Genuine question:
What is actually wrong with proprietary software?
If i spend years and years making something like a game engine isn't it then fair to ask people to pay a little money (or to give a percentage of their earnings) to use it?
Why should i give away something that i worked hard on for free?
Like, if it wasn't for me they wouldn't even be able to develop their games in the first place.
Other urls found in this thread:
gnu.org
opensource.org
en.wikipedia.org
github.com
medium.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nothing. Stallman isn't arguing that you shouldn't be able to make proprietary software. He's arguing that users should not use it.
Join us now and share the software.
>What is actually wrong with proprietary software?
I can not run it for whatever purpose I feel like.
I can not study how it works and modify it to suit my needs.
I can not make copies of it.
I can not improve it and share my improvements with others.
Imagine buying a chair and then having to agree to not using it outside a particular room in your house, not being allowed to repair it or modify it (paint it, or make legs shorter for example), not being allowed to tell others how you improved the chair by shortening the legs a bit etc.
With proprietary software, you are demanding that I agree to running software that can do whatever changes it wants to my system but I'm not allowed to modify it or change it myself.
>If i spend years and years making something like a game engine isn't it then fair to ask people to pay a little money (or to give a percentage of their earnings) to use it?
Selling/asking for money is not the problem with proprietary software.
He's arguing the opposite. It's unethical to fore proprietary software upon your users. Users may or may not be ignorant, but you as a developer should not take away their freedom regardless of whether they use it or not.
No, he doesn't care about what developers do. All his arguments are from the viewpoint of a user.
>No, he doesn't care about what developers do.
Yes, he does.
>All his arguments are from the viewpoint of a user.
No, you are a disingenuous cunt spreading disinformation. Fuck off back to /reddit/.
0/4 essential freedoms.
Users don't choose the license, you fucking moron. The copyright holder does. Stallman is clearly articulating that you, the developer, are unethical by forcing users to agree to non-free software licenses.
>I can not run it for whatever purpose I feel like.
Are you going to run a photo editor as an IDE?
>I can not study how it works and modify it to suit my needs.
Use fully featured software.
>I can not make copies of it.
Chink
>I can not improve it and share my improvements with others.
You shouldn't need to improve it if you're using fully featured software.
>forcing users to agree to non-free software licenses.
?
no one forces users to agree to them, you literally click "I agree" yourself before installing software
>Are you going to run a photo editor as an IDE?
Are you pretending to be stupid or are you genuinely retarded? A lot of software licenses have special clauses, I can not use my license of Windows or Office for business purposes for example. I have to buy a business license for that.
>Use fully featured software.
No such thing, and even if there were, I would still like to study and understand how it works just as I like to understand how a car engine works.
>Chink
1) Not an argument
2) I can not even install my copy of Windows on other computers I own, what kind of stupid limitation is that for a non-scarce resource?
>You shouldn't need to improve it if you're using fully featured software.
Define "fully featured". There isn't, and will never be, a single software that suits all my needs. Why the fuck do you think most professional software, such as Photoshop, Browsers, IDEs etc, come with support for writing plugins? I can not make a plugin if I am not allowed to study the software without buying a shitty developer license too.
Proprietary software doesn't imply paid software.
Free (libre) software doesn't imply free (gratis) software.
Free the source and sell the binary. Sell the service, the support, the documentation, the assets and data models.
Also, specifically on a game engine. Have you ever played a game just because of the engine (the rendering pipelines and object models) itself? You play games for the experience each game has, which is delivered by story writing, visual assets, level design, sound design, etc. Those parts are what you'd sell in a game, and the engine is nearly meaningless for it.
And if you were making a game, would you really use an engine that you'd have to pay for? A game engine's license's worth is in the amount of on-call official support you'll get from the developer, not in being able to use the software in the first place. Anyone can pirate your software for free (gratis) anyways.
Another important part of a game engine license is the ability for your game developers to extend the engine itself. Your customers are programmers after all, if you don't provide them a way to change and contribute to the engine they're using they're not going to be happy. If you actually make it so no one can then distribute a modified engine when shipping the game, your business is simply fucked.
Since game engines are only used by programmers, from every point of view it makes no sense to make a classical proprietary game engine. Every major proprietary engine has source-available licenses only stopping you from redistributing the source or the modified source.
By this logic, no one is forcing you to pay your taxes either. You can just not pay them.
