on proprietary software. Long term I
think we'll see more Trisquel users as a result. I'm pretty confident we
already have more Trisquel users today than ever before because of the work
we've done at making it easier to adopt/market/etc.

What you don't want to do is put non-tech savvy users in front of Trisquel as
there first distribution. Particularly not without a lot of one-on-one
hand-holding. It won't work to there advantage. It'll be off-putting and they
will get the idea "GNU/Linux is hard" and that it's not adoptable by non-tech
savvy users. If you put them in front of a distribution that isn't 100% free
there is a high chance it'll work for about 50-80% of the population today.
From there people will adopt Trisquel and they will have an easier time doing
so because there is less to figure out compared to any 100% proprietary
system. If they fail at it at this point they'll still be better off because
they'll only likely be returning to something that isn't 100% proprietary (be
it Linux Mint, Debian, Ubuntu, or some other distribution which includes some
proprietary components).

To get my point across how many people here went from a completely
proprietary operating system to a 100% free one? I bet there isn't a single
user that didn't first adopt a distribution which contained some proprietary
software.

The next question I have is how many people here went from a computer with
non-free BIOS to one with a free BIOS and no other non-free software? The
answer to this question is likely zero.

Everything is a processes and we should focus on what can be done to move
things forward. Not waste time talking to a brick wall. If your talking to
people who are listening- that's not wasting time.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 21:11:05 UTC
Permalink
I've been on these forums 4+ years and besides Ruben packaging a Trisquel ISO
every few years, no one here has really contributed anything to the free
software cause of any significance. People here are more concerned in
pointing fingers and telling you that you are wrong without providing
concrete solutions to improve the situation.

If you haven't noticed, the significant contributions to FLOSS software are
handled by large corporations or organizations and not a small community like
the one we have here. That's why its difficult to have even a discussion with
a community like this as they are more concerned with guilt and ideology than
real solutions that are sustainable and move us forward.
j***@bluehome.net
2015-09-06 21:24:45 UTC
Permalink
"I've been on these forums 4+ years and besides Ruben packaging a Trisquel
ISO every few years, no one here has really contributed anything to the free
software cause of any significance."

Wow. Just. Wow.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 21:50:55 UTC
Permalink
I just want to say thank you for contributing all these years the Linux-Libre
repository you maintain. It's really helped *a lot* of users get on board
with newer hardware *still being sold*. Without that there would be a good
chunk of people here who wouldn't be on Trisquel today.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 17:49:08 UTC
Permalink
And I just want to thank you for making it easy to buy hardware that will
work with Linux-libre, hence Trisquel. Without ThinkPenguin, running only
free software would be much harder because it would be much harder to find
the hardware that can be used in freedom. And thank you in particular for
your work that led to the liberation of the ath9k firmware.
t***@fastmail.co.uk
2015-09-07 18:12:04 UTC
Permalink
"And I just want to thank you for making it easy to buy hardware that will
work with Linux-libre"
Same here!
z***@yahoo.de
2015-09-06 23:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your support.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 03:17:47 UTC
Permalink
I re-read my post a few hours later and actually felt bad about what I said
there. I apologize for those comments and initially meant to say "most"
instead of none. I actually use your repos for the kernel and VLC and am
thankful for that.

I just feel like I bang my head against the wall sometimes with die hard free
software evangelists. In my computing, I don't push for non-free software and
I want to support it all I can. I just end up fighting with many of you as I
am really trying to find solutions.

Whether I get into a tiff over permissive licenses or compromises with
artwork in a libre game, there are always those people that simply follow an
ideology and simply say "no. you can't do that. that's it" without willing to
hear another person's reasoning. Sometimes it feels like I'm fighting with
toddlers or grumpy old men who are so set in their ways that the world passes
them by.

I honestly wish from the bottom of my heart that all games were FLOSS. Not so
I could pirate them easier, but to have that piece of mind. Games that I paid
for once that my child could install and run without issues.

So yeah, I'm sorry if I offended you Jason. It's just that I try to put
together thoughtful discussions about these things and its frustrating when
no one can respond with a solution that can fix it. It's been a problem for
years and I fear its going to get worse from here.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 21:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Well, I get your overall sentiment, but I'm not sure I totally agree in that
"nobody" has/is. There are a half dozen people here at a minimum that either
do contribute something. Be it development time, work on maintaining a
repository, work on maintaining a distribution (at least 3 people who
occasionally post), or are working to make things easier to adopt (I get its
not a direct "working on developing free software", but if its what leads us
to having the sources under free software licenses from corporations that
paid to write said software that's still moving things forward in my mind,
and "doing something"). We've poked and prodded and that has led to sources
being released for critical components.

Everything is slow going... but there is progress being made even as we lose
ground.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 03:22:09 UTC
Permalink
If I had Mark Shuttleworth money, I would put it towards building libre
hardware. I want an open society so true innovation can happen without
restrictions.

