3 ms·

I find the choice of business model very strange. The free software philosophy allows game art to be proprietary. They could sell DRM-free copies on their site

I find the choice of business model very strange. The free software philosophy allows game art to be proprietary. They could sell DRM-free copies on their site that license the game art but keep the code free. I'm not sure why they don't do this.

blendergeek 6y ago
> I find the choice of business model very strange. I don't see much of a business model. > The free software philosophy allows game art to be proprietary. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The Free Software Definition does not allow this. If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. The GNU Free System Distribution guidelines allows for the inclusion of game art that is under a license that does not permit modification. However any such art must be redistributable for commercial and noncommercial purposes at no charge. > They could sell DRM-free copies on their site that license the game art but keep the code free. This violates the spirit of free software. > I'm not sure why they don't do this. I think they want the game to be free.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  If you are the author (and every other contributor signed relevant CLAs) then you can distribute the code however you want. You do not have to include game assets in the code distribution.
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    I do realize that. However, in the case of 0ad, they do not require such a CLA. Rather their website has this to say: > By sending in a patch, you agree that it is your own work (or else make it clear where it came from) and agree to licensing any code as GPL 2+ (or in some cases MIT, especially for code in lib/ - check the existing copyright headers on the source files you edit) and data files as CC-BY-SA 3.0.
- chungy 6y ago
  > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The Free Software Definition does not allow this. If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. > The GNU Free System Distribution guidelines allows for the inclusion of game art that is under a license that does not permit modification. However any such art must be redistributable for commercial and noncommercial purposes at no charge. The free software definition only really applies to software, not art. There is nothing that would be in conflict for having a free game engine paired with proprietary artwork. There even exists plenty of examples of such; most prominently, the Doom and Quake games. > This violates the spirit of free software. The spirit of free software is not "free stuff", but rather the freedom to run and modify programs. A free engine paired with proprietary art doesn't violate anything. > I think they want the game to be free. This is the main thing and the primary factor in all of the conversation. While the 0 AD authors _could_ make a proprietary-art game and maybe make a profit doing so, their intention is clearly to have free (as in freedom) artwork as well as to have the game spread as wide as possible. There is nothing wrong with this, just as there would be nothing wrong with making a commercial game. It is a choice and one that can be taken admirably. The short of it, there probably isn't a business model to speak of. While it does appear there exists a corporation (Wildfire Games) to cover legal concerns, it's doubtful they're doing it for profit.
- lmm 6y ago
  > If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. You could use the free 0AD engine to play a proprietary campaign, just as you can use the free Calibre to read a proprietary book. > This violates the spirit of free software. That's a matter of opinion. The roots of free software are about empowering users to fix bugs in functional code; computer gaming was barely a thing in those days, and while fixing outright bugs in games is an obvious extension of the same philosophy, changing artworks is much less so.
- crazypython 6y ago
  Stallman has repeatedly stated that game art can be proprietary and still be free software.[0] > > They could sell DRM-free copies on their site that license the game art but keep the code free. > This violates the spirit of free software. Stallman sold copies of the GNU compiler. To be fair, he also says "but everyone's got to be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies." However, charging a "distribution fee" is allowed and encouraged. 0 AD themselves state they cannot afford the bandwidth costs. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.ht... "What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to decide what to think about modifications."

blendergeek 6y ago

> I find the choice of business model very strange. I don't see much of a business model. > The free software philosophy allows game art to be proprietary. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The Free Software Definition does not allow this. If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. The GNU Free System Distribution guidelines allows for the inclusion of game art that is under a license that does not permit modification. However any such art must be redistributable for commercial and noncommercial purposes at no charge. > They could sell DRM-free copies on their site that license the game art but keep the code free. This violates the spirit of free software. > I'm not sure why they don't do this. I think they want the game to be free.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
If you are the author (and every other contributor signed relevant CLAs) then you can distribute the code however you want. You do not have to include game assets in the code distribution.
- blendergeek 6y ago
  I do realize that. However, in the case of 0ad, they do not require such a CLA. Rather their website has this to say: > By sending in a patch, you agree that it is your own work (or else make it clear where it came from) and agree to licensing any code as GPL 2+ (or in some cases MIT, especially for code in lib/ - check the existing copyright headers on the source files you edit) and data files as CC-BY-SA 3.0.
chungy 6y ago
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The Free Software Definition does not allow this. If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. > The GNU Free System Distribution guidelines allows for the inclusion of game art that is under a license that does not permit modification. However any such art must be redistributable for commercial and noncommercial purposes at no charge. The free software definition only really applies to software, not art. There is nothing that would be in conflict for having a free game engine paired with proprietary artwork. There even exists plenty of examples of such; most prominently, the Doom and Quake games. > This violates the spirit of free software. The spirit of free software is not "free stuff", but rather the freedom to run and modify programs. A free engine paired with proprietary art doesn't violate anything. > I think they want the game to be free. This is the main thing and the primary factor in all of the conversation. While the 0 AD authors _could_ make a proprietary-art game and maybe make a profit doing so, their intention is clearly to have free (as in freedom) artwork as well as to have the game spread as wide as possible. There is nothing wrong with this, just as there would be nothing wrong with making a commercial game. It is a choice and one that can be taken admirably. The short of it, there probably isn't a business model to speak of. While it does appear there exists a corporation (Wildfire Games) to cover legal concerns, it's doubtful they're doing it for profit.
lmm 6y ago
> If code is contributed to 0AD under the GPL, they could not combine it with proprietary graphics. You could use the free 0AD engine to play a proprietary campaign, just as you can use the free Calibre to read a proprietary book. > This violates the spirit of free software. That's a matter of opinion. The roots of free software are about empowering users to fix bugs in functional code; computer gaming was barely a thing in those days, and while fixing outright bugs in games is an obvious extension of the same philosophy, changing artworks is much less so.
crazypython 6y ago
Stallman has repeatedly stated that game art can be proprietary and still be free software.[0] > > They could sell DRM-free copies on their site that license the game art but keep the code free. > This violates the spirit of free software. Stallman sold copies of the GNU compiler. To be fair, he also says "but everyone's got to be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies." However, charging a "distribution fee" is allowed and encouraged. 0 AD themselves state they cannot afford the bandwidth costs. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.ht... "What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to decide what to think about modifications."