10 ms·

A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making

A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. So he asked Stallman what to do about that. Stallman's reply? "You should not be making those games, it is unethical." To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shutting down any conversation and exploration and how we can improve things. There are a whole bunch of things one can think of: release the code but keep the assets (graphics, sound, music, etc.) proprietary, release under some sort of "source available" license, keep the core rendering parts proprietary SO/DLLs and release the rest as free software, and maybe a few other things. All of that would be a huge improvement over "100% closed". But Stallman isn't open to any of that, and because the FSF is still very much Stallman's organisation, neither is the FSF. For at least 20 years the FSF has done nothing except preaching to the choir, and certainly hasn't actually made many significant meaningful every-day improvements. In the above situation the game dev essentially asked was "what is the best way to make my software more free?" and all he got was a rather insulting and condensing shutdown of that conversation before it could even take off. [1]: I don't have the source for that right now; I think it was somewhere on YouTube. It may have been an interview with Lunduke, but I'm not sure.

mr_johnson22 5y ago
The real surprise is that Stallman restrained himself from telling the dev that having children is unethical.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
- snvzz 5y ago
  He can actually keep on topic when it comes to free software. Yet GNU and FSF aren't everything RMS is, so he has his own personal website. I would assume you've learned about his views on having children there.
  - mr_johnson22 5y ago
    Yes I have. And my quip was not to criticize his views, but his frequent bluntness in expressing them.
  - filmgirlcw 5y ago
    His comments about children were actually expressed in a GNU mailing list, but sure, move those goal posts.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  Why would he? Aren't children free software (if you didn't sell copyright on your DNA)?
passerby1 5y ago
First of all is to come to some kind of an agreement on the definition of ethical.
worik 5y ago
It obviously has not shut down discussion or argument. Here you are. Discussing and arguing. Good on you.
lovich 5y ago
Stallman seems like the kinda of guy who would tell you that you need to starve in the streets as long as you fit his version of ethics. All while he lives comfortably off the income of his own celebrity.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The hyperbole doesn't help. Stallman would not tell you that you need to starve in the streets. He is well away that most programmers get paid at least median income, and often much more, and they are normally people who can make choices in their lives, few of which will involve starving in the streets. You don't have to agree that the choices are attractive to acknowledge that they do not need to include starving in the streets.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > He is well away that most programmers get paid at least median income, and often much more Yes, by working on unfree software, an occupation which he uncompromisingly condemns. Programmers working exclusively on free software would be earning much, much less on average.
    - User23 5y ago
      You can make a lot of money writing free software at whatever FAANG is called now. I mean sure the source is never distributed because the binaries aren’t either, but it does meet the definition.
      - Kinrany 5y ago
        When Stallman says "free as in free speech, not free beer", he means freedom to use software in any way you want including changing it. Not zero price.
        rndgermandude 5y ago
        Except this model is practically "zero price". Yes, you can sell GPL software, but on the customer side, buying such software cannot be justified economically, if all you got to do is to find somebody/some place that will provide this software to you free of charge and legally so. The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. All of the open source companies/people that come to mind are not selling libre software, they are all selling some kind of service - support contracts, managed hosting, etc - or they embraced some kind of freemium/"open core" model (so they are really selling non-free software), or they are funded by charitable donations and sometimes public grants, often by having some large non-free companies being sponsors (Linus Torvalds is paid this way for example, through sponsorship money from the who-is-who of the non-free corporate world distributed through the Linux Foundation).
tjader 5y ago
Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a living, paying my rent, paying for my children's education". Would you tell them "You shouldn't have slaves, it's unethical" or would you try to help them find a way to run their business with fewer slaves, but still some?
- starwind 5y ago
  Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?
    - 83457 5y ago
      Analogies
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
      - tjader 5y ago
        Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.
  - tjader 5y ago
    No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.
lettergram 5y ago
