How? You still need to purchase an original copy of the game in order to play it with SCUMMVM. It doesn't matter if that's the first package released or the spiffy brand new Classic package. Either one will work just fine. But you have to buy it. So SCUMMVM doesn't hurt LucasArts one bit. Quite the opposite.
Absolutely fascinating premise: Could LucasArts take the SCUMMVM engine (which is GPL) and combine it with the original game data (which is copyrighted) and sell it? "LucasArts Classics, now on Game Boy Advance!"
They could claim that they are simply selling their copyrighted game data and are providing the engine free simply as a service. Is this something the GPL would allow? Because if so, it would make the GPL a lot more attractive to game developers, who could release the engine for free and sell the actual game content, and stay in business.
But last I heard, clause 2b of the GPL definitely suggested that if a program has a GPL component, the entire program must be provided to third parties at no cost. Which kind of shoots this idea out of the water.
Here's clause 2b of the GPL, just for reference:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
That's great, but that won't put food in my 11-month old daughter's mouth, clothes on her back, nor a roof over her head, will it?
I've noticed this...most Free Software fanatics don't have any responsibilities beyond themselves. I have no doubt that once they do, they'll change their tune double-quick: "Hmm...Richard says programming commercial software for money is evil, but jobs to write Free Software are very rare. Programming is the best skill I have. I can make $50,000 a year doing it. My wife wants a house. My daughter needs clothes for school. I need medical insurance. I need a reliable vehicle. It's funny, but I don't see commercial software as evil any more (or, if I do, it's a necessary evil at worst)."
How this problem gets solved is something no Free Software fanatic has ever or will ever address, because there is no solution. Their dodge is "It's not my problem...you figure it out." There's nothing to figure out. I program proprietary commercial software to feed my family. I do it because I'm good at it and I like to do it. It's my best skill, that will make me the most money. Free Software won't let me provide for my family, therefore it is useless to me.
I apologize. When I last looked at Crystal Space it hadn't been updated in a long time. Now that work is being done on it again, I will certainly take another look.
I have, in fact. And for a long time, Counterstrike didn't have very good models or artwork. But people played it because it had good gameplay and maps. Which, yes, were created by people in their spare time who, at the time, had no hope of making a financial profit off what they were doing.
Bully for them. They are great guys who made a great game, and they got compensated for it in the end.. But saying that the entire game software industry can/should work the same way is absurd. Game software is (with a few noted exceptions) commercial software, and we all know that commercial software and the GPL mix about as well as oil and water.
No, I can't. He says he may make such a version available in the future. Therefore, if I build my game on OGRE and he decides not to make such a license available, I've wasted a whole lot of my time.
Yet another engine ruined by the GPL...
on
OGRE GPL'ed 3D Engine
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I've been looking for a full-featured 3D gaming engine for a while, as I wish to write a hobby game in my spare time. But since I want to keep the option of selling my game open to me, I can't use any of the currently existing 3D engines. Nor can I use the Quake 1/2 source. Why?
They are all GPL. While I will be the first person to admit that Free Software has its merits, it simply does not work for game software. Releasing a core component of a game under the GPL means that only GPL games can be made with it "That's great!" you may be saying. The only problem is that games are not just programming. They are programming, music, art, and level design. Musicians, artists, and level designers (even hobbyist ones) are used to making money for what they do. But since the core engine of the game is GPL, no money can be made on the game.
(Aside: And don't give me that line about how it's perfectly legal to sell Free Software. Sure, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it works. It's like another poster in another thread said: "Sure, I't's LEGAL for me to try to sell my used car for retail price, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to." Aside over.)
And you guys wonder why FreeCraft and FreeCiv have such lousy art. It's because there's no Free Art Foundation going around saying, "You should give your art away! It's immoral to charge for art!" Same thing for musicians. Same thing for level designers. Hell, same thing for just about any skilled work that combines technical expertise with creativity EXCEPT FOR PROGRAMMING.