>Use fully featured software.
Like what? There are industries reliant on a single package, like Maya in animation, and they still need to heap customization and addons on.
>If i spend years and years making something like a game engine isn't it then fair to ask people to pay a little money (or to give a percentage of their earnings) to use it?
You sell support not access. Realistically speaking the most qualified guy to trouble shoot something is the guy that made that thing.
closed source proprietary software is more advanced than a chair
You can also sell art (the story, the graphics, music, etc). Free software does not prevent copyrighted artwork. In fact, many games already work this way, by using a free as in freedom game engine.
Stallman is stupid. There's nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it's open source. There are many technologies that have been lost or buried over the years because the source code was lost, even to the original developers and the owners. Licensing and IP restrictions should be enough to keep other companies from profiting off of what the developer owns, and 20 years later people will still be able to fork and update the code even after companies fold and developers die.
Closed source software limits all of our futures. It's dangerous because it offers nothing but uncertainty and a lack of long term reliability. A developer withholding source code for a program you own is like a car manufacturer welding the hood of your car shut so it can't be serviced. All software should be open source. All hardware should be modular and user serviceable. Anything else should be a crime. I also think that human cloning and the development of AI should be punishable by death.
Being more advanced is not an argument. I'm a pretty habitable programmer, so I understand software. On the other hand, I am unable to do even fundamental carpentry
>There's nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it's open source
There's nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it is free as in freedom?
Have you considered that by the time you click 'agree' in the setup wizard the wizard is already running without your explicit consent?
You have to boot windows before you're given the legal option to deny it from being installed.
No matter how many motorized glowing dildos you attach to your 'advanced' chair it's no excuse for stopping the user from removing the assrape machinery.
>Are you going to run a photo editor as an IDE?
No, but if you for example want to remove the fucking NSA_KEY in windows, you can't. Or run photoshop on multiple computers. Or run Mac OS on anything that isn't the shitty 50$ computers Apple provides. Or fucking update Ableton Live without paying hundreds of dollars. Or post in facebook without it knowing everything about you and your friends (even if they don't have facebook themselves). The point is not about functional use but rather how you can only use things the way big brother wants you to.
>fully featured software
If by "fully featured software" you mean a big bloated 10gb fucking pile of shit that has every single function in the world and is as slow as a snail crossing the street in my house, no thank you. Regardless, eventually in all software you'll find something you can improve. And you can't.
Free as in "free speech", not free as in "free beer".
Stallman claims that open source isn't enough, and that everyone needs to use his snowflake license. That's his definition of freedom. Have you even watched a single talk of his?
PROPRIETARY != CLOSED SOURCE
>Stallman claims that open source isn't enough, and that everyone needs to use his snowflake license.
He has a point, non-copyleft software usually have a habit of ending up as part of proprietary software.
>That's his definition of freedom.
Demonstratively wrong. The definition of free software is software that respects the four freedoms.
gnu.org
He even talks about the difference between copyleft and non-copyleft.
>PROPRIETARY != CLOSED SOURCE
Yes, but open source implies an open source license.
Not his "snowflake license". Theres an entire list of licenses that are compatible with the GPL. You just need the four freedoms. What serves to know the source code if you can't do literally anything with it and all the other restrictions of the program are the same?
OP didn't like the answers he got, so he made an entirely new thread like the faggot he is:
How about this license.
Free proprietary license
1. End user may not share this software.
2. Creator must provide source code to end user. It must be free of obfuscation.
3. User has absolute right to modify software. Any modifications will void warranties
>non-copyleft software usually have a habit of ending up as part of proprietary software
Again, proprietary and closed source are two different things. All closed source software is proprietary but not all proprietary software is closed source.
>>PROPRIETARY != CLOSED SOURCE
>Yes, but open source implies an open source license.
It implies nothing. Open source means I can view the source code in part or in its entirety. Nothing more.
You can fork it illegally. I don't care if companies can't fork it. I only care that I can paste it into a text editor at home.
Can I share my modifications?
You are absolutely retarded.
Read the fucking first sentence, dipshit: opensource.org
>write text editor with this licence
>move to writing the code for the editor in the same editor
>now that you're the end user too you can no longer distribute the editor
And I'm telling you that's wrong, faggot.