We already have business models that work with intellectual material. Think Locals, Patreon, substack, youtube, etc. There's no reason you cannot make a living by simply creating a payment method where you get the game + code. Yes, people will copy it. FAR from all people will. In the game add a pay/subscribe/support button. Frankly, I suspect you'll get more money; the game will be spread further and people will be willing to pay. You can even create a "bug bounty" program, where people can pay for bug fixes. Alternatively, have people "pre-pay" for new releases and send the code. There's plenty of alternatives. That said, I do understand the view, but take a step back.. Stallman's point is that it's unethical to have closed source code running on your hardware. Effectively, you cannot understand, manipulate, update the underlying code. If I purchase a book, I can modify it. If I buy a car I can modify it. If I buy a song, I can modify it. Why can I not modify the software I purchased? In terms of meaningful improvements, everyone considers licensing. Every company I've ever worked at, every code base, every project is evaluated, etc. It's taken seriously, something that was not done prior to the FSF. I'm currently writing this comment on hardware I can modify, with software I can modify. I don't even have closed sourced video drivers.. So I really don't see your point.
andai 5y ago
When you buy a game from Jason Rohrer, you get the source code too. (It's also on GitHub.) What you're actually buying is an account on the official multiplayer server (which is also open source). I thought this was a really interesting model. Maybe it wouldn't work so well with singleplayer games. However, there's a similar example with the sprite editor / animation software Aseprite, which is open source but you have to compile it yourself, so it's cheaper for most people (in terms of time and effort) to just buy it for $15.
- TideAd 5y ago
  There might be 1% of the population with the expertise to build it from source, and even most of them would prefer to just pay $15.
  - andai 5y ago
    Yeah, exactly. I think the real risk seems to be unofficial precompiled versions, or clones/derivatives, but the same risk exists for redistributing/cracking (and to a lesser degree, modding) closed source software. Jason Rohrer's game One Hour One Life has a few community spin-offs, which is also really interesting. There are also blatant clones, of course, but it seems to be a worthwhile tradeoff on the whole.
- rasengan0 5y ago
  Ha! I bought Primrose and Passage on iOS back in the day. [1] Now sadly no longer on the Apple App Store I guess that is what happens over time at the walled garden: You don't pay, you don't play [1] http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/ http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/ update: gotta go scrounge for my box of old iPod touches with dead batteries if they have the games as local iTunes sync no longer works.
- mrob 5y ago
  As of version 1.1.8, Aseprite is source-available proprietary software, not open source: https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
rnd0 5y ago
>To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shutting down any conversation and exploration and how we can improve things. This is probably one of the best critiques of his approach (and by extention the FSF) I've read. Very true, and it is a tremendous waste.
stakkur 5y ago
The problem is in the question: the game dev wants to know how to reconcile ethics and his desire to make money from making games. Stallman is saying “it’s not my job to help solve your dilemma.” And he’s right. If I ask a doctor ‘how can I eat french fries and still lose weight”, the doctor will say “you can’t, and I can’t help you resolve your dilemma. What you’re doing is unhealthy”.
- viktorcode 5y ago
  Only he's wrong. He's supposed to be the top expert behind Free Software movement, nobody else can answer that real-life question better than RMS. An idea that's inapplicable to reality even in principle is worthless.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Maybe reality is worth changing for an important idea with far-reaching consequences.
  - stakkur 5y ago
    Except that he did answer his question. Which is different than helping him solve his dilemma.
ffhhj 5y ago
> You should not be making those games, it is unethical. Made me imagine one of those xkcd: Me: here is the code. RMS: what? this is the compiled software. Me: but the code is there in assembly. RMS: that's unethical, give me the source code. Me: ok, here, the source right before compilation. RMS: this is obfuscated code, still unethical. Me: granted, here it goes without obfuscation. RMS: no, wait, the code is so micro-optimized it's no easy to understand, that's not open enough, and, unethical. Me: ugh but I didn't save the unoptimized version, I just kept optimizing until it got this way. RMS: look if we can't understand it we won't be able to inspect it, so this is still unethical. Me: fine, I refactored the code. RMS: it's undocumented, how are most people going to understand it, imagine a whole operating system undocumented, just, unethical!
belorn 5y ago
It is a bit like a rancher asking the founder of the vegan movement how to raising livestock while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. The conversation can very easily become non-constructive, even when the more optimal answer could be focused on improving things, like using a more humane method of killing and better treatment when the livestock is alive. I would have just answered that the best way to develop free software games is to not be forced to rely on copyright in order to get paid. Get paid to work on it, rather than get paid after work has already been done. If one has to rely on copyright to get paid, a CC BY-NC license might be the best choice, as then the author still have exclusivity to put the game on stores. An other choice is a contractual trigger where once the author is not interested in exclusivity they they will release the code.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Sometimes NOT doing a thing IS improving things. History rife with examples.

