pyalot

5 ms·

1.
by pyalot 15y ago
However not for legally sound derivation.
2.
by pyalot 15y ago
Wrong, legally you can't do anything with the content. You can't modify and you can't redistribute it or anything. You're gonna exist in a legal grey zone in which ID has the right to sue you at any time, this is not good.
3.
by pyalot 15y ago
You're comparing interactive art to painting, which is a flawed analogy. This isn't about cheap, or free, and it's only cursory about freedom. It's about that in order to curate digital history, you have to be able to redistribute it, and t
4.
by pyalot 15y ago
What is it that you do not understand about freedom?
5.
by pyalot 15y ago
It does not miss the point. And I'm not looking for the game, it's not that the only use of assets+source in freedom form would be able to play the game (that is one side-effect). - Curation history is crippled: Games are a piece of cultu
6.
by pyalot 15y ago
It's not about getting something for cheap. It's about being able to make derivations and incrementally tweak things. It's about that not having any base tweak makes it quite hard for both Artists and Coders. It's about that there's many wa
7.
by pyalot 15y ago
No assets released, which is a problem for the following reasons: - Piece of history lost - Makes it harder to boot up anything because not a complete, running application. - Derivatives of the art are impossible - Artists will have a hard
8.
WebGL Capabilities Analyzed: Statistics about hard/software support(codeflow.org)
1 points by pyalot 15y ago|0 comments