Tfw open source is a meme if you're a game developer

You're talking about Shadman

> embarks on a 7 year long dev cycle
> is working with xna

Attached: thats-gotta-hurt[1].jpg (640x479, 153K)

apu with a three pronged crown is 10 / 10

part of the reason the game industry is so shit is because companies are allergic to open source and would rather force developers to work unpaid overtime rewriting the same logic every 2 months

because art is not code and can't contain bugs, spyware, backdoors, etc

>he isn't aware of the triple-A titles written with SDL and OpenGL
It's not open source that's a meme, it's development studios. And that goes for proprietary game development studios as well, such as gamemaker.
If you call yourself a """"""""""""'game developer,"""""""""""""" try spending some time focusing a little less of your time and energy on the "game" and a little more on the "develop."
When you at least know SDL and several programming languages, maybe then you can have the right to call anything a meme when it comes to being an anything developer.

Maybe because copyright law is dictated by Disney's legal team

Not him, but IMO art in general should be open source. Because, like code, art is information. It takes energy to make it, more energy than just throwing the materials together at random, but after making it once, you can reproduce it indefinitely at no additional cost except that of the raw materials. So, people should be able to modify and redistribute copies of your art freely, because they were restricted to paying you royalties every time they wanted to do anything like that, you'd be making them pay you way more than you paid them by making the art in the first place. It would not be a fair exchange in a monetary sense. Granted, our entire society functions on a principle of unfair exchanges. That's just the nature of capitalism. To which I say, down with capitalism.

_Sommelier, also known as [name redacted]

Not all of them, many of them are obese fagtrons instead. Such as myself. I wish I were a scrawny fagtron, though, and will be in about a year

>I wish I were a scrawny fagtron, though, and will be in about a year
Don't take it too fast or you'll end up as a flying squirrel. I've seen it happen to several of my coworkers.

>, because they were restricted to paying you royalties every time they wanted to do anything like that, you'd be making them pay you way more than you paid them by making the art in the first place
doesn't make sense, the money they earned came from the value you created with your art
There is no realistic way to make money off your IP if you don't charge people for copies, donations don't scale

>There is no realistic way to make money off your IP if you don't charge people for copies, donations don't scale
If you read closely you'll see I'm actually arguing against making money in general. Not on an individual scale -- sadly, that's necessary at present -- but as an economic model for an entire society. In a capitalist society, people should try to make a profit, because that's how you survive. But a society should not be capitalist.

what's the point in arguing for hypothetical future economic models
it would be nice if we didn't need money or property or laws but we do

Any money paid for art is always a donation since everyone knows all art can easily be copied for basically free (technically fractions of a cent off your internet bill, but retard american ISPs have yet to pick up on this yet)
>IP
Stop using this a synonym for copyright.

>Any money paid for art is always a donation
In a way, but DRM exists, and people still buy things instead of pirate them because it's against the law to pirate, and legal online distribution eventually became more convienent than piracy too

>money or property or laws but we do
oh don't get me wrong, i believe in money, property, and laws, but i also believe the profit model of economics is a literal cancer. just like the gpl, or microsoft/oem deals, the only reason profit-ism is necessary is because it exists, and it's by that property that it's able to spread. that is to say, the only reason you would ever need to run a consistent profit margin, is to defend yourself and your estate against greedy fucks who are running a consistent profit margin for fun (the roots of the disease), or to defend yourself and your estate against other normal people who have learned that they need to run a consistent profit margin for similar reasons to yourself (the branches of the disease). in short, what makes profit necessary for survival is nothing but the very avarice that first spawned it.

money is not the only form of value. the purest and most fundamental form of value, or at least the purest form of the only kind of value truly worth being called value, is energy. you expend energy to grow crops and breed lesser animals. you replenish energy by consuming them both later. you expend energy to build a settlement, so that you can conserve energy later by not having to be nomadic anymore.

money is just a layer of indirection between value expended and value replenished or conserved later. you expend energy working a job so that your customers can replenish and conserve energy off your goods and services. in exchange, you obtain money -- a quantified voucher for future acquisition of similar means to replenish and conserve energy yourself.

nothing but energy is necessary, so nothing but energy is valuable. therefore it's unjust for anything but energy to cost money. it's equally unjust for any exchange not to be equitable in energy distribution, as this amounts to the same thing. copying intellectual property requires no effort -- no expenditure of energy -- compared to creating it in the first place.

