Originally Posted by Korodny
WormWars and your strategy games have network multiplayer support? I doubt that.
I meant Ami/WinArcadia...the games currently don't have network support, but it could be added fairly easily. Standard bsdsocket stuff which is portable across all platforms.
>It's neither freely distributable nor freely modifiable/forkable because you have clauses restricting these options. That's okay, just don't call it "free software", because it simply doesn't match the widespread definition of free software.
Why is it not freely distributable? Because selling it is not allowed? That doesn't mean it isn't freely distributable. And it is freely modifiable/forkable except that such forks must be open source (same as for the GPL) and you can't put malware into it. I don't know why anyone except malware writers would have a problem with that. The GPL is full of clauses restricting options, I have many fewer clauses so I would argue this licence is more free. I never called it "free software", I would describe it as "open source freeware". But in fact "free software" would also be correct: it is free as in no cost and it is also free as in giving people a lot of rights.
>displaying ads while the game is running?
That would currently fall into the "other malware" category, but I should make it an explicit category to avoid any ambiguity.
>What about making it postcardware?
As in "please send a postcard if you like it?" No problem with that as long as it is not compulsory.
>What about sending game and/or computer statistics to a server of mine?
That would fall into the "spyware" category.
>What about using it to design or manufacture weaponry? What about using it in a gay wedding ceremony?
That would be arbitrarily restricting the userbase. Like it says in the manual, "We seek to provide the most rights and freedoms possible to users, modifiers and distributors of this software."
>The freedom to profiteer is a freedom aswell. Taking that away from your users doesn't equal "making it more free".
I disagree, obviously at a zero price it is freer than at a non-zero price. The freedom of scummy people/companies to make money off other people's work and rip off ignorant people is immoral and not a "freedom" I want to uphold. The right of the users to obtain the software for free is more important.
>GPL does allow you to distribute without source - that clause stems from a time when downloads where very slow and disk space very valuable. You always have to make source code of GPL'ed software available on request though, which for practical purposes is the same as forcing people to distribute it alongside the binaries.
It's not the same at all: like it says in section 3b you can require users to mail you a letter to get the source, and you can even charge them money for that.
>You can argue that it might not respect the developer's rights (a lot of people do, actually), but no sane person could argue it doesn't respect the user's rights. It's called "copyleft" for a reason.
It respects neither really. Eg. the user's right to get the source code without having to stuff around with writing letters, the user's right not to be tricked into paying money for something that they can get for free, etc.
>Somebody stole your code? Can you be more specific?
Well, they are making claims to have written it, yes. I can send a link by PM.
>I'm not good enough to port them myself, and most people good enough aren't interested due to the license. While a lot of other crap is available to me at a single mouse click, simply because it's free software.
There's nothing magic about GPL that it is "free software" and nothing else is. The two terms aren't synonymous, the GPL is flawed in my opinion for the reasons stated above so I have licensed it in a way that I consider to be fairer and more free. There's nothing onerous in the licence terms so I don't see why anyone would not want to port it on that basis. It runs fine in WINE is probably the main reason it hasn't been ported.