The GPL doesn't work for gaming. Please, I'm begging you, stop releasing game libraries under the GPL. Release them under the LGPL or the BSD license. If you do, it means professionals can use and maintain them, benefiting and giving somthing back to the community. And we can all stop having to start from scratch (or use crappy middleware like NetImmerse) whenever we want to make a game.
Thank you! I'm glad SOMEBODY else realizes this! Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Someone else here put it another way...liber pretty much guarantees gratis. This was always RMS' intention from the beginning. Yes, someone will point out the FSF page where they say selling GPL software is allowed. That's a smokescreen; they know that nobody is ever going to make money selling GPL software, so they don't have to ban it - it has already been effectively banned. You cannot make money selling software unless you can (ostensibly) control how the software is distributed.
Now people are going to pipe up screaming, "Well, it's your own fucking fault for trying to make money off something that can be copied so easily! Your business model is broken! Because software copies so easily, it's effective worth is zero!" These people have never written anything, and simply use this to justify their piracy. By saying this they demean me; they claim that the time and effort I put into the software is worthless. Apparently I shouldn't have bothered.
I have never understood why RMS believes that programming is something that doesn't deserve compensation. How is it any different from construction, from medicine, from clerical work? I work long hours and solve many problems to make something that might be useful to someone else, but because I'm a programmer it's wrong for me to benefit from what I've done in any way. I'll never get it.
To paraphrase a very popular.sig around here: "Worried about the non-'free' nature of commercial software? Here's a tip: write your own fucking code."
You are going to have a damn tough time convincing this crowd that the GPL isn't good for games. Trust me, I've been trying for a while.
"Write your own damn game!" Right, and duplicate massive amounts of effort that has already been locked (that's right, LOCKED) into GPL game libraries. I want to write a GAME, not an engine. I don't see why, just because I want to keep the option of selling my game open, I have to start from absolutely nothing.
But that's the way it is in GPL-land. Nobody ever talks about how the GPL actually makes you LESS free than other licenses - how it limits your options.
Thank GOD for the SDL. Now if somebody would just do an LGPL 3D engine...
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Excrement.
I owe RMS nothing. Nothing. Even if I ran an all GNU-system using HURD as my kernel, I'd still owe RMS nothing.
Why?
Because he gave it away.
Or at least, he said he did. Now he seems to want to say, "Um, yeah, I gave it away, but now I'd like very much for you to call Linux GNU/Linux. Oh, and I don't want you to use GCC to compile non-GPL software. What? You don't like that? Don't you know how much you owe me?"
No. He can't have it both ways. I have no intention of ever calling Linux GNU/Linux. I have no interest in his unwinnable holy war. This is the dark side of the "gift culture"...RMS is trying to suggest that we are obligated to him for something he gave away for free.
What's wrong with that? I've never found MUDs interesting, most of them are inhabited by role-playing purist pricks who say things like, "What ees thees strange theeng you call a 'level'?"
Graphical MUDs didn't just bring graphics, they also brought good GUIs and ease of installation and use to something that had once been horribly Byzantine. And that's why they took off like a rocket, while MUDs languish in obscurity.
People are taking the Georgia Tech policy way out of context and way too harshly. The policy is simple: students may talk (and are encouraged to talk) about high-level issues, but when it comes down to writing code, they have to do separate work. Unfortunately the average student fears getting caught for cheating and interprets this rule way too harshly.
For good reason at GT. Did you even read the article? He didn't copy code, he merely asked another student about how to do the assignment when there were no teachers or aides available.
Apparently, at GT, if you can't figure it out from the book and your professor's lecture, you're shit out of luck. Pay for another semester, loser.
Dunno...PDA customers aren't the type of people willing to learn how to use apt-get:)
Seriously, the fact that there isn't a large software library of easy-to-install titles _is_ a strike against this device. So is the fact that most Linux apps aren't very user-friendly, which is going to run quite counter to customer expectations.
On the other hand, writing apps for this little device might be a good way to learn GUI programming and good interface design.