>nothing but energy is necessary, so nothing but energy is valuable. therefore it's unjust for anything but energy to cost money.
creativity is valuable, and creativity can't be expressed as energy, that's the whole issue here
You need to incentivize creative people to come up with ideas
If they can't make money off their ideas then why would they bother?

(cont'd from )
i forgot to mention the main point i was getting to. the point is this: profit is unethical because it amounts to an inequitable exchange of energy. you are demanding your partner in trade offer more energy to you than you are offering to them. and, since nothing but energy can rightfully be called value, you are therefore taking value away from them.

>creativity can't be expressed as energy,
>You need to incentivize creative people to come up with ideas
These two claims are in direct contradiction to one another.

Is creativity something that "just happens" to people (i.e. not energy), or is it something they need to work at on some level, which is the only way providing an incentive would work (i.e. energy)?

Personally, I say it's the latter.

People should be paid for their creative feats. But they should only be paid as many times as they perform the feats, and the payment should be exactly the monetary value of the energy they expended to perform the feats.

Under a capitalist, profit-driven economy, the prices for everything are inflated, and all at different rates, so a global concept of "how much energy money is worth" is impossible. Under such a society, creative workers should be paid for their creativity as much as possible, to help them survive, to help them make a profit and promote them to the top of a world that needs them. Because under such a society, profit is necessary for that.

But under a proper society, people can survive without profit because other people are not trying to profit off of them. Everyone has the energy they need to live comfortably, and since no one takes away any net energy from anyone else, no one becomes deprived and winds up having to take net energy back. Under that sort of society, a creative worker would be perfectly content for their business to function as I described earlier.

>Is creativity something that "just happens" to people
Yes
I can come up with a creative idea worth billions to people, I can spend years developing it, using no more energy than a janitor or any other human being, because I expect it to turn big profits because it is immensely valuable to people
Why would I do that if I was just going to be paid the same wage as everyone else? I'd just get a safer job that wasn't as difficult if the reward is the same. That's the problem with communism. Innovation always requires risk, but it doesn't require energy

>I can spend years developing it, using no more energy than a janitor or any other human being
>I'd just get a safer job that wasn't as difficult if the reward is the same
More direct contradictions. What do you think it is for a job to be "safer?" Less risk of severe net loss of energy. What do you think it is for a job to be "less difficult?" Requires less energy expenditure. If we consider effects on the energy that comes from a good lifestyle and good physical and mental health, and not just immediate, in-the-moment energy use, then this definition also accounts for mental difficulty, i.e. the kind we're talking about.

So again, I ask you, does creativity expend more energy than other jobs, or does it not? Quit answering yes and no at the same time.

Sorry, shouldn't have said "safer" because you'd be safe if you were paid, I didn't read your whole post before replying.
Creativity is more difficult but it doesn't require more energy. If you aren't incentivized to do something difficult, you won't do it. Why would you spend time putting in the difficult work to create something new when you would get paid exactly the same amount if you were a janitor? That's how communism worked, and society was worse off for it, because nobody was motivated to innovate or even do a good job at anything because it wouldn't make your life any better. Mental difficulty does not equate to physical health. Having good physical health is a requirement of thinking clearly, but that's not what makes creativity happen. It requires an enormous, non-physical effort on the part of the creator

>Creativity is more difficult but it doesn't require more energy.
If you say so, but I don't really buy that this is possible. I'm of the mind that any kind of effort whatsoever eventually reduces back to energy, and that total energy expenditure is, in turn, an absolute measure of the life difficulty a person faces. Why do you think the basedboy meme is a thing? Why do you think all creative geniuses are skinny?

"one hour one life" is completely open source and i think that game did pretty well for itself if i recall.

>If you say so, but I don't really buy that this is possible
What the fuck does that mean? Do you think Einstein ate like a bodybuilder to come up with the theory of relativity? Physical energy is in no way related to creative output
Go spend an evening playing video games or an evening writing a book and tell me what makes you hungrier

>Do you think Einstein ate like a bodybuilder to come up with the theory of relativity?
Not quite so extreme, but yes, there's no doubt in my mind that his mental efforts to come up with the theory of relativity were associated with an increased calorie output that fairly represents the effort he had to go to.
>what makes you hungrier
This is not a valid measure of calorie output, as evidenced by the obvious correlation between being a gamer and becoming a fat fuck. The relationship between how much food you need and how hungry you are is much more complex than mere equality. Playing video games will make you hungrier, but writing a book will make you need more food. Which is, again, why all creative geniuses are skinny.

Neither will make you hungrier. Physical exertion makes you hungrier. All creative geniuses are not skinny, that's confirmation bias for your ridiculous theory.
>The relationship between how much food you need and how hungry you are is much more complex than mere equality. Playing video games will make you hungrier, but writing a book will make you need more food
This is complete nonsense
I do creative work and my caloric needs are no different to anyone elses, working hard does make me hungrier, but so would working hard as a labourer, and I would be providing 1/1000th the value

>All creative geniuses are not skinny,
lol yes they r
>>The relationship between how much food you need and how hungry you are is much more complex than mere equality
>This is complete nonsense
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte
>I do creative work and my caloric needs are no different to anyone elses, working hard does make me hungrier, but so would working hard as a labourer,
this is rather the point i'm making
>and I would be providing 1/1000th the value
maybe in a society that's already profit-based, but in an economically fair society, this is outright false

It's sort of ironic considering some of the anons in this thread how rms himself doesn't consider non-free art (or other non-functional works) to be unethical: libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_free_art

That user is ignoring how self-interest/"greed" is one hell of a motivating factor in regards to development of technology. Nobody, speaking generally, really makes things out of the goodness of their own heart but does so with the expectation that they'll get something in return. Capitalism recognizes this and does its best to channel that self-centeredness into something productive.

Because "proprietary" art doesn't violate any of the 4 software freedoms and doesn't actually affect how I may use my computer.

>self-interest/"greed"
I'm not treating the two interchangeably. A healthy self-interest is the expectation to reap what you sow, to take back in return what you put out into the world, and, in doing so, to be able to sustain (and *only* sustain) an appreciable quality of life. Greed, to me, is self-interest in excess of that. I'm not saying people should do something for nothing, I'm saying the opposite: they should do something for something worth as much as the something they did, and NOT expect to GET something for nothing beyond that.

People don't work that way because people aren't perfectly altruistic, and to expect anything else from them is to deny basic human nature. That's why capitalism is so successful, it acknowledges that fact and works around it instead of plugging its ears.

>perfectly altruistic
Did you read a word I just wrote? Of course people aren't perfectly altruistic, at no point did I imply they were. Again, I'm talking about people doing work and receiving pay equal to the work they've done, not about people doing work and not receiving pay. I understand how to someone so deeply indoctrinated into a profit-driven society, it might be difficult to understand a distinction between the two. If person A has resource X, and needs resource Y; person B has resource Y, and needs resource X; and E(X) = E(Y); then A and B both have a non-profit motivation to trade, such that neither of them will experience a net loss or net gain of energy and also their lifestyles will remain stable. That's not capitalism, but it can hardly be called altruism either. I hold that the scenario I've set up there is the only ethical kind of trade and all trade should follow its model. If person A does not need resource Y, person B does not need resource X, or E(X) != E(Y), then trade of A's X for B's Y is unethical and should not occur.

this new age hippie energy mysticism seems like a really shitty way to distribute resources. this is something that capitalism does better, because people who satisfy the needs of others receive more resources. yes, there is plenty of rent seeking, but that doesn't mean the whole system is bad.

here are some issues that I immediately see with your retarded pseudo communism idea:

-what if I do better work than the next guy? do I still get paid the same?
-what if I work more efficiently? sounds like I get punished for it
-who gets the scarce resources when there isn't enough to go around? does the body shut down at once, or does it digest the muscle first, keeping the brain alive for longer?
-how do you plan to compete with other (potentially hostile) nations that don't handicap themselves with your economic system?
-what the fuck is energy? do I get really rich if I automate something, or do I start getting less? do I create energy when I set up a solar panel? who calculates or decides all this?

>-what if I do better work than the next guy? do I still get paid the same?
No, you get paid more, because you expended more energy. And, whether immediately or in the long run, you did expend more energy. That is an unavoidable fact. There is no way to do better work without expending more energy.
>-what if I work more efficiently? sounds like I get punished for it
See above
>-who gets the scarce resources when there isn't enough to go around? does the body shut down at once, or does it digest the muscle first, keeping the brain alive for longer?
There will never not be enough to go around if there is never anyone taking a lion's share.
>-how do you plan to compete with other (potentially hostile) nations that don't handicap themselves with your economic system?
avril lavigne
>-what the fuck is energy? do I get really rich if I automate something, or do I start getting less? do I create energy when I set up a solar panel? who calculates or decides all this?
Energy is the quantified capacity to do work. Work being force applied across a distance. If you set up a way to harvest natural energy, you are taking energy away from nature, so, as with any trade, you owe nature exact recompense.

If the only thing you value is how much energy is produced and you don't care about innovation, your society will be stuck at one point in technological development, which is exactly what happened to communist countries outside of their state-funded programs. It is much much harder to innovate and invent than it is to labour, and if you offer no incentive for doing so, nobody will do it. If I invent a new type of power plant that runs on seawater and we don't need oil anymore, my work has a billion times the value as a janitor, yet I require the same caloric input

i think we're being baited. i can't believe i typed all that on a fucking phone

well played, i'm out

the 4 software freedoms are completely arbitrary, you could write the 4 art freedoms and say exactly the same thing about art

>If I invent a new type of power plant that runs on seawater and we don't need oil anymore, my work has a billion times the value as a janitor, yet I require the same caloric input
>If I invent a new way to justify taking more energy with no intention of giving it back, my work inherits the value of the energy I've stolen and boosts it beyond the energy I expended
>This increased value comes from me and not from the entity I stole from (that entity being the earth in this case rather than any one person)
>Everyone look at how good I am for stealing something
It's because of this kind of mindset that anthropogenic climate change exists. We know what to do to slow it down, but it will never stop until the entire world realizes that the brutish life we drudged through as cavemen was good enough and innovation was unnecessary from the very beginning.

Your work has the value of making the world reliant on an abundant and renewable resource instead of a limited one that's quickly running out. There is no way to assign value to that under a energy exchange economic system. There's no way to assign value to creativity under that system in general. There's no way to assign value to art or entertainment under that system either. You're talking about an incredibly simple economic system for machines that doesn't work in reality or any other hypothetical situation involving humans, who value things that can't be quantified

>4 software freedoms are completely arbitrary
i've heard people like you say this a lot but very few have actually been able to come up with a better definition for what software freedom actually means. having the ability to study, modify and redistribute art isn't required for you to be in control of your computer

open source software isn't required for you to be in control of your computer
you're free not to run a program if you don't know what it does

>humans, who value things that can't be quantified
This sums up why such an oversimplified economic system is necessary in the first place. People are not machines, and they value things other than just the exact energy they need to sustain their lifestyle. Those other values can and do motivate them to try to take in more energy than they give out. The struggle for energy is inherently competitive because only a limited amount of it exists, and therefore, for some people to win the competition, others must lose. However, the nature of the spoils -- energy -- is such that whoever loses the competition dies. Killing is wrong. Therefore, making others lose the competition is wrong. Therefore, winning the competition is wrong. But the only two alternatives are losing the competition or resolving it in a draw, and losing, while not wrong, is tragic, and thus just as much worth avoiding. Given all this, the only ethical thing is for everyone to make a mass pact to always resolve the competition in a draw.

>store sells you a computer that only supports proprietary botnet OS
>"hurr you're free to not run a proprietary program if you don't want"
>now you have a computer that does nothing and can't be used

do you see why that argument is invalid?

i mean you're free to just not buy a computer

Most human desires aren't energy at all. They desire fame, power, sex, famil, things that have absolutely nothing to do with energy. Energy applies to physical goods and services only, things which are becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on and technology progresses. So you're proposing an economic system which has absolutely nothing to do with most of human desire, and some of the most important work humans actually do

the argument is invalid for operating systems, not individual pieces of software
and you're free just to not buy a computer

>fame, power, sex, famil, things that have absolutely nothing to do with energy
This is incorrect. These are all motivations that people have for seeking out more energy than they need. With more energy than you need, you can do more than you need to do, and become famous. Or you can use the excess to threaten or bribe others, and become powerful and/or get sex. Or you can take more energy than you need because you want to give it to your family, who already have enough energy, because you selflessly want them to have more energy than they need.

