3 ms·
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
by 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.