[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 23/07/12 15:25, Gibbs wrote: > > Although I advocate FLOSS and couldn't live without it I think there is > a difference between software that allows you to /do/ something and > software that is purely for /entertainment/. I consider a closed source > game in the same department as a film or music, its entertainment and I > don't mind paying for it. I have no will or reason to want to hack away > at a film or MP3 track in the same way I wouldn't with a commercial > game. Its not quite the same (i used to mod games), granted, but the > closest comparison I can think of :). Whilst I understand the sentiment, will you feel the same way when it isn't made available for your new PC, or there is a stupid bug they won't fix in the game, or it just needs relinking against a newer library.... I think ultimately "doing something" and "being entertained" are possibly not as far apart as we would like to imagine. Especially if you work in the games business. Although I believe RMS shared your view to an extent, at least at some point, that "games"/"entertainment" are less crucial to be open. Although in my experience where RMS is "more relaxed" about the freedom question, he's been wrong, or later realized his error. Probably when we discover a particularly evil piece or games software we'll realize that being able to inspect the source is a truly important freedom. Although possibly sandboxing, and strong restrictions on what a program can do minimize the risk here. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq