Do videogames have to be free as in freedom like normal software or do they count as art?
>inb4 videogames aren't art
Video games suck.
Releasing video games as free and open source is pretty much inadvisable unless you hate money.
Even if you do the sane thing and license the framework/engine as GPL while keeping your game assets copyrighted/creative commons/whatever, nobody is going to use it because it was built for your specific game.
If you were to release the whole thing as free software, assets and all, there's nothing stopping Pajeet from recompiling your game and putting it on the play store himself.
A lot of games from GOG have GPLv2 licenses
>>53544726
Computer software also called a program or simply software is a series of instructions that directs a computer to perform specific tasks or operations.
so at the core of it, yes it should i guess.
also >>53544746
the crowd are silent anon
>>53544795
>there's nothing stopping Pajeet from recompiling your game and putting it on the play store himself
GPL is not public domain, they are different
>>53544795
>license the framework/engine as GPL while keeping your game assets copyrighted/creative commons/whatever
Would Stallman approve of that?
>If you were to release the whole thing as free software, assets and all, there's nothing stopping Pajeet from recompiling your game and putting it on the play store himself.
Can you sell software you modified if it's protected by a GPL?
Unless there will be basic income, no. I have to eat something.
I came to think that open source is just a meme. You give your code to society for free, and it doesn't even guarantee that you won't die of malnourishment.
It doesn't work this way.
>>53544853
What I'm saying is that don't open source your game unless you intend to release it for free, like a labor of love or something.
>>53544860
he would, but it makes very little sense to do this unless you made an engine.
Should a five star chef's recipes be free as in freedom?
>>53544876
this is the problem in opensource that i dont know why people dont get!
anyone can take your code, closesource it, and sell your hard work... while you trust your FSF to save the day, GPL allows people/companies to steal other peoples work and hide it in closedsource software...
>>53544921
why not? oh right, its the fact that if i knew what his recipe is, i would realise how simple and overpriced it is...
>>53544853
>Computer software also called a program or simply software is a series of instructions that directs a computer to perform specific tasks or operations.
>so at the core of it, yes it should i guess.
But I thought Stallman said his freedom movement didn't apply to creative works like music. I can't find the article on gnu.org though.
>>53544943
>close source it and sell your hard work
Believe it or not, closed source software isn't all that common, whenever something enters the market that competes with your product, people pay attention.
If you're literally stealing code because you're lazy, the same symbols and assembly instructions will show up in their compiled binaries.
It's much more difficult to hide this than you think, if you're serious about hiding GPL violations, you're going to end up rewriting most of the source code you stole.
>>53545013
Just do software as a service. Everybody does that. A game that doesn't run without being connected to your server.
>>53544990
>creative works like music
music, images...etc dont have a source code, at least not in a software source code sense.
while games do.
so... music, images, videos...etc are creativeworks while games are in structure "instructions" just like software
>>53544990
Stallman is OK with non-free games. Surely he's prefer engines to be free. Otherwise it's like the Java trap back when Java wasn't free.
>inb4 videogames aren't art
They literally aren't though.
>>53544726
>dignifying freetards
>>53544990
His movement applies to getting revenge on companies that triggered him
>>53545108
oh boy here we go
>>53545108
>2D illustrations
>music
>3D models
>computer code
widely considered to be art forms in of themselves
but of course, ween you put them all together into a game, it's no longer art!
how silly of me!
>>53545013
>people pay attention.
>the same symbols and assembly instructions will show up in their compiled binaries
though true, it isnt humanly possible, if done its extremely hard and time consuming, and nobody does that or capable of doing it i suppose.
>>53545087
>Works of art or entertainment.
>A modified version of such a work can be a contribution to art, but you can bear waiting a while before publishing it. Thus, what I recommend for these works is that copyright last for 10 years from the publication of the work. During that time, I think people must have the right to redistribute exact copies noncommercially, but I don't go further than that.
https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html
BUT
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
In this article it implies he doesn't consider the code part of a game as art. You could easily argue the whole game is art though.
>>53545158
Reversing rendering algorithms is entirely possible with a good debugger, and its not that hard for a professional. http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/11/02/gta-v-graphics-study/
>>53545157
I'm glad you've realized your mistake.
>>53545157
Art is defined by context, not medium.
>>53545157
>Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts – artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power
with this understanding, everything can be art!
ex. read conceptual art
>>53545220
you're right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I
Open source works better for hardware standards and software. I'd say video games fall under art.
>>53544795
Nope.
It works apparently.
https://github.com/KeenSoftwareHouse/SpaceEngineers
>>53544726
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
>>53544795
You could make a can't sell clause/no commercial use clause, and it'd still be mostly free, and then it'd be no worse than nromal pirating if someone got pajeets version, but otherwise, even just doing what you said with copyrighted assets only is quite useful, as it's gret for mods and future support.
>>53545238
http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/111913567870
hahaha my god, he just proved modern art
>>53544726
It's kind of a stupid question. What difference does it make whether games are art or not?
They are software on the most basic level where good license is important.
And if they are truly "art", they should be beautiful, innovative and free, as some indie games are. Most games are generic locked-up ad-ridden cuckware though.
>>53545392
>>53545277
see
https://stallman.org/articles/guardian-correction.html
My concern is that old game software is accurately preserved for future generations to play and study, long after the original hardware and software platforms are no longer reasonably available. Video games are cultural artifacts and should be kept alive like any other medium.
Luckily most old PC and console games don't use DRM, which has made it easy for anyone to dump them in a bit-perfect state (unlike, say, old movie reels locked up in some producer's estate). Emulating those old platforms is tougher, obviously, but there are already tons of fantastic, actively developed emulators available with source code.
DRM will be the biggest obstacle in the future, since it's been used pervasively on every major platform since 2005. The near total lack of decentralized or P2P hosting in modern multiplayer games is also a major issue.
Having the developer freely release the source code (as John Carmack used to do) would be nice indeed, but ultimately it's up the community to preserve those old games.
>>53545390
anything can be art as long as you want it to be
>>53544726
Art has to be free as in freedom too.
>>53544834
>a lot of free games are also hosted by GOG
fixed that for you
>>53545448
put down the controller and go outside
your pervasive time sinks are not art and are most certainly not the cultural artifacts you hold them to be
nobody will give a shit about new super mario bros 2 in a century from now
>>53545428
I don't really understand why Stallman didn't go all the way with freeing art.
I'm all for sharing and remixing, but the concept of art still heavily relies on respecting the author's reputation, style and originality. In my opinion this should be enough to protect the artist and if it discourages artists who do it for money from making art, all the better.
>>53545480
No it doesn't you autistic faggot.
>>53544873
>guarantee
Suppose no one buys your game in the first place? How are you "guaranteed" that you won't die because you made another quirky open world platformer shooter?
>>53545574
>#TRIGGERED
>>53545500
people still give a shit about pong and it was created in 1972
>>53545574
What
>>53545500
If you want to be that reductive, then all art is a pervasive time sink.
Painting and sculpture are a time sink.
Music is a time sink.
Narrative fiction is a time sink.
Theater and film are a time sink.
The only meaningful human activity is to multiply and expand.
Answer this /g/: do ROMs like Super Mario World for a super nintendo emulator count as software? Are they exempted from the Free Software requirements?
>>53545627
They're technically illegal, but then again, so is letting your friends borrow your music CDs and DVDs.
And I'm sure that probably covers video game discs as well, but that's literally unenforceable.
>>53545257
>101 pull requests
Good grief.
>>53545627
ROM dumps are still copyrighted software. Most early console games were written in assembly.
>>53545574