>You play games for the experience each game has, which is delivered by story writing, visual assets, level design, sound design, etc.
technical possibilities are also a factor that can make a game popular
assets alone will not create a good game if the game engine is bad
>And if you were making a game, would you really use an engine that you'd have to pay for?
you're assuming that me or my team of developers work for free and/or have infinite time to make the game
> A game engine's license's worth is in the amount of on-call official support you'll get from the developer, not in being able to use the software in the first place.
depends on the license agreement
if I write a game engine, I could for example ask a percentage of all the game's profits
on-call support will only really work with complete applications, usually for enterprise markets
>Another important part of a game engine license is the ability for your game developers to extend the engine itself
a documented API is sufficient to achieve that
>I'm telling you that the definition from the group of people that literally invented the term is wrong
I don't care what you are telling me, you are completely retarded.
Here, read some history and then kill yourself moron: en.wikipedia.org
This is as Wikipedia describes from the open source initiative.
Take this project for example: github.com
Its open source, but you can only use it only if you comply to their license. This license is not an open source license as specified on opensource.org
dipshit.
no 'argument' is needed to a strawman
a chair is too simple to make any non-trivializing comparison to something as complex as a game engine
personal anecdotes don't validate the analogy
>Its open source, but you can only use it only if you comply to their license.
You can only use GPL'd software if you comply to GPL, you can only use two-clause BSD licensed software if you comply to two clause BSD and so on.... Complying to a license is not (necessarily) in violation of the four freedoms.
>This license is not an open source license as specified on opensource.org
Does it respect the four freedoms? If yes, then it is a free as in freedom license. If not, then it can not be an open source license.
>a chair is too simple to make any non-trivializing comparison to something as complex as a game engine
Car engine then. "Simple" and "advanced" is nothing but meaningless adjectives. You may think that a rocket engine is "advanced", but a rocket scientist would probably not.
>i want the freedom to break software end-user license agreements
>the definition of open source that some retards chose is the definition everyone must adhere to
Releasing source code in any capacity makes it open source. Even a source code leak on the internet that's available to the public makes that code open source. You're a fucking moron.
>Releasing source code in any capacity makes it open source.
Wrong. I trust the definition of the people who literally coined the term over some random retard on Jow Forums.
>Even a source code leak on the internet that's available to the public makes that code open source
Definitively wrong. By most country's copyright laws, using leaked code would be violating the copyright and thus illegal.
Now you're the one being desingenious. If you click you don't agree the software won't install. If you don't pay your taxes mans with guns will take you to a cage. Threat to freedom is coercive, while exclusion of a service isn't.
I would like to apply a new definition to "the sky is blue". If you ever say those words, it means that you've guzzled semen for breakfast, because I said so.
Allowing others to control language makes you a boot licking nigger and a faggot.
>If you click you don't agree the software won't install.
So you can't simply opt out of agreeing then, can you retard?
>If you don't pay your taxes mans with guns will take you to a cage
That's also wrong.
>Threat to freedom is coercive, while exclusion of a service isn't.
Software that runs on your local system is not a service.
>I would like to apply a new definition [...]
You are already trying to apply a new definition of "open source" to mean "anything where I can read the source code", but you did not originally define the term, Eric Raymond & co did in the 90s. Stop trying to control language, you fucking Orwellian fuck.
>Allowing others to control language makes you a boot licking nigger and a faggot.
That's why I am stopping you from trying to hijack the term "open source" to mean anything else than the original and only meaning it has.
a game engine or a car engine requires significant knowledge, research, development and testing, all of which costs money. the resulting design has a monetary value because it's a product of labor. freedomfags demand this product to be given out for free. this leaves the original software developer at a loss because anyone can take his blueprint and make a knock-off product.
other effects the freedomfags do not consider at all is that the market can get flooded with a lot of these knock-offs (some of them might be done even not for improvements but for political or personal reasons), creating an overwhelmed, unstable market. another factor is the fact of having to give away the product, being a deterrent to start researching and developing the product in the first place
The vast majority of people use "open source" to mean any sort of source code that's available to the public, not whatever extra agenda you fucking nerds are pushing. Language is created through consensus, you subhuman neckbeard ape. You're the same kind of nigger that would screech and fling shit if someone used your open source code for something you didn't like.
