4 ms·

Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to: - not subject to or constrained by engagements or o

• nightski 12y ago
  Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.
  • adventured 12y ago
    It's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines. You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word. People whining about this are being ridiculous.
    • fuzar 12y ago
      It's conditionally free. If it were unconditionally free that would permit you to use the term without question or having people call bullshit. When they do call bullshit, which is to be expected, it's absurd to go around accusing them of whining and being ridiculous. Get a grip.
      • pushrax 12y ago
        Isn't "conditionally free" still free?
        • nightski 12y ago
          Tell you what. I'll come work for your company for free except any revenue over 3k I'll take 5% of.
        • fuzar 12y ago
          Yes, but when you don't explicitly state the conditionality, and particularly so in the ad-line, then it's a version of free that one should expect to incite calls of bullshit. Think of it this way: it's on par with false advertising which companies do get sued for. That's why companies make signs like "up to 30% off" and not just "30% off" (when only some items are 30% off). It is considered, by most, a mis-representation or false hood; a lie if you will.
    • nightski 12y ago
      I wasn't whining. Just stating that it wasn't free - because it surely is not.
• vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license. Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice? It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this. When you're talking about software, you should not blame others for assuming "free" refers to the FSF definition, especially in announcements targeted towards technically inclined audiences.
  • zzalpha 12y ago
    It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this. Why would you say that? I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways. They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".
    • djur 12y ago
      Since when does the OSI advocate for copyleft licenses, explicitly or otherwise? It was in fact founded -- and the term "open source" was coined -- in order to advocate for free software licensing separately from the FSF's ethical positions and promotion of copyleft.
      • zzalpha 12y ago
        Yup, agreed, my mistake.