Unfortunately, companies with the big money are focusing on mobile and tablet
devices and are locking things down more and more.
s***@web.de
2015-09-07 09:34:36 UTC
Permalink
"I've been on these forums 4+ years and besides Ruben packaging a Trisquel
ISO every few years, no one here has really contributed anything to the free
software cause of any significance. People here are more concerned with
pointing fingers and telling you that you are wrong without providing
concrete solutions to improve the situation."

Tom lukeywood did contribute with a gui for the libreboot flashing utility,
onpon4 is developing some free games afaik and i've read somewhere that magic
banana releases academic code that he's writing under a free software
license.
And i think jadectrl is working on an libre openBSD port.
I agree though that there are other people who prefer bitching about not 100%
but only 99.99% free projects while not significantly contributing
themselves.
s***@web.de
2015-09-06 22:43:31 UTC
Permalink
You know what website people here link all the time?
http://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html

How is your approach different from debian?
Don't get me wrong, I agree perfectly with what you're saying, but people
here normally don't.
Why do they bash on debian but not on you?
You may have contributed a lot to free software and I don't know how much
exactly, but chances are good that it's less than the debian project - which
is neither insulting nor something to be ashamed about. I'm just saying that
debian does more than a single person normally does.
Still your business seems to be ok while debian somehow has this awefull
"double talk".

"To get my point across how many people here went from a completely
proprietary operating system to a 100% free one? I bet there isn't a single
user that didn't first adopt a distribution which contained some proprietary
software. "

That's what i'm saying all the time, agreed.
What i get from your post, you're just accepting reallity and drop the
extreme stance for the sake of actual success for free software.
I would do that too;
BUT in that case i think it's a bit strange to state things like

"I'd encourage people to avoid playing, paying for, contributing to, or even
discussing the games dependent on non-free code. Talking about them furthers
the publicity of the game."

Game = Software + Art. Art does not matter here, so you could easily replace
the term "game" with "software".
Encouraging people not to even talk about this software does not coexist with
your softer stance when it comes to shipping OS.
Don't you agree?
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-07 00:21:01 UTC
Permalink
How is the approach different from Debian?
It's a bit difficult to wrap my head around this. We're not a distribution
and only attempting to draw people away from non-free operating systems.
Including partly non-free ones.
Encouraging people not to even talk about this software does not coexist
with your softer stance when it comes to shipping OS. Don't you agree?
No.
s***@web.de
2015-09-07 09:23:32 UTC
Permalink
You're shipping non-free software if people want so.
Debian is delivering non-free software in their repos if people want so.

It's NOTHING different and the point that you're not a distro doesn't harm my
point in the slightest.

"> Encouraging people not to even talk about this software does not coexist
with your softer stance when it comes to shipping OS. Don't you agree?
No."

Well, you seem to have a lot of reasons for your "no", just no time for
listing them all, right?
d***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-06 04:47:31 UTC
Permalink
To answer OP: That's a problem the aswer for which is different for every
individual. But it's still non-free software.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 05:54:30 UTC
Permalink
for me guys - i am a gammer and i see why but i also learn since coming to
GN/ linux that DRM is a breach but not as bad as Windows 10! knowing me i
will install steam on this desktop like i have on my laptop and play my
games! the free games in the repos are fun but bothing beats pamajas sam and
DOTA
moxalt
2015-09-06 14:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
DRM is a breach but not as bad as Windows 10
That doesn't excuse DRM, however.

I would argue that Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler, but that by no means
legitimises Stalin.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 06:36:33 UTC
Permalink
I think we're getting off topic... if people keep bringing up non-free
games...
j***@fastmail.com.au
2015-09-06 07:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Agreed, interesting topic but there is nothing new to be said about it.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 19:18:53 UTC
Permalink
How about a Free Philosophy page? You can have Games be a subpage on that and
have sticky topics on "Evil Consoles", "Windows DRM Games is a lesser evil of
Consoles", "DRM-Free/non-free Windows Games is a lesser evil of DRM Windows
Games", "DRM-Free/non-free games on a free OS is a lesser evil of
DRM-free/non-free Games on Windows" and "DRM-Free/non-free Games with a free
engine is the lesser evil of DRM-free/non-free Games on a free OS" and just
be done with it.
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 21:14:19 UTC
Permalink
I think your missing the point. It's not a topic we should be discussing
here. We shouldn't be having a discussion on DRM in relation to gaming. Any
game with DRM is non-free and not appropriate here. If you feel otherwise
it's a discussion you need to take elsewhere. In fact your not in agreement
with the ethos of the free software movement if you think its acceptable.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 21:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, I was distracted by your incorrect usage of "your" and "you're". :-)

Anyways, I softballed some solutions to the free engine debacle so hopefully
it was helpful.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-07 15:30:12 UTC
Permalink
I get what you mean, I see free software supporters as a spectrum thing
instead of a binary false dichotomy. There are are people that are dependent
on non-free software and can't afford the switching costs of spending
downtime to learn something like Blender, but appreciate the free software
philosophy and then there's people that install Coreboot and everywhere in
between.

While I don't have all non-free software purged from my computer, I have my
fullest respects to people like you and moxalt and the people at FSF that
really stick to their guns. Especially with the FSF video on User Liberation,
I watched it and the first thought that came to my mind was "Phh, I bet they
payed a guy to make this and he used the Adobe flash animator" and I was
pleasantly surprised to find the sources for that video and that's something
worth admiring.

