In the eyes of an extreme freetard, playing an old DOS or NES game is no different than using Windows 11, Discord, or Google Chrome.
@PurpCat Nah bro, you should only play free software games like Tux Racer. Proprietary games, including games released for old platforms keep you isolated and helpless.
They forget that older hardware/software typically wasn't really capable of the same sort of spying/telemetry that more modern stuff is- and freetardism on that front is more for ease of modification than muh security.
@xianc78 @PurpCat @RK7 I am glad they've acknowledged the code-only situation that many formerly proprietary games are under (Doom, Quake, etc), but I imagine that someone will still complain about it because it limits the sharing aspect.
Personally I believe the assets should be liberated too in most cases, but I can understand why that may not be a good idea especially if you are borrowing some media i.e. you have licensed music in your game, or if you want to incentivize people to buy a legit copy to use their free source port.
Making a copy of an audio file is not borrowing, as both can have it and use it at the same time.
It's a foolish decision to use music under a proprietary license, even for purely economic reasons, as that *will* screw over future distribution, with the forced removal of such music being common in ports of games to newer computers.
If you have to delete some proprietary soundtracks from the free release, so be it.
>if you want to incentivize people to buy a legit copy to use their free source port.
If you want to incentivize people to pay you, you just ask for payment before you provide the binary and source code of the free software.
@Suiseiseki @PurpCat @xianc78 @RK7
> If you want to incentivize people to pay you, you just ask for payment before you provide the binary and source code of the free software.
Right, I agree.
However it is important to note that (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer) The terms of the copyright license are agreed to upon acquisition of the software, not before. Almost no free software licenses require the author to give out free copies, the GPL entitles you to the source code if you have a free binary but you are allowed to paywall access to the software. You just cannot restrict what people do with it afterwards and you have to cough up the source to anyone who gets a copy (hence putting it on a public Git repo is the obvious choice).
This means you can sell a commercial product for-profit that is also free software. You don't need to ask for a donation before opening it up for download. But you cannot add DRM to try to stop people from copying it.
The GPLv2 and GPLv3 do not forbid digital handcuffs - you are permitted to implement them - it's just that nobody bothers as you need to give the user everything they need to break them.
>I don't think proprietary licensed music should entirely be off the table
Maybe, but out of purely economic considerations alone, proprietary licensed music should be off the table unless the terms are perpetual.
@Suiseiseki @PurpCat @xianc78 @RK7 maybe you meant purchasing rather than donating and we're actually on the same page, if my comment is redundant then forgive me.
I don't think proprietary licensed music should entirely be off the table for developers because there are artistic considerations for using such music.
You make a good suggestion about simply liberating the game without the third-party music, though.