If I invent something, become famous and get laid because of it, no more energy has been exchanged than if I didn't do any of those things. You aren't thinking clearly

>If I invent something, become famous and get laid because of it, no more energy has been exchanged than if I didn't do any of those things.
I disagree. I hold that it took you extra energy to invent the thing. Specifically, exactly as much extra energy as the sum total energy ever conserved or replenished by anyone by using it from that point forward.

i would do that if there weren't free operating systems

>the argument is only valid for certain pieces of software that i personally deem important
this is why you can't come up with a better definition for software freedom

>I hold that the scenario I've set up there is the only ethical kind of trade and all trade should follow its model.
Did you read a word I just wrote? Nobody will follow that model because everyone wants to gain more than what they put in. It's not indoctrination, it's basic human nature.

>if there weren't free operating systems
but there aren't though

Are you trolling or are you really this retarded
So how much did the guy eat who invented the combustion engine
Fucker must have been on the Michael Phelps diet a hundred times over

>Nobody will follow that model because everyone wants to gain more than what they put in.
That's why it needs to be enforced.
But for the same reason, no one would be willing to enforce it. Even if they claimed to be, they'd secretly hoard everything to themselves.
So it would have to be enforced by a nonliving constraint

the argument is valid if you can't use your computer if you're not using software. Why would I come up with a definition for a term someone else invented?

That's not relevant because the combustion engine doesn't improve people's lives with energy from its inventor, it improves people's lives with energy from the earth. The inventor was just a thief. He didn't invent something to generate energy, he invented something to take energy without giving it back. We've been over this.

goes both ways, in faggotry and in nigger-ness

which is why you and i are able to use our computers freely

>Why would I come up with a definition for a term someone else invented?
come up with your own term for it then, if it's good then people will use it, i have been trying to come up with better terms for years

Alright then, say I preform a task on my computer every day when I'm at work that takes about 30 minutes, and I write a script that does this task for me. Would I have to eat alot more calories to do this, because this script is saving me alot energy? Also, it's not a demanding program so it requires an incredibly small amount of energy (electricity) to actually run

>come up with your own term for it then
why? software freedom works. You could call it richard stallmans retarded theory of software communism but that's a mouthful

>>-how do you plan to compete with other (potentially hostile) nations that don't handicap themselves with your economic system?
>avril lavigne

Attached: what.jpg (2508x206, 12K)

>install gentoo
>enable KVM
>create Windows VM
>configure PCI passthrough to use graphics card in VM at near native performance

Best of both worlds

>communism
free software allows profit

Say you perform a task on your computer every day when you're at work that takes about X units of energy more than just sitting at your computer doing nothing for the time it takes you to do it, and you write a script that does this task for you. Say the amount of electric energy required for the script to run once is Y units of energy. Let N be the number of times your script runs before you stop working there, assuming you never do any maintenance on it. Let Z be the energy you have to expend conceiving of and writing the script. I hold that it will show true that Z = N(X - Y).

>which is why you and i are able to use our computers freely
but we aren't though

>I hold that it will show true that Z = N(X - Y).
it won't
it expends no extra energy than if I have done nothing
I've done it in real life
I don't think you even believe what you're saying, you realized how stupid this idea was many posts ago but you're keeping it up anyway

maybe you aren't, get a librebooted thinkpad with trisquel

>it expends no extra energy than if I have done nothing
>I've done it in real life
Then your experience of energy expenditure was inaccurate.
It cost you more energy to develop this script than it did to do nothing. I know this for a fact because you put effort into it and effort always expends energy.
As for how much more, I continue to hold that the answer is exactly as much as it will have saved you. Which won't turn out to be much, if it wasn't even enough for you to notice a difference at the time of authoring the script. This should hardly be a surprise considering the X value is also probably very small. If X is only a few calories, and Y < X, and N is only maybe fifty times, then of course N(X - Y) will only be something like a hundred calories. It's easy to do that much extra work over the course of several hours without hardly noticing a difference from how you feel normally.