mr_johnson22 5y ago

The real surprise is that Stallman restrained himself from telling the dev that having children is unethical.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
snvzz 5y ago
He can actually keep on topic when it comes to free software. Yet GNU and FSF aren't everything RMS is, so he has his own personal website. I would assume you've learned about his views on having children there.
- mr_johnson22 5y ago
  Yes I have. And my quip was not to criticize his views, but his frequent bluntness in expressing them.
- filmgirlcw 5y ago
  His comments about children were actually expressed in a GNU mailing list, but sure, move those goal posts.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
Why would he? Aren't children free software (if you didn't sell copyright on your DNA)?

passerby1 5y ago

First of all is to come to some kind of an agreement on the definition of ethical.

worik 5y ago

It obviously has not shut down discussion or argument. Here you are. Discussing and arguing. Good on you.

lovich 5y ago

Stallman seems like the kinda of guy who would tell you that you need to starve in the streets as long as you fit his version of ethics. All while he lives comfortably off the income of his own celebrity.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The hyperbole doesn't help. Stallman would not tell you that you need to starve in the streets. He is well away that most programmers get paid at least median income, and often much more, and they are normally people who can make choices in their lives, few of which will involve starving in the streets. You don't have to agree that the choices are attractive to acknowledge that they do not need to include starving in the streets.
- adwn 5y ago
  > He is well away that most programmers get paid at least median income, and often much more Yes, by working on unfree software, an occupation which he uncompromisingly condemns. Programmers working exclusively on free software would be earning much, much less on average.
  - User23 5y ago
    You can make a lot of money writing free software at whatever FAANG is called now. I mean sure the source is never distributed because the binaries aren’t either, but it does meet the definition.
    - Kinrany 5y ago
      When Stallman says "free as in free speech, not free beer", he means freedom to use software in any way you want including changing it. Not zero price.
      - rndgermandude 5y ago
        Except this model is practically "zero price". Yes, you can sell GPL software, but on the customer side, buying such software cannot be justified economically, if all you got to do is to find somebody/some place that will provide this software to you free of charge and legally so. The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. All of the open source companies/people that come to mind are not selling libre software, they are all selling some kind of service - support contracts, managed hosting, etc - or they embraced some kind of freemium/"open core" model (so they are really selling non-free software), or they are funded by charitable donations and sometimes public grants, often by having some large non-free companies being sponsors (Linus Torvalds is paid this way for example, through sponsorship money from the who-is-who of the non-free corporate world distributed through the Linux Foundation).

tjader 5y ago

Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a living, paying my rent, paying for my children's education". Would you tell them "You shouldn't have slaves, it's unethical" or would you try to help them find a way to run their business with fewer slaves, but still some?

starwind 5y ago
Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?
  - 83457 5y ago
    Analogies
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
    - tjader 5y ago
      Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.
- tjader 5y ago
  No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.

lettergram 5y ago

We already have business models that work with intellectual material. Think Locals, Patreon, substack, youtube, etc. There's no reason you cannot make a living by simply creating a payment method where you get the game + code. Yes, people will copy it. FAR from all people will. In the game add a pay/subscribe/support button. Frankly, I suspect you'll get more money; the game will be spread further and people will be willing to pay. You can even create a "bug bounty" program, where people can pay for bug fixes. Alternatively, have people "pre-pay" for new releases and send the code. There's plenty of alternatives. That said, I do understand the view, but take a step back.. Stallman's point is that it's unethical to have closed source code running on your hardware. Effectively, you cannot understand, manipulate, update the underlying code. If I purchase a book, I can modify it. If I buy a car I can modify it. If I buy a song, I can modify it. Why can I not modify the software I purchased? In terms of meaningful improvements, everyone considers licensing. Every company I've ever worked at, every code base, every project is evaluated, etc. It's taken seriously, something that was not done prior to the FSF. I'm currently writing this comment on hardware I can modify, with software I can modify. I don't even have closed sourced video drivers.. So I really don't see your point.

