[BadVista Advocate] A few thoughts on games

[Sunnz]

Well no, I am not against the idea of free software and such, I am actually
doing software engineering course myself so I am a bit worry about how is
the industry is going to change, well as far as technology goes change is
always a constant, but this free software thing is more than just
technology.

But yea I still got a lot to learn so I appreciate all the comments and
links and stuff. :D

2007/5/6, Don Hensley <Don at donhensley.com>:
>
>
> Thanks for bringing that up Matt, I've been working on a in depth reply
> for
> Sunnz, but I also have other things that require my time so I'm a bit slow
> at
> developing my replies - and then I really need to proof read them for
> incorrect words, correctly spelled... sigh...
>
> Actually I do live talks at the local college on this subject every so
> often,
> but I always do them 'cold', so each one is verbally different, but
> contextually consistent. I'm having some fun trying to actually write down
> the way I verbally relate to this subject when I have a live group to work
> with.
>
> It's also an education for me, as the interplay when I can interact with a
> group, face to face, is easy for me --but this writing it down business,
> now
> that is much more difficult.
>
> I'm hoping that Sunnz has been reading Mike Masnick's work at Techdirt.
>
> That was/is a brilliant series of essays. They should be required reading.
>
> Here's the final summary, with links back to all the essays:
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
>
> Thanks,
> Don.
> ***********************************
> On Saturday 05 May 2007 08:16 pm, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Sunnz wrote:
> > Another tricky thing to develop games on Linux is GPL.
> >
> > Ok, I don't know that much about the underlying workings of GNU, so I
> > am on the assumption that a lot of programming API and libraries on
> > Linux are licensed under GPL, and if you make use of the API and libs,
> > your game would be a derivative software and have to license under
> > GPL.
>
> That's pretty much wrong.  There's plenty of proprietary software on
> GNU/Linux, because core libraries tend to be licensed under the LGPL
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html), not the GPL.
>
> > The implication of GPL is that you are free to distribute the
> > software, binary and/or source code... companies who have invest large
> > sum of money wouldn't want to do this, perhaps it is ok to open source
> > the code, but they certainly want people to pay for each copy.
>
> Open Source (or free/libre licenses) do not require per-copy royalties.
>   Open source (and free/libre software) means far more than source code
> availability.  See opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
> gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . It's also a misconception that it's
> impossible to make money off libre/open source software.  Consider the
> many successful companies that rely almost solely on FOSS (Red Hat,
> Alfresco, etc.)
>
> Best,
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>
> --
> GNU/Linux is the future.
> Join the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=4458
> Get the Real Facts: http://BadVista.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>



-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://badvista.fsf.org/pipermail/advocate/attachments/20070506/ef1536b9/attachment-0001.htm