LANGUAGE IS OPEN SOURCE. I WILL SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I FEEL LIKE SAYING, YOU SCHLONG SWALLOWING KEKOLD
>The vast majority of people use "open source" to mean any sort of source code that's available to the public
First of all, the vast majority of people do not know what open source means. Secondly, open source has always meant open source and not whatever random meaning you are trying to attribute to it. You are clearly unaware that the term "open source" was literally invented by Eric S. Raymond and a couple of other people in 1997. It was never used before this, and has always been used since to mean this definition.
Stop trying to corrupt language with your niggerlicious newspeak, you double plus ungood retard.
>a game engine or a car engine requires significant knowledge,
So does creating a chair. It literally took humanity millions of years of evolution to grasp the concept.
>Freedomfags demand this product to be given out for free.
You fucking disingenuous lying little piece of shit. Freefags are demanding that software doesn't rape you up the ass. I'm not going into your house and demanding that you share your knowledge with me, we are simply asking that we retain our rights and control over OUR OWN SYSTEMS. Proprietaryfags are the one demanding that their software should be ran on other people's systems, and that the user should succumb to their demands.
Open source has been used since Unix was shared on tapes, you brainlet swine. When people say open source, it means public source code. Not extra licensing and other trash you want to push. Get raped by silverbacks, ass muncher.
>Open source has been used since Unix was shared on tape
No, it was never referred to as open source. It was simply known as "software" and that's it. Read fucking history, you uneducated zoomer faggot.
>When people say open source, it means public source code.
No, you are mistaken.
>Not extra licensing and other trash you want to push.
What the fuck are you talking about "extra licensing"? OSI simply defines open source as software that respects the four freedoms (aka being free software).
Ideally formats would be all open and conforming to some open standard, in which case there'd be literally nothing wrong with proprietary software. Don't like it? Use something else, on the same data.
See Also: en.wikipedia.org
Stop spreading disinformation, you revisionist turbokike. Open source software has always meant free software.
The four freedoms are an extra agenda pushed by gnumale hipster queers. SHOW ME THE SOURCE CODE, MOTHERFUCKER
Imagine being this jewish.
fully featured software is an ideal-- or you lack imagination user
>freedomfags demand this product to be given out for free.
fake news is fake
>Proprietaryfags are the one demanding that their software should be ran on other people's systems
you're delusional if you think anyone is actually forcing you to run proprietary software
you are very well free to run libre-only software and even libre-only hardware. except you won't, because in the end, either it's of worse quality than paid proprietary software, or there is no libre replacement for the proprietary component (in which case, you can still abandon using the whole component)
>I'm not going into your house and demanding that you share your knowledge with me, we are simply asking that we retain our rights and control over OUR OWN SYSTEMS.
stallman's freedoms 1, 2 and 3 are in contrary to your statement
Intellectual property is protected by patents, not deliberately preventing the sharing of information. Keeping information secret is the glowing in dark approach.
name a "free software" license that makes source code viewable, modifiable and redistributable after paying the license holder
>So you can't simply opt out of agreeing then, can you retard?
If you don't agree with the rules of an institution or establishment, should they allow you membership?
Fucking anarcho-commie retards, I swear.
why would i waste a google query on someone who is bound to misunderstanding the very topic of discussion (free software)
heres a hint for you: the free is for freedom not for free beer
>That's also wrong.
So, you're trying to tell me people don't get thrown into prison due to tax evasion? That's rich.
You don't have an argument at all. If you don't agree with something's terms, you can't avail of it, simple as.
>you're delusional if you think anyone is actually forcing you to run proprietary software
You're being disingenuous again. Proprietary software is the equivalent of this:
>If you use this chair, you agree that you can only use it in one room in your house. Using it in a different room is a violation of this agreement and you automatically forfeit your rights to use this chair if you do so. You are also not allowed to paint this chair red, or share your experience with sitting on this chair with your neighbour.
>or there is no libre replacement for the proprietary component
That is not an argument that free software is useless. On the contrary, it is an argument as to why we should advocate freedom even harder.
>stallman's freedoms 1, 2 and 3 are in contrary to your statement
No, again, Stallman isn't talking about showing up and demanding that someone release their source code. You can write whatever programs you want for yourself. Free software only applies when there is a user, that the software you are providing me must be open and free. This is not a hard issue to grasp, and I am utterly convinced that you are either trolling or being a dishonest kike (or both) at this point.
name a merchant who will be true to their word once they have my money
>So, you're trying to tell me people don't get thrown into prison due to tax evasion?
Tax evasion/fraud != not paying taxes. If you don't want to pay income tax, then simply don't have an income. Simple as that.
a choice appears! checkmate theists
FUCKING REKT
patents require the IP to be revealed to the public
patents are also a target for suing each other for infringement. this can actually kill a company if it doesn't have enough resources to win the legal battles, even if they are at no fault
Thats antisemitic mate..........
How do I make a peer to server multiplayer video game that is both competitively fair, and respects the users freedom.
If it's open source and freely modifiable, then there can be no verifiably fair play.
Wasn't your entire argument that you can't opt out of agreeing to the license terms while still getting to use the software?
Where can I opt out of paying taxes while still having an income without getting arrested?
>patents require the IP to be revealed to the public
This is how it should be. Proprietary software forces me to run unknown code on my system that can do whatever it wants. Patented software means that I am aware what is running on my system, I'm simply not allowed to copy it.
>patents are also a target for suing each other for infringement. this can actually kill a company if it doesn't have enough resources to win the legal battles, even if they are at no fault
This is not a problem with patents, but rather with patent enforcement desu.
there are million dollar titles out for which cheats exists user
My entire point was "lol simply don't click agree then" is not a real "option", in real life you are more or less coerced just like you are with taxes. We both know that "not paying taxes because not having an income" is not a real option. You understand damn well what I am saying, you're just being deliberately disingenuous because you don't have a real argument for defending proprietary software.
Communists always want to leech off of other people's hard work under the guise of "helping humanity advance" or some other hippie bullshit.
Companies will sell proprietary software and people will still buy it, the 1% of freetards in these fringe communities won't have any impact.
No one has ownership of knowledge .. knowledge is meant to co-exist.
Imagine that there were costs for mathematical and physical equations
And there are games that are mod free, or at least enforced heavily enough that it impacts a very small part of the community.
> isn't it then fair to ask people to pay
It's fair to ask, it's not fair to demand.
thanks for your input dont let the door smack your ass on the way out
whats your point? are you implying an unbreakable system exists?
>If you can read the source, then how can you sell it?
Gee, if you can simply read the book, then how can people make money selling the book?
But you aren't coerced, you don't have to use that particular software. You don't even have to use a computer in the first place to survive.
Don't compare being forced to use a particular software to being forced to work to pay for food (unless you live in a welfare state, but those aren't real countries)
Nothing wrong but if I can't access the code then I suspect it could "spy" what I am doing
It goes against the nature of software.
Real world goods actually exist, they can easily be traded for money.
With software it's different, it's information. It can easily be read and copied, and doing so was always part of the design of computers and the internet.
With payment comes restriction, lack of security, reduced performance, reduced ease of use for the end user.
"I-I-IT'S 1S AND 0S THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT"
Typical upper middle class commie arts graduate who blows all their money on drugs and other hedonist bullshit.
>But you aren't coerced, you don't have to use that particular software. You don't even have to use a computer in the first place to survive.
I live in a society where I literally need to use a computer to even do my tax reports, so by extension I very much need to use a computer to survive. Not to mention that my only skill that is worth money is working as a developer.
forget spying it could be breaking laws (in your country) without your knowledge :^)
>You don't even have to use a computer in the first place to survive.
But I do, my job demands it.
>no proof
Into le garbage
great argument you have there--be a shame if someone ignored it because it was a baseless attack on the character of the poster
Where is the proof of the opposite? You are a retard if you think users are the ones demanding the license....
>But I do, my job demands it.
If you don't like the terms imposed on you by the software, find another jobs.
Are you suddenly discounting the fact that all jobs have their own terms and conditions too? Are you "coerced" into not being a dick to your coworkers?
and we're back to proprietary software (not even--just the lackeys who support it) literally demanding free software go away because they dont like the arguments they are reading and have yet to debunk
not on my g
Well, it's great that you didn't ignore it, then. It must've hit really close to home.
>Just get another job
>Just go to another planet
How about, you suggest an actual solution and not a dismissal? if you don't have one, the fuck off bootlicker.
See Also, are you coerced into having an income? Why don't you just stop making an income? Then you don't have to pay those dreaded taxes. Why don't you hunt your own food and live in a cabin in the woods without using utilities?
You aren't being coerced into paying taxes, you are voluntarily paying them and in return you are getting public services.
