94 ms·

(Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) Would anyone be able to explain why RMS has this stance? Game art is just bits and bytes, and are

(Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) Would anyone be able to explain why RMS has this stance? Game art is just bits and bytes, and are thus recreate-able by others (think of old school sprites for example), why is that so different from code?

mhurron 14y ago
If it's not source code, he doesn't care how closed or restricted it is. It's what the computer does, not what you do with what the computer does that is his interest.
- 178 14y ago
  I think you got it almost right. The distinction is between Software and other Media (Images, Sounds). The Software has to be free because otherwise it could work against you (oversimplification). 'Source code' is misleading since, depending on how the artist produces the media, it technically might have source code without being user-run software (think vector grafics, MIDI with notes and synthesizer values, etc).
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  That's fine for justifying the ability to view and modify source code for your own use, but his definition of free extends to being able to freely redistribute it. What's the difference between that and being allowed to sample or re-edit music and video and redistribute it?
  - mhurron 14y ago
    He's only interested in the redistribution of source code, that is where his definition of free ends. Simply license the code so you can and the art so you can't and RMS is find and dandy with it. Tight controls on artwork to make money off of is good but tight control on source code is evil. The closest he gets to extending out of his little bubble is that copyright should be 10 years only and then everything is public.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I wonder what happens if your game uses SVG for its art.
- yourcelf 14y ago
  See http://freedomdefined.org/Definition http://freedomdefined.org/Definition for a view (not RMS's) which extends the spirit of the Free Software definition to "Cultural Works", including art, music, etc. Creative Commons has adopted the language of "Free Culture Approved" for licenses which meet this definition. Not all CC licenses do (in particular, non-commercial or no derivatives clauses are incompatible).
notime 14y ago
I agree with RMS on some points, but I think this one is going to get him into trouble. I agree that most games contain some form of art, which means that if the software is free and the art in the game isn't free, RMS would be for paid games in GNU linux where the source is free, but you have to pay for its art (so it is non-free). And if he is going to include art, why not literature and other media as well? Old text adventures were filled with great writing, even if they were brief descriptions when viewed in part. Newer games spend a lot of money creating CGI cinematography with paid actors to do voice-overs for written dialog that is not code. Would he be ok with that part of the game being non-free and the code being open-source?
Jach 14y ago
From GNU.org: > Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. Not all these freedoms make sense for "non-functional work" like art. RMS outlines some of his views here: http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_free_art http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_fre... Paraphrasing, art (as opposed to software) is something contributed to society for enjoyment, software is for work. The minimal freedom of art should be shareable for non-commercial uses, with a max copyright of 10 years before people can create derivative works for commercial use. I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted.
- 178 14y ago
  Food for thought: If there would be such a license, one could still argue it offers not the most freedom possible. To take it to the extreme, the license could ask that all assets have to be in a format editable/compatible with FOSS :)
  - lmm 14y ago
    Read RMS on "the java trap" for an analogous situation in software. I think there's a consensus that it's worth making it possible to release GPL works even when they're written on a platform for which no Free tools exist.
  - betterth 14y ago
    I don't understand how someone can advocate freedom and also advocate any license at all. The act of licensing at all seems absolutely contrary to the idea of freedom. As soon as someone stands up and tells me how I can or cannot use something, freedom is gone, no?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
JoshTriplett 14y ago
RMS and the FSF take a fairly narrow view of what they push for freedom on: they only care about code. In my opinion, this stems from two issues. First, I think that as people who write code, RMS and the FSF don't immediately see value in things other than code, and in particular don't see the value in supporting a community of developers around something other than code. If you don't know how to produce something, you might not see the value in making it open, because you personally don't have the ability to contribute to it. Many non-programmers don't immediately see the value in Free Software / Open Source Software, because they don't personally have the ability to contribute to it. Second, the FSF has produced a large number of works of opinion, and they have rather specific thoughts about what they want done with those opinions, which for some reason they don't see as inconsistent with their views on software. Note that all of the essays on gnu.org/philosophy/ have a license that allows redistribution but not modification; in many different places, they've expressed the opinion that works of opinion need not have free licenses, because changing such works would change the opinions expressed. Personally, this seems entirely wrong to me. If I take a copy of CSS3 and modify it, it no longer matches the CSS3 standard. However, I could still usefully use it for other purposes, such as talking about the implications of different CSS models, or making a proposal for what I'd like to see in CSS. And if for some reason I attempted to describe my modified version as CSS3 (or CSS3.1), that would make it no different than any other random bit of factual inaccuracy or buggy code on the Internet. The same goes for a modified version of a philosophical essay, or the script or art for a game.

mhurron 14y ago

If it's not source code, he doesn't care how closed or restricted it is. It's what the computer does, not what you do with what the computer does that is his interest.

