4 ms·

One interesting thing is the FSF’s principles have absolutely no problem with a free engine and paid assets. They explicitly say they have no position on artwor

by User23 3y ago

One interesting thing is the FSF’s principles have absolutely no problem with a free engine and paid assets. They explicitly say they have no position on artwork and I’d say art, sound, level design, and so on all qualifies as artwork. That arrangement looks like a good one to me. It leaves plenty of room for the seller to make money while respecting user freedom. And every case I know of where a mod community thrives greatly lenthens the lifetime of the game. Needless to say having the engine source available would be a huge benefit for modders.

feoren 3y ago
> They explicitly say they have no position on artwork Right, the FSF has always had the view that software developers are the only creative professionals who must be shamed for not releasing their hard work for absolutely free. Authors are allowed to hold copyrights on their books, artists on their paintings, musicians on their music; but programmers? Fuck them if they even THINK about trying to maintain control of their creative outputs -- they're clearly evil. J.K. Rowling is allowed to make money on Harry Potter, but you're not allowed to copyright your code. And can it with "but these 47 people in history have all managed to make a livable income from consulting based on their open-source work!". That's just more of you telling me how I'm supposed to live. I don't want to make money helping incompetent companies install the software I wrote. I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world.
- User23 3y ago
  > <anti-freedom rant> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and there’s a huge difference between being able to control your own computing hardware vs reading second rate children’s books. > I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world That’s a pretty thought, but nobody does. Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?
  - feoren 3y ago
    > <sweeping generalization> I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then? > right to repair This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit. I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end. > Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic? Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?
    - User23 3y ago
      > <some straw men> Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. > Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma? In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.
      - feoren 3y ago
        > Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. Yet Recipe Books (particular curated collections of recipes) are afforded copyright protection. If your argument is that copyright should not be given to general algorithms like the FFT, new methods of fast matrix multiplication, the Carmack Hack, etc., then I actually completely agree with you. In all art, there is a level too granular to be copyrightable. In music, it's chord progressions and simple, obvious melodies. In books, it's common idioms and simple sentences like "Terrified, he ran." In programming, it's basic/common algorithms, design patterns, and commonly used control flow. None of that should be afforded copyright protection, and I hate seeing the frivolous lawsuits that come up in all those fields based on these trivial similarities. Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. For what it's worth: IMO code should not be eligible for patent protection. It's actually possible for someone to dislike software patents, support right to repair, and also support copyright protection for programmers. > you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.

by User23 3y ago

feoren 3y ago

> They explicitly say they have no position on artwork Right, the FSF has always had the view that software developers are the only creative professionals who must be shamed for not releasing their hard work for absolutely free. Authors are allowed to hold copyrights on their books, artists on their paintings, musicians on their music; but programmers? Fuck them if they even THINK about trying to maintain control of their creative outputs -- they're clearly evil. J.K. Rowling is allowed to make money on Harry Potter, but you're not allowed to copyright your code. And can it with "but these 47 people in history have all managed to make a livable income from consulting based on their open-source work!". That's just more of you telling me how I'm supposed to live. I don't want to make money helping incompetent companies install the software I wrote. I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world.

User23 3y ago
> <anti-freedom rant> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and there’s a huge difference between being able to control your own computing hardware vs reading second rate children’s books. > I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world That’s a pretty thought, but nobody does. Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?
- feoren 3y ago
  > <sweeping generalization> I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then? > right to repair This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit. I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end. > Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic? Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?
  - User23 3y ago
    > <some straw men> Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. > Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma? In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.
    - feoren 3y ago
      > Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions. Yet Recipe Books (particular curated collections of recipes) are afforded copyright protection. If your argument is that copyright should not be given to general algorithms like the FFT, new methods of fast matrix multiplication, the Carmack Hack, etc., then I actually completely agree with you. In all art, there is a level too granular to be copyrightable. In music, it's chord progressions and simple, obvious melodies. In books, it's common idioms and simple sentences like "Terrified, he ran." In programming, it's basic/common algorithms, design patterns, and commonly used control flow. None of that should be afforded copyright protection, and I hate seeing the frivolous lawsuits that come up in all those fields based on these trivial similarities. Besides, modern Haskell or C# or TypeScript or Rust code is not simply a set of instructions. You could argue that assembly language is. But the vastly different ways to express the same logical things in different languages, including comments, naming conventions, clever tricks, etc. all together comprise a body of artwork (yes, artwork) that is clearly copyrightable. For what it's worth: IMO code should not be eligible for patent protection. It's actually possible for someone to dislike software patents, support right to repair, and also support copyright protection for programmers. > you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative It's hard to argue I'm straw-manning you when you make such obviously outrageous statements. This statement is like a caricature of everything I'm claiming the FSF is.