andai 5y ago

When you buy a game from Jason Rohrer, you get the source code too. (It's also on GitHub.) What you're actually buying is an account on the official multiplayer server (which is also open source). I thought this was a really interesting model. Maybe it wouldn't work so well with singleplayer games. However, there's a similar example with the sprite editor / animation software Aseprite, which is open source but you have to compile it yourself, so it's cheaper for most people (in terms of time and effort) to just buy it for $15.

TideAd 5y ago
There might be 1% of the population with the expertise to build it from source, and even most of them would prefer to just pay $15.
- andai 5y ago
  Yeah, exactly. I think the real risk seems to be unofficial precompiled versions, or clones/derivatives, but the same risk exists for redistributing/cracking (and to a lesser degree, modding) closed source software. Jason Rohrer's game One Hour One Life has a few community spin-offs, which is also really interesting. There are also blatant clones, of course, but it seems to be a worthwhile tradeoff on the whole.
rasengan0 5y ago
Ha! I bought Primrose and Passage on iOS back in the day. [1] Now sadly no longer on the Apple App Store I guess that is what happens over time at the walled garden: You don't pay, you don't play [1] http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/ http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/ update: gotta go scrounge for my box of old iPod touches with dead batteries if they have the games as local iTunes sync no longer works.
mrob 5y ago
As of version 1.1.8, Aseprite is source-available proprietary software, not open source: https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/

rnd0 5y ago

>To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shutting down any conversation and exploration and how we can improve things. This is probably one of the best critiques of his approach (and by extention the FSF) I've read. Very true, and it is a tremendous waste.

stakkur 5y ago

The problem is in the question: the game dev wants to know how to reconcile ethics and his desire to make money from making games. Stallman is saying “it’s not my job to help solve your dilemma.” And he’s right. If I ask a doctor ‘how can I eat french fries and still lose weight”, the doctor will say “you can’t, and I can’t help you resolve your dilemma. What you’re doing is unhealthy”.

viktorcode 5y ago
Only he's wrong. He's supposed to be the top expert behind Free Software movement, nobody else can answer that real-life question better than RMS. An idea that's inapplicable to reality even in principle is worthless.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Maybe reality is worth changing for an important idea with far-reaching consequences.
- stakkur 5y ago
  Except that he did answer his question. Which is different than helping him solve his dilemma.

ffhhj 5y ago

> You should not be making those games, it is unethical. Made me imagine one of those xkcd: Me: here is the code. RMS: what? this is the compiled software. Me: but the code is there in assembly. RMS: that's unethical, give me the source code. Me: ok, here, the source right before compilation. RMS: this is obfuscated code, still unethical. Me: granted, here it goes without obfuscation. RMS: no, wait, the code is so micro-optimized it's no easy to understand, that's not open enough, and, unethical. Me: ugh but I didn't save the unoptimized version, I just kept optimizing until it got this way. RMS: look if we can't understand it we won't be able to inspect it, so this is still unethical. Me: fine, I refactored the code. RMS: it's undocumented, how are most people going to understand it, imagine a whole operating system undocumented, just, unethical!

belorn 5y ago

It is a bit like a rancher asking the founder of the vegan movement how to raising livestock while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. The conversation can very easily become non-constructive, even when the more optimal answer could be focused on improving things, like using a more humane method of killing and better treatment when the livestock is alive. I would have just answered that the best way to develop free software games is to not be forced to rely on copyright in order to get paid. Get paid to work on it, rather than get paid after work has already been done. If one has to rely on copyright to get paid, a CC BY-NC license might be the best choice, as then the author still have exclusivity to put the game on stores. An other choice is a contractual trigger where once the author is not interested in exclusivity they they will release the code.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

Sometimes NOT doing a thing IS improving things. History rife with examples.