That said, I do plan on experimenting with Trisquel and I would even build a
KFSN4-DRE Workstation and install Coreboot on it and document my experiment.
e***@gmail.com
2015-09-07 09:20:45 UTC
Permalink
I guess this is why some of us are Free-Software Diehards!
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-06 20:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Check my comment above:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/do-drm-free-games-matter-even-if-game-non-free#comment-77905
c***@thinkpenguin.com
2015-09-06 21:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Your entitled to that position, but its contradictory to movement's position.
Non-free software is unethical. If you don't agree then it's not the right
place for you.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 03:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Did you even read it? THE GAME ENGINES WILL BE FREE.
moxalt
2015-09-07 13:51:22 UTC
Permalink
I think he can be forgiven for misunderstanding.
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 21:32:13 UTC
Permalink
@t3g-i agree but the Linux community needs to agree on what is what- i
recently email the FSF about couple of things and they rubbed me the wrong
way. i'm sorry but we need to have change in the big boy playground so us
little guys (newcomers} can also play and help premote libre free sofware.
like Chris Fisher from Jupiterbradcasting has says. we need to clean up our
act and get rid of distro that are the same thing then big boy like microsfot
will get worried. but untill we do the microsfot and apples fan will be
cussing and making fun of us.
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 03:34:24 UTC
Permalink
People will never agree as they are stubborn and will protect their ego. If
there is a disagreement, they will create their own community. After time,
there is conflict within the new community and members leave to start yet
another.

There may never be a solution to this. That's why companies like Canonical
decided to do their own thing with Mir. They were never going to get what
they wanted with Wayland and the other Wayland devs wouldn't play nice with
Canonical.

Free software allows you the right to create a derivative work and I would
never deny someone that right. I just think that if less people did it and
swallowed their pride for.the greater good of a project, that we would have
better quality free software code.
1***@gmail.com
2015-09-07 06:19:22 UTC
Permalink
"I just think that if less people did it and swallowed their pride for the
greater good of a project, that we would have better quality free software
code."

People say this so much but whenever anyone sits down and tries to do this,
nobody agrees on what project to focus on as everyone has different
preferences. I feel like it's a pointless thought, though I'd like to know
what projects you have in mind that could specifically use this?
t***@hotmail.com
2015-09-07 15:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Well, you do see collaboration on big projects, but that tends to be by
multiple corporations who have a vested interest. Something that comes to
mind is the Vulkan graphics project. It is happening because all these
companies want a better graphics stack and become less reliant on DirectX.

The nice thing about Vulkan is that GNU/Linux games will not be second class
citizens to their Windows ones. Free or not.
l***@dcc.ufmg.br
2015-09-07 18:14:07 UTC
Permalink
That's why companies like Canonical decided to do their own thing with Mir.
They were never going to get what they wanted with Wayland and the other
Wayland devs wouldn't play nice with Canonical.

What exactly has Canonical wanted that Wayland does not provide? Apart from
Canonical's corporate control (through contributor license agreements)? The
wiki page that was announcing Mir was showing a great ignorance on what
problems Wayland was solving so that the page could state that Mir will solve
problems that Wayland won't. It was plain wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_%28software%29#Controversy
c***@gmail.com
2015-09-06 23:04:09 UTC
Permalink
ok i dont know what happen to my last post but i have heard this From
JupiterBroadcasting a lot and i agree we need an os standerd amd pratice -
recently had to email FSF for some ? and i will never do it again- i will not
be treated like an idoit. we need to rethink how we approach new users better
moxalt
2015-09-07 13:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Can you please rephrase this post to make it understandable? It sounded like
something interesting.
e***@gmail.com
2015-09-07 08:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Many game companies like EA and Rockstar HATE Free software so badly, They
dont even release their games for GNU/Linux (for Rockstar, i think this is
true, but i may be wrong). Some companies release their game engines as free
software, Like Id Software's Old ID tech engines and Ken-Silverman's Build
engine (technially non-free, Because it's free for non-commercial use only.)
There is some nonfree developers like Valve who Embrace GNU/Linux and even
make a Distro. Digital (Restictions) Management is extremely bad for freedom
Lovers. I agree with that. What if your favourite game is non-free? Do you
find a GNU/Linux version of the nonfree game, or you settle in for a
Free-Software clone like minetest, Openarena, Etc.
d***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-07 09:55:36 UTC
Permalink
I really doubt it's because of something other than Windows and gaming
consoles being so popular.......(i.e. it's Money and nothing more than that
if you ask me).
a***@openmailbox.org
2015-09-07 17:15:30 UTC
Permalink
"Like Id Software's Old ID tech engines and Ken-Silverman's Build engine
(technially non-free, Because it's free for non-commercial use only.) "

http://wiki.eduke32.com/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Eduke32 is GPL. Also, you have forks of Eduke32 for Redneck Rampage.

And , more awesome, you have a Blood reimplementation for Eduke32.
Loading...