3 ms·

Note that the free software definition does not require game assets such as art[0], data[1], world maps, etc. to be free. Those are data, not software. They are

Note that the free software definition does not require game assets such as art[0], data[1], world maps, etc. to be free. Those are data, not software. They are for appreciation, not functional use. Stallman only asks the code to be under a free license. Selling a license to the art and game files (how many hit points does the enemy have?) and keeping the software free is a potential business model for freedom-respecting videogames. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/funding-art-vs-funding-software.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/funding-art-vs-funding-softwa... [1]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...

jdsully 6y ago
Keeping the art which is necessary to actually play the game proprietary is not respecting freedom. Its the equivalent of releasing just the compiled binary and keeping the source closed. The GPL game code is useless without the art assets. I think Stallman is talking about art as in paintings, not art assets which are integral to the working of a GPL program.
- crazypython 6y ago
  "For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional." > The GPL game code is useless without the art assets. You can make your own art. When software is free, you can modify it to be less addictive, to fast forward, to learn from it, and generally protect your rights. "Free as in beer" was never the point of free software. > is not respecting freedom. Sounds like an over-broad definition of freedom, the kind open-source supporters might use. I suppose you think museums shouldn't charge too?
  - jdsully 6y ago
    If gnome desktop shipped without any icons or assets would we still consider it free software? I just don't understand how releasing only a subset of the code, or code not in its preferred editing format is "not free", but failing to release assets critical to the working of the program somehow maintains freedom. I mean you could also decompile the program which is a lot easier than recreating the art assets from scratch. Since you've confirmed I share a different opinion, it seems Stallman has a bias toward console applications where art is not a critical component. That's the most charitable interpretation for this cognitive dissonance I can think of.
- npteljes 6y ago
  I get your point. There is a difference between what free software is in theory, and what we grew to expect from free software. I mean common expectations software are build instructions, packaged versions (binaries, installers), publicly viewable code - but the free software requirements say nothing about these, people just provide it because they want to make users' lives easier. And so, they became the norm over the years. But they are not strictly part of what makes a software "free software".
  - jdsully 6y ago
    The “free software” requirement as defined by Stallman doesn’t require it sure. My argument is that it’s not a logically consistent position. It would be wrong for EA to take a GPL game and modify the code without keeping it GPL. But somehow it’s OK for them to modify all the art assets to get the same effect of making the software as a whole effectively proprietary. Unlike console applications the art in a GUI program is critical to its function. It makes little sense.
    - crazypython 6y ago
      > But somehow it’s OK for them to modify all the art assets to get the same effect of making the software as a whole effectively proprietary Stallman believes it should be legal to redistribute all art non-commercially. That is his political belief, outside the scope of free software, however. https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html I just don't feel like it's practical to ask game companies to distribute ALL assets semi-freely, and somehow still make a profit. Let me know if you come up with a good business model.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  There's no reason you couldn't release the game art as CC BY SA alongside the GPL source code.

jdsully 6y ago

Keeping the art which is necessary to actually play the game proprietary is not respecting freedom. Its the equivalent of releasing just the compiled binary and keeping the source closed. The GPL game code is useless without the art assets. I think Stallman is talking about art as in paintings, not art assets which are integral to the working of a GPL program.

crazypython 6y ago
"For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional." > The GPL game code is useless without the art assets. You can make your own art. When software is free, you can modify it to be less addictive, to fast forward, to learn from it, and generally protect your rights. "Free as in beer" was never the point of free software. > is not respecting freedom. Sounds like an over-broad definition of freedom, the kind open-source supporters might use. I suppose you think museums shouldn't charge too?
- jdsully 6y ago
  If gnome desktop shipped without any icons or assets would we still consider it free software? I just don't understand how releasing only a subset of the code, or code not in its preferred editing format is "not free", but failing to release assets critical to the working of the program somehow maintains freedom. I mean you could also decompile the program which is a lot easier than recreating the art assets from scratch. Since you've confirmed I share a different opinion, it seems Stallman has a bias toward console applications where art is not a critical component. That's the most charitable interpretation for this cognitive dissonance I can think of.
npteljes 6y ago
I get your point. There is a difference between what free software is in theory, and what we grew to expect from free software. I mean common expectations software are build instructions, packaged versions (binaries, installers), publicly viewable code - but the free software requirements say nothing about these, people just provide it because they want to make users' lives easier. And so, they became the norm over the years. But they are not strictly part of what makes a software "free software".
- jdsully 6y ago
  The “free software” requirement as defined by Stallman doesn’t require it sure. My argument is that it’s not a logically consistent position. It would be wrong for EA to take a GPL game and modify the code without keeping it GPL. But somehow it’s OK for them to modify all the art assets to get the same effect of making the software as a whole effectively proprietary. Unlike console applications the art in a GUI program is critical to its function. It makes little sense.
  - crazypython 6y ago
    > But somehow it’s OK for them to modify all the art assets to get the same effect of making the software as a whole effectively proprietary Stallman believes it should be legal to redistribute all art non-commercially. That is his political belief, outside the scope of free software, however. https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html I just don't feel like it's practical to ask game companies to distribute ALL assets semi-freely, and somehow still make a profit. Let me know if you come up with a good business model.
nerdponx 6y ago
There's no reason you couldn't release the game art as CC BY SA alongside the GPL source code.