4 ms·

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 in

by 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).

by 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).