5 ms·

This was long coming and announced (Steam had a big hard to miss warning whenever opened on Win 7, for pretty much the entire year), but yet another reminder th

This was long coming and announced (Steam had a big hard to miss warning whenever opened on Win 7, for pretty much the entire year), but yet another reminder that when it comes to digital libraries (of games, apps, music, movies, books, etc), your "ownership" of your titles is dependent on countless variables. Even though GOG's own client (GOG Galaxy) has been requiring Windows 10 for even longer, you could always just download the games from their website and manually install them no problem.

exe34 2y ago
not your (gpl) source code, not your game.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Even if that were possible, the GPL license makes no sense for artwork or music, and is quite possibly legally unenforceable in such a context. You need a combination of GPL + Commons; and how many games are licensed that way? But even then, GPL + Commons does not give you trademark rights, only the ability to reuse the assets under a different name. So unless you have GPL + Commons + Trademark, do you really have ownership? But hold on, in Japan and in the US, game mechanics can be patented. So who cares if you have the code, assets, and trademark, if you don't have patent rights? I suppose you need GPL + Commons + Trademarks + Patent Assignment; or maybe you swap out GPL with Apache2. Now hopefully whoever made the artwork doesn't sue for unpaid royalties. You're relying on the declared licenses, but it's still possible that whoever made the game, lied in one way or another. It's also possible there are applicable patents owned by other companies, which weren't disclosed. The point is: Even with GPL code, it's still a long way from being "your game." I didn't even mention the middleware like Havok Physics or Unity Engine; which would render your GPL game code pretty useless without a proprietary attachment, if using the GPL license at all is even legal with such a combination.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    All of that is possible to solve: https://itch.io/jam/free-software-purism-game-jam https://itch.io/jam/free-software-purism-game-jam
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- brian-armstrong 2y ago
  Choosing to disengage from the world does not make you brave
  - jzackpete 2y ago
    are you referring to the act of playing video games or the act of not playing video games
  - exe34 2y ago
    Thank goodness I'm neither trying to disengage from the world nor trying to be brave! Do you often go around making irrelevant comments at parties?
  - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
    Can you explain what you mean? I see you post comments in other threads but don't engage with this one.
- tylerchilds 2y ago
  gpl is still subject to bit rot and likely the reason there aren’t more gpl games there’s misaligned incentives between the people writing the game and the people wielding c compilers as political weapons. i swear every time i can’t compile code it is not clear which aspect of c failed— the dynamic linker working around gpl limitations as technical debt, the kernel itself using a more advanced c with backwards breaking changes, the code being written for the wrong architecture triple, or the code was written for a different c compiler altogether i don’t actually try and fix it because bit rot only gets worse if i notice the problem.
  - beached_whale 2y ago
    at least for linux, it might make sense to containerize the environment and store it. That way next time if it doesn't build on current, one can use the prev that did work.
    - tylerchilds 2y ago
      i use linux on a daily basis and i will say microsoft’s solution to containerization was the .exe linux has appimage, but containerization also falls prey to gpl. exe, appimage, containerization are ideologically opposed to the gpl—- errr the other way around. gpl essentially requires compiling from source, which is great, but the intention behind that is to disrupt software supply chain distribution and most people want to be able to upgrade their computer, which is architecturally challenging with gpl, which is where nix, guix and the like can politely solve the compilation and distribution problem but the core problem is my mom wanted a picture of me to know i’m alive, which is now entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      - beached_whale 2y ago
        the GPL is irrelevant here and exe’s are less related. GPL requires the source to be available. EXE’s are not containers more than any other program file
- oliwarner 2y ago
  It's easy enough to maintain ABI compatibility layers for games to run them indefinitely, even cross platform (eg Wine, emulators, etc etc etc) I don't demand GPL rights over the movies I watch, or the books I read, so I'm not sure why I'd require that for games. Of course source-available would be better than not but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd rather play some good games.
wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]

exe34 2y ago

not your (gpl) source code, not your game.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Even if that were possible, the GPL license makes no sense for artwork or music, and is quite possibly legally unenforceable in such a context. You need a combination of GPL + Commons; and how many games are licensed that way? But even then, GPL + Commons does not give you trademark rights, only the ability to reuse the assets under a different name. So unless you have GPL + Commons + Trademark, do you really have ownership? But hold on, in Japan and in the US, game mechanics can be patented. So who cares if you have the code, assets, and trademark, if you don't have patent rights? I suppose you need GPL + Commons + Trademarks + Patent Assignment; or maybe you swap out GPL with Apache2. Now hopefully whoever made the artwork doesn't sue for unpaid royalties. You're relying on the declared licenses, but it's still possible that whoever made the game, lied in one way or another. It's also possible there are applicable patents owned by other companies, which weren't disclosed. The point is: Even with GPL code, it's still a long way from being "your game." I didn't even mention the middleware like Havok Physics or Unity Engine; which would render your GPL game code pretty useless without a proprietary attachment, if using the GPL license at all is even legal with such a combination.
- fsflover 2y ago
  All of that is possible to solve: https://itch.io/jam/free-software-purism-game-jam https://itch.io/jam/free-software-purism-game-jam
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brian-armstrong 2y ago
Choosing to disengage from the world does not make you brave
- jzackpete 2y ago
  are you referring to the act of playing video games or the act of not playing video games
- exe34 2y ago
  Thank goodness I'm neither trying to disengage from the world nor trying to be brave! Do you often go around making irrelevant comments at parties?
- AlexeyBelov 2y ago
  Can you explain what you mean? I see you post comments in other threads but don't engage with this one.
tylerchilds 2y ago
gpl is still subject to bit rot and likely the reason there aren’t more gpl games there’s misaligned incentives between the people writing the game and the people wielding c compilers as political weapons. i swear every time i can’t compile code it is not clear which aspect of c failed— the dynamic linker working around gpl limitations as technical debt, the kernel itself using a more advanced c with backwards breaking changes, the code being written for the wrong architecture triple, or the code was written for a different c compiler altogether i don’t actually try and fix it because bit rot only gets worse if i notice the problem.
- beached_whale 2y ago
  at least for linux, it might make sense to containerize the environment and store it. That way next time if it doesn't build on current, one can use the prev that did work.
  - tylerchilds 2y ago
    i use linux on a daily basis and i will say microsoft’s solution to containerization was the .exe linux has appimage, but containerization also falls prey to gpl. exe, appimage, containerization are ideologically opposed to the gpl—- errr the other way around. gpl essentially requires compiling from source, which is great, but the intention behind that is to disrupt software supply chain distribution and most people want to be able to upgrade their computer, which is architecturally challenging with gpl, which is where nix, guix and the like can politely solve the compilation and distribution problem but the core problem is my mom wanted a picture of me to know i’m alive, which is now entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    - beached_whale 2y ago
      the GPL is irrelevant here and exe’s are less related. GPL requires the source to be available. EXE’s are not containers more than any other program file
oliwarner 2y ago
It's easy enough to maintain ABI compatibility layers for games to run them indefinitely, even cross platform (eg Wine, emulators, etc etc etc) I don't demand GPL rights over the movies I watch, or the books I read, so I'm not sure why I'd require that for games. Of course source-available would be better than not but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd rather play some good games.

wetpaws 2y ago

[dead]