I think that could have been hacked up into an acceptable solution...have the device be "modal", have it run Linux but automatically boot XPilot in "simple" mode so that most customers can simply use it like a Pilot (with a built-in keyboard, drool).
But, if you wish, you can remove this layer and play with the Linux underpinnings. Sounds like a plan to me. Of course, this plan would require licensing fees to Palm...
Mossberg's right on with most of his points. There is an accepted feature set that PDAs must provide or they just aren't useful to the average user. And one of those features is syncing to Outlook.
His second point is that by using a completely new operating system, they lock out users from the thousands of existing Palm and Windows CE programs. Once again, we have the "no apps for it, so nobody buys it, so nobody programs apps for it" circle.
Palm managed to overcome that by providing most of the useful features (like syncing with Outlook) out of the box...and with the sheer coolness factor of owning a PDA.
Microsoft overcame that simply by taking the loss necessary to keep their handhelds on the market until their market share got bigger. And by adding features to Windows CE devices that Palm didn't want to, like media players.
Sharp didn't serve its customers well by putting Linux on this device.
Games like Black & White & the Sims have been around for years, huh?
The argument could be made that Black & White is merely a combination of Populous and Creatures, and the Sims is just a newer version of Little Computer People.
The truth is that a good game is more in the execution than in the idea. There have been many hokey, tired ideas that became good games because the games were made well. There have been many games with superb, avant-garde ideas that made very poor games. Ocasionally somebody will break through and make something really new, but the fact that that's rare doesn't mean that every game that DOESN'T do that is worthless.
Theorem: The state of software being proprietary is not necessary for the software being commercial.
Proof by counterexample of inverse: 1. Assume the inverse, that software being proprietary -is- necessary for commercial. 1. Red hat linux is not proprietary(GPL), but is commercial($60 from Red Hat store) . 2. Therefore, proprietary is not necessary for commercial. QED.
You wrote a whole bunch of other stuff and insulted me personally, so I'm just going to ignore that.
But this proof is facetious and wrong. When you drop $60 on a Red Hat box, you are not buying the software. The software is free. You are buying printed manuals, a nice box to put them in, and phone support from Red Hat. Therefore, your proof falls apart.
Again, I want to make computer games for a living. The Free Software model does not work in this sphere of programming.
But this doesn't make a bit of difference to you, I'm sure. You're just going to write me off. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! Sucks that you have to choose between doing what you like and feeding your kids, but hey! Isn't it so much better now that all software is of the same quality and usability as Linux?
What you still can't grasp -- because you are incapable -- is that there is nothing wrong with selling software, and no one is saying that there is. There are those saying that there is something wrong with proprietary software.
And what you and the other GPL fanatics here don't - or won't - get is that there is no de facto difference between proprietary and commercial software. Software must be proprietary if it's to be commercial, since you cannot make money off of software if you cannot control how it is distributed!
So saying that RMS doesn't hate commercial software is disingenuous - he DOES hate commercial software, and deliberately wrote the GPL to make making money off of software as difficult as possible.
Plus, as if you are deliberately choosing the worst examples possible, games are somewhat unique in that they have a critical component -other- than the source code: Content! The Diablo II source code is nothing in value compared to the content, and I don't remember RMS arguing that artwork should be 'free as in speech'.
Ah. So let me see if I get this right.
Artists make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can scan their work and make it freely available on the web (with or without their permission).
Musicians make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can convert their work to MP3 and make it freely available
But programmers don't make anything worth selling. In fact, it's immoral for a programmer to try to sell what he creates.
Your inability to distinguish between commercial and proprietary just highlights your crippling inability to imagine how software could be commercial without being proprietary.
And this is your crippling inability: the inability to realize that to outlaw proprietary software is to outlaw commercial software, because if you cannot control the distribution of your software, then you cannot get paid for it. Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop.
I want to write computer games. Who is going to pay me for my game when they can download a copy for free?
