4 ms·

"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 suc

"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.