178 14y ago
I think you got it almost right. The distinction is between Software and other Media (Images, Sounds). The Software has to be free because otherwise it could work against you (oversimplification). 'Source code' is misleading since, depending on how the artist produces the media, it technically might have source code without being user-run software (think vector grafics, MIDI with notes and synthesizer values, etc).
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
That's fine for justifying the ability to view and modify source code for your own use, but his definition of free extends to being able to freely redistribute it. What's the difference between that and being allowed to sample or re-edit music and video and redistribute it?
- mhurron 14y ago
  He's only interested in the redistribution of source code, that is where his definition of free ends. Simply license the code so you can and the art so you can't and RMS is find and dandy with it. Tight controls on artwork to make money off of is good but tight control on source code is evil. The closest he gets to extending out of his little bubble is that copyright should be 10 years only and then everything is public.
tedunangst 14y ago
I wonder what happens if your game uses SVG for its art.
yourcelf 14y ago
See http://freedomdefined.org/Definition http://freedomdefined.org/Definition for a view (not RMS's) which extends the spirit of the Free Software definition to "Cultural Works", including art, music, etc. Creative Commons has adopted the language of "Free Culture Approved" for licenses which meet this definition. Not all CC licenses do (in particular, non-commercial or no derivatives clauses are incompatible).

notime 14y ago

I agree with RMS on some points, but I think this one is going to get him into trouble. I agree that most games contain some form of art, which means that if the software is free and the art in the game isn't free, RMS would be for paid games in GNU linux where the source is free, but you have to pay for its art (so it is non-free). And if he is going to include art, why not literature and other media as well? Old text adventures were filled with great writing, even if they were brief descriptions when viewed in part. Newer games spend a lot of money creating CGI cinematography with paid actors to do voice-overs for written dialog that is not code. Would he be ok with that part of the game being non-free and the code being open-source?

Jach 14y ago

From GNU.org: > Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. Not all these freedoms make sense for "non-functional work" like art. RMS outlines some of his views here: http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_free_art http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_fre... Paraphrasing, art (as opposed to software) is something contributed to society for enjoyment, software is for work. The minimal freedom of art should be shareable for non-commercial uses, with a max copyright of 10 years before people can create derivative works for commercial use. I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted.

178 14y ago
Food for thought: If there would be such a license, one could still argue it offers not the most freedom possible. To take it to the extreme, the license could ask that all assets have to be in a format editable/compatible with FOSS :)
- lmm 14y ago
  Read RMS on "the java trap" for an analogous situation in software. I think there's a consensus that it's worth making it possible to release GPL works even when they're written on a platform for which no Free tools exist.
- betterth 14y ago
  I don't understand how someone can advocate freedom and also advocate any license at all. The act of licensing at all seems absolutely contrary to the idea of freedom. As soon as someone stands up and tells me how I can or cannot use something, freedom is gone, no?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago

JoshTriplett 14y ago

RMS and the FSF take a fairly narrow view of what they push for freedom on: they only care about code. In my opinion, this stems from two issues. First, I think that as people who write code, RMS and the FSF don't immediately see value in things other than code, and in particular don't see the value in supporting a community of developers around something other than code. If you don't know how to produce something, you might not see the value in making it open, because you personally don't have the ability to contribute to it. Many non-programmers don't immediately see the value in Free Software / Open Source Software, because they don't personally have the ability to contribute to it. Second, the FSF has produced a large number of works of opinion, and they have rather specific thoughts about what they want done with those opinions, which for some reason they don't see as inconsistent with their views on software. Note that all of the essays on gnu.org/philosophy/ have a license that allows redistribution but not modification; in many different places, they've expressed the opinion that works of opinion need not have free licenses, because changing such works would change the opinions expressed. Personally, this seems entirely wrong to me. If I take a copy of CSS3 and modify it, it no longer matches the CSS3 standard. However, I could still usefully use it for other purposes, such as talking about the implications of different CSS models, or making a proposal for what I'd like to see in CSS. And if for some reason I attempted to describe my modified version as CSS3 (or CSS3.1), that would make it no different than any other random bit of factual inaccuracy or buggy code on the Internet. The same goes for a modified version of a philosophical essay, or the script or art for a game.