Free Software is not a panacea! It is not a valid model for every aspect of this business, and I wish you people would stop saying that we should simply give up and "trust the Force" here. Anybody with a brain can see that it won't work!
We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Okay, see, now you're equating commercial software to something truly reprehensible like the tobacco industry. I do not see the parallel.
The chair analogy is facetious. There is nothing that prevents you from selling GPL'd software.
Sure, there's nothing legally preventing me from selling my GPL'd software. But nobody will buy my software if there's a version they can download for free.
This is a huge blind spot that none of the GPL zealots ever will address. It just doesn't exist to them. "Sure, sell your GPL'd software! What? You're having trouble selling copies and staying in business? Huh. Can't imagine why. Your software must suck."
Let's pretend Stallman with a snap of his fingers instantly erased all proprietary software and the business depending on the sale of it.
I would immediately beat him to death, since he would have just destroyed (among other things) computer and console gaming. No Grand Theft Auto 3 for you, punk! It's commercial software, and therefore evil!
Who would pay people to write software? Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose.
I would dispute that factoid. But even if it's correct, it doesn't mean that there's no market for general-purpose software. Quite the opposite!
Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.
And now we're back to nebulousness. Make money HOW? Feed my kids HOW? The truth is, if Stallman could snap his fingers and destroy commercial software, we would simply build it back up as fast as we could, because it works. Doesn't work perfectly, or even well sometimes, but it does work.
The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!
Here is the truth of it. If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop. People would still keep programming, but on their own time as a hobby. Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt. Sales of computers to private individuals would slow since (among other things) there wouldn't be any more commercial-quality software (especially games) to use.
This is the world Stallman apparently wants. But I don't, and I don't think you do either. Think for just a minute. Think about what a Free-Software-only world would be like. Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did. Or KDE or Gnome. Or Apache.
Slashdot Mirror
Gnome has never caught up to KDE and never will. And I don't intend to duplicate my efforts, so all my programs are written for KDE.
How? You still need to purchase an original copy of the game in order to play it with SCUMMVM. It doesn't matter if that's the first package released or the spiffy brand new Classic package. Either one will work just fine. But you have to buy it. So SCUMMVM doesn't hurt LucasArts one bit. Quite the opposite.
Absolutely fascinating premise: Could LucasArts take the SCUMMVM engine (which is GPL) and combine it with the original game data (which is copyrighted) and sell it? "LucasArts Classics, now on Game Boy Advance!"
They could claim that they are simply selling their copyrighted game data and are providing the engine free simply as a service. Is this something the GPL would allow? Because if so, it would make the GPL a lot more attractive to game developers, who could release the engine for free and sell the actual game content, and stay in business.
But last I heard, clause 2b of the GPL definitely suggested that if a program has a GPL component, the entire program must be provided to third parties at no cost. Which kind of shoots this idea out of the water.
Here's clause 2b of the GPL, just for reference:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Any way we can get a ruling on this?
That's great, but that won't put food in my 11-month old daughter's mouth, clothes on her back, nor a roof over her head, will it?
I've noticed this...most Free Software fanatics don't have any responsibilities beyond themselves. I have no doubt that once they do, they'll change their tune double-quick: "Hmm...Richard says programming commercial software for money is evil, but jobs to write Free Software are very rare. Programming is the best skill I have. I can make $50,000 a year doing it. My wife wants a house. My daughter needs clothes for school. I need medical insurance. I need a reliable vehicle. It's funny, but I don't see commercial software as evil any more (or, if I do, it's a necessary evil at worst)."
How this problem gets solved is something no Free Software fanatic has ever or will ever address, because there is no solution. Their dodge is "It's not my problem...you figure it out." There's nothing to figure out. I program proprietary commercial software to feed my family. I do it because I'm good at it and I like to do it. It's my best skill, that will make me the most money. Free Software won't let me provide for my family, therefore it is useless to me.
I apologize. When I last looked at Crystal Space it hadn't been updated in a long time. Now that work is being done on it again, I will certainly take another look.
