Please open source all the things

[Megol]

As I said/wrote: "Don't forget the GPL/BSD/whatever licence fanatics that will harass people to change the licence to their preferences ..."
(No once isn't harassment but still... :P)

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Korodny

It also makes it completely impossible to merge your code with other (free) code - think about joystick or network support on Windows/OS X/Linux, for example.

But it already has joystick and network support...!?

Your code could theoretically still be adapted to SDL (since that is LGPL), which makes creating and maintaining lots of ports much easier (including automatic joystick/joypad support, which your emulator wouldn't have on WINE right now)

All the reports I have seen indicate that it works fine with WINE...I'm not running Linux/OSX so can't confirm that myself. The WinArcadia code is pretty straightforward and isn't doing anything nonstandard/undocumented, so if WINE has some issue, probably the fix needs to be in WINE rather than the emulator.

I really don't see how using SDL would improve anything for the users. It already runs on OS3, OS4, MOS, Windows and (via WINE) Linux and MacOS...(it might make an AROS port more feasible, but really AROS needs ReAction support instead of everyone dumbing down their apps to suit it). WinArcadia has a full proper native Windows GUI, AmiArcadia has a full proper native ReAction GUI.

but since it's not free software

It is free software: it is available for free, it can be freely distributed, freely modified, forked, etc...I don't rely on Stallman and/or Raymond to tell me whether my software is free. In fact it is considerably freer IMO than GPL etc. GPL permits profiteering and also permits software to be distributed without source code. So GPL is not a licence that respects the rights of the users and developers, frankly.

That's just not going to happen with a GPL release of a an exotic emulator or a few smaller games. There is some abuse of the GPL, but we're talking Chinese hardware manufacturers stealing BIOS code here, not simple entertainment software.

Actually, not only could it happen, but it has actually happened in this case.

But despite them being open source, I can't use them because actually porting a game to Linux is more than I'm capable of and nobody else is going to bother due to the license.

I don't see why you "can't use them" as there's nothing in the licence that would prevent ports to Linux or any other platform. (Except that an iOS version would probably not be feasible as IIRC Apple don't allow open source software (nor emulators), but that's Apple's problem really.)

[Megol]

Originally Posted by Minuous

<snip>
It is free software: it is available for free, it can be freely distributed, freely modified, forked, etc...I don't rely on Stallman and/or Raymond to tell me whether my software is free. In fact it is considerably freer IMO than GPL etc. GPL permits profiteering and also permits software to be distributed without source code. So GPL is not a licence that respects the rights of the users and developers, frankly.

It permits distribution without source code _but_ requires the source code to be available, even to a 3rd party. In other words while the GPL allows someone to sell software the source code must be available in some way not only for those that buys the software but for all.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Minuous

But it already has joystick and network support...!?

I didn't think WINE supported joysticks, but I'm not an avid WINE user. Apologies if I misremembered that.

WormWars and your strategy games have network multiplayer support? I doubt that.

it can be freely distributed, freely modified, forked, etc...

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.

I get that you're trying to prevent things you deem morally questionable. But where do you draw the line? Your license forbids me to put DRM or "online activation" into your code, but what about displaying ads while the game is running? What about making it postcardware? What about sending game and/or computer statistics to a server of mine? What about using it to design or manufacture weaponry? What about using it in a gay wedding ceremony?

(disclaimer: I have zero problems with gay wedding ceremonies. Just saying if you do, you might want to put that into the license )

In fact it is considerably freer IMO than GPL etc. GPL permits profiteering and also permits software to be distributed without source code.

The freedom to profiteer is a freedom aswell. Taking that away from your users doesn't equal "making it more free". 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.

So GPL is not a licence that respects the rights of the users and developers, frankly.

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.

Actually, not only could it happen, but it has actually happened in this case.

Somebody stole your code? Can you be more specific?

I don't see why you "can't use them" as there's nothing in the licence that would prevent ports to Linux or any other platform.

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.

Edit:

Just to make it clear: I wasn't actually recommending GPL I was recommending a standard license instead of a custom job. You don't like GPL? Pick LGPL, AGPL, BSD, Apache, Mozilla, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-NC or any other of the dozens of standardised and well known licenses available out there.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Megol

(No once isn't harassment but still... :P)

Good thing you mentioned harassment twice now, despite nobody in this thread actually harassing anybody else - according to your own words.

The rest of us are trying to have an adult discussion, thank you.

[Minuous]

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.

[JimDrew]

I can't imagine why any real developer would just give away years worth of work for free. I would rather delete my source than turn it over to open source. Besides the potential lost revenue, some nut will change your code to do something that was not part of your plan for the direction of the product (I have seen this happen a few times already). Open source is great for non-commercial applications. The commercial developers should keep their code so that product's integrity remains.

[robinsonb5]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I can't imagine why any real developer would just give away years worth of work for free. I would rather delete my source than turn it over to open source.

Well that's your prerogative, of course - the code is yours to do with as you wish.

Besides the potential lost revenue, some nut will change your code to do something that was not part of your plan for the direction of the product (I have seen this happen a few times already).

Yeah, that's kind of the *point* of open source - freefrom to adapt software to purposes unforseen by or uninteresting to the original developer.

The commercial developers should keep their code so that product's integrity remains.

Playing devil's advocate here: you can protect the product's integrity and brand identity through trademark law (cf. Firefox / Iceweasel).

[Minuous]

@JimDrew:

Well, if the software is to be sold commercially, open sourcing it probably isn't wise.

But there's not really a commercial market for Amiga software, nor for emulators of 8-bit machines (on desktop OSes at least).

>some nut will change your code to do something that was not part of your plan for the direction of the product

Any worthwhile improvements can be folded back into the main project.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by robinsonb5

Playing devil's advocate here: you can protect the product's integrity and brand identity through trademark law (cf. Firefox / Iceweasel).

There is some kind of confusion of ideas going on here, and maybe it's one of the keys to understanding resistance.

If the assumption is that having the source available means that some other binary with the same name and unknown modifications will be floating around, I'd say its as much wishful thinking as it is simply unlikely. Assuming that you are even distributing binