@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.
@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.
@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.
@bonkmaykr
>However I will never be able to justify the "everything must be FOSS or you're a stupid normie" mindset. Diehard FOSS advocates are some of the most toxic elitists and I don't think they understand that they're only hurting their cause.
I like the Free Software Movement, but I have always been skeptical about it sense I first heard about it. It was around the time of the Snowden leaks that I was aware of it, but it was just a coincidence because I just so happened to be using a Chromebook at the time and the only option other than ChromeOS was to install some modified version of Ubuntu that ran parallel to it. I learned a lot about GNU+Linux, why people like it, and the philosophy behind both free software and open-source. But when listening to the then-recent interviews with Stallman, he was talking about privacy and saying that free software was the only solution. I knew that was false because I know for sure that something like an old NES ROM wasn't going to spy on me, but Stallman would say that was bad anyway.
And before the privacy issues were even relevant, Stallman's main talking point was about "sharing is caring", saying that proprietary software developers keep people divided and isolated by prohibiting people to share. Except it doesn't. Never in my life have I lost friends because I couldn't copy a piece of software and give it to them. I'm not a fan of "intellectual property", but muh sharing isn't the most important thing in the world. That's probably why most people didn't care before 2013.
>I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too, yes it is inherently anti-user in some ways, but the whole point of concern is that it's *easier* to abuse, not that it's always worse or better. Not all proprietary software is malware.
EXACTLY! Like I already said earlier, there are plenty of examples of proprietary software that has proven not to be malware. We also have decompilations of old games now and we can see for a fact that they never included any backdoors, even some of those that were released more recently. And I don't like how Stallman paints everyone who releases proprietary software as evil. Was Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya evil for releasing Cave Story as proprietary freeware? Of course not. He was making something that he loved and probably never even heard of the FSF. Even if he released it under a more restrictive shareware license, I wouldn't label him as evil.
For the past 4.5+ years, MasterCard has had a typo in its DNS records, where one of its domains was named as a22-65.akam.ne, instead of a22-65.akam.net (Akamai).
Fortunately for MasterCard, the person who figured this out is one of the good guys, and he's actually here on Mastodon: @titon. I interviewed @titon -- Philippe Caturegli, founder of the security firm Seralys, in a story last year on domain name collisions.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/08/local-networks-go-global-when-domain-names-collide/
Curiously, a look into the passive DNS for this domain via DomainTools indicates that someone in Russia registered this domain akam.ne in 2016 and had it sporadically resolve to an IP address in Germany for a few years (185.53.177,31). May have also involved the email address um-i-delo@yandex.ru.
Just a reminder to check your DNS records for typos. Because if you don't control the domain name that your name servers are pointing to, there is virtually no end to the world of hurt that crooks can visit on your organization.
@atomicpoet Bluesky isn't even truly 100% decentralized so they don't even have their criticisms pointed at the right direction.
CEO Canithesis Interactive, sysadmin Worlio LLC
wipEout and THE FINALS fan
UNIX enthusiast, Java / C# / C++ Dev
Old computer freak.
Missouri, United States
I made the Firestar Mod Manager for Playstation Vita. Currently working on a danmaku shooter.
Followers of all kinds welcome - no matter your place on the political spectrum, your language or your experience - just be respectful. Posts can range anywhere from deep nerd thoughts to brainless shitposting.
**DO NOT try to contact me from FreeSoftwareExtremist.com. I already have you muted.**