I have, in fact. And for a long time, Counterstrike didn't have very good models or artwork. But people played it because it had good gameplay and maps. Which, yes, were created by people in their spare time who, at the time, had no hope of making a financial profit off what they were doing.
Bully for them. They are great guys who made a great game, and they got compensated for it in the end.. But saying that the entire game software industry can/should work the same way is absurd. Game software is (with a few noted exceptions) commercial software, and we all know that commercial software and the GPL mix about as well as oil and water.
No, I can't. He says he may make such a version available in the future. Therefore, if I build my game on OGRE and he decides not to make such a license available, I've wasted a whole lot of my time.
I've been looking for a full-featured 3D gaming engine for a while, as I wish to write a hobby game in my spare time. But since I want to keep the option of selling my game open to me, I can't use any of the currently existing 3D engines. Nor can I use the Quake 1/2 source. Why?
They are all GPL. While I will be the first person to admit that Free Software has its merits, it simply does not work for game software. Releasing a core component of a game under the GPL means that only GPL games can be made with it "That's great!" you may be saying. The only problem is that games are not just programming. They are programming, music, art, and level design. Musicians, artists, and level designers (even hobbyist ones) are used to making money for what they do. But since the core engine of the game is GPL, no money can be made on the game.
(Aside: And don't give me that line about how it's perfectly legal to sell Free Software. Sure, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it works. It's like another poster in another thread said: "Sure, I't's LEGAL for me to try to sell my used car for retail price, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to." Aside over.)
And you guys wonder why FreeCraft and FreeCiv have such lousy art. It's because there's no Free Art Foundation going around saying, "You should give your art away! It's immoral to charge for art!" Same thing for musicians. Same thing for level designers. Hell, same thing for just about any skilled work that combines technical expertise with creativity EXCEPT FOR PROGRAMMING.
The GPL doesn't work for gaming. Please, I'm begging you, stop releasing game libraries under the GPL. Release them under the LGPL or the BSD license. If you do, it means professionals can use and maintain them, benefiting and giving somthing back to the community. And we can all stop having to start from scratch (or use crappy middleware like NetImmerse) whenever we want to make a game.
It's obvious - if he provided the book in electronic format, then no one would buy the print copy.
Oh, wait...isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS US SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO DO?
Fuck him.
Thank you! I'm glad SOMEBODY else realizes this! Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
.sig around here: "Worried about the non-'free' nature of commercial software? Here's a tip: write your own fucking code."
Someone else here put it another way...liber pretty much guarantees gratis. This was always RMS' intention from the beginning. Yes, someone will point out the FSF page where they say selling GPL software is allowed. That's a smokescreen; they know that nobody is ever going to make money selling GPL software, so they don't have to ban it - it has already been effectively banned. You cannot make money selling software unless you can (ostensibly) control how the software is distributed.
Now people are going to pipe up screaming, "Well, it's your own fucking fault for trying to make money off something that can be copied so easily! Your business model is broken! Because software copies so easily, it's effective worth is zero!" These people have never written anything, and simply use this to justify their piracy. By saying this they demean me; they claim that the time and effort I put into the software is worthless. Apparently I shouldn't have bothered.
I have never understood why RMS believes that programming is something that doesn't deserve compensation. How is it any different from construction, from medicine, from clerical work? I work long hours and solve many problems to make something that might be useful to someone else, but because I'm a programmer it's wrong for me to benefit from what I've done in any way. I'll never get it.
To paraphrase a very popular
You are going to have a damn tough time convincing this crowd that the GPL isn't good for games. Trust me, I've been trying for a while.
"Write your own damn game!" Right, and duplicate massive amounts of effort that has already been locked (that's right, LOCKED) into GPL game libraries. I want to write a GAME, not an engine. I don't see why, just because I want to keep the option of selling my game open, I have to start from absolutely nothing.
But that's the way it is in GPL-land. Nobody ever talks about how the GPL actually makes you LESS free than other licenses - how it limits your options.
Thank GOD for the SDL. Now if somebody would just do an LGPL 3D engine...
Also, GCC is not a "descendent" of C. C is a language specification, derived from B and others before it. GCC is a program. They aren't even the *same sort of thing.* We owe K&R kudos for a great language. We owe RMS kudos for writing GCC, the heart of Free Software.
-Paul Komarek
Excrement.
I owe RMS nothing. Nothing. Even if I ran an all GNU-system using HURD as my kernel, I'd still owe RMS nothing.
Why?
Because he gave it away.
Or at least, he said he did. Now he seems to want to say, "Um, yeah, I gave it away, but now I'd like very much for you to call Linux GNU/Linux. Oh, and I don't want you to use GCC to compile non-GPL software. What? You don't like that? Don't you know how much you owe me?"
No. He can't have it both ways. I have no intention of ever calling Linux GNU/Linux. I have no interest in his unwinnable holy war. This is the dark side of the "gift culture"...RMS is trying to suggest that we are obligated to him for something he gave away for free.
What's wrong with that? I've never found MUDs interesting, most of them are inhabited by role-playing purist pricks who say things like, "What ees thees strange theeng you call a 'level'?"
Graphical MUDs didn't just bring graphics, they also brought good GUIs and ease of installation and use to something that had once been horribly Byzantine. And that's why they took off like a rocket, while MUDs languish in obscurity.
People are taking the Georgia Tech policy way out of context and way too harshly. The policy is simple: students may talk (and are encouraged to talk) about high-level issues, but when it comes down to writing code, they have to do separate work. Unfortunately the average student fears getting caught for cheating and interprets this rule way too harshly.
For good reason at GT. Did you even read the article? He didn't copy code, he merely asked another student about how to do the assignment when there were no teachers or aides available.
Apparently, at GT, if you can't figure it out from the book and your professor's lecture, you're shit out of luck. Pay for another semester, loser.
Dunno...PDA customers aren't the type of people willing to learn how to use apt-get :)
Seriously, the fact that there isn't a large software library of easy-to-install titles _is_ a strike against this device. So is the fact that most Linux apps aren't very user-friendly, which is going to run quite counter to customer expectations.
On the other hand, writing apps for this little device might be a good way to learn GUI programming and good interface design.
I think that could have been hacked up into an acceptable solution...have the device be "modal", have it run Linux but automatically boot XPilot in "simple" mode so that most customers can simply use it like a Pilot (with a built-in keyboard, drool).
But, if you wish, you can remove this layer and play with the Linux underpinnings. Sounds like a plan to me. Of course, this plan would require licensing fees to Palm...
Mossberg's right on with most of his points. There is an accepted feature set that PDAs must provide or they just aren't useful to the average user. And one of those features is syncing to Outlook.
His second point is that by using a completely new operating system, they lock out users from the thousands of existing Palm and Windows CE programs. Once again, we have the "no apps for it, so nobody buys it, so nobody programs apps for it" circle.
Palm managed to overcome that by providing most of the useful features (like syncing with Outlook) out of the box...and with the sheer coolness factor of owning a PDA.
Microsoft overcame that simply by taking the loss necessary to keep their handhelds on the market until their market share got bigger. And by adding features to Windows CE devices that Palm didn't want to, like media players.
Sharp didn't serve its customers well by putting Linux on this device.
Games like Black & White & the Sims have been around for years, huh?
The argument could be made that Black & White is merely a combination of Populous and Creatures, and the Sims is just a newer version of Little Computer People.
The truth is that a good game is more in the execution than in the idea. There have been many hokey, tired ideas that became good games because the games were made well. There have been many games with superb, avant-garde ideas that made very poor games. Ocasionally somebody will break through and make something really new, but the fact that that's rare doesn't mean that every game that DOESN'T do that is worthless.
Theorem: The state of software being proprietary is not necessary for the software being commercial.
Proof by counterexample of inverse:
1. Assume the inverse, that software being proprietary -is- necessary for commercial.
1. Red hat linux is not proprietary(GPL), but is commercial($60 from Red Hat store) .
2. Therefore, proprietary is not necessary for commercial. QED.
You wrote a whole bunch of other stuff and insulted me personally, so I'm just going to ignore that.
But this proof is facetious and wrong. When you drop $60 on a Red Hat box, you are not buying the software. The software is free. You are buying printed manuals, a nice box to put them in, and phone support from Red Hat. Therefore, your proof falls apart.
Again, I want to make computer games for a living. The Free Software model does not work in this sphere of programming.
But this doesn't make a bit of difference to you, I'm sure. You're just going to write me off. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! Sucks that you have to choose between doing what you like and feeding your kids, but hey! Isn't it so much better now that all software is of the same quality and usability as Linux?
Wait...
What you still can't grasp -- because you are incapable -- is that there is nothing wrong with selling software, and no one is saying that there is. There are those saying that there is something wrong with proprietary software.
And what you and the other GPL fanatics here don't - or won't - get is that there is no de facto difference between proprietary and commercial software. Software must be proprietary if it's to be commercial, since you cannot make money off of software if you cannot control how it is distributed!
So saying that RMS doesn't hate commercial software is disingenuous - he DOES hate commercial software, and deliberately wrote the GPL to make making money off of software as difficult as possible.
Plus, as if you are deliberately choosing the worst examples possible, games are somewhat unique in that they have a critical component -other- than the source code: Content! The Diablo II source code is nothing in value compared to the content, and I don't remember RMS arguing that artwork should be 'free as in speech'.
Ah. So let me see if I get this right.
Artists make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can scan their work and make it freely available on the web (with or without their permission).
Musicians make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can convert their work to MP3 and make it freely available
But programmers don't make anything worth selling. In fact, it's immoral for a programmer to try to sell what he creates.
Clear as mud.
Your inability to distinguish between commercial and proprietary just highlights your crippling inability to imagine how software could be commercial without being proprietary.
And this is your crippling inability: the inability to realize that to outlaw proprietary software is to outlaw commercial software, because if you cannot control the distribution of your software, then you cannot get paid for it. Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop.
I want to write computer games. Who is going to pay me for my game when they can download a copy for free?
Free Software is not a panacea! It is not a valid model for every aspect of this business, and I wish you people would stop saying that we should simply give up and "trust the Force" here. Anybody with a brain can see that it won't work!
We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Okay, see, now you're equating commercial software to something truly reprehensible like the tobacco industry. I do not see the parallel.
The chair analogy is facetious. There is nothing that prevents you from selling GPL'd software.
Sure, there's nothing legally preventing me from selling my GPL'd software. But nobody will buy my software if there's a version they can download for free.
This is a huge blind spot that none of the GPL zealots ever will address. It just doesn't exist to them. "Sure, sell your GPL'd software! What? You're having trouble selling copies and staying in business? Huh. Can't imagine why. Your software must suck."
Let's pretend Stallman with a snap of his fingers instantly erased all proprietary software and the business depending on the sale of it.
I would immediately beat him to death, since he would have just destroyed (among other things) computer and console gaming. No Grand Theft Auto 3 for you, punk! It's commercial software, and therefore evil!
Who would pay people to write software?
Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose.
I would dispute that factoid. But even if it's correct, it doesn't mean that there's no market for general-purpose software. Quite the opposite!
Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.
And now we're back to nebulousness. Make money HOW? Feed my kids HOW? The truth is, if Stallman could snap his fingers and destroy commercial software, we would simply build it back up as fast as we could, because it works. Doesn't work perfectly, or even well sometimes, but it does work.
The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!
Here is the truth of it. If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop. People would still keep programming, but on their own time as a hobby. Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt. Sales of computers to private individuals would slow since (among other things) there wouldn't be any more commercial-quality software (especially games) to use.
This is the world Stallman apparently wants. But I don't, and I don't think you do either. Think for just a minute. Think about what a Free-Software-only world would be like. Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did. Or KDE or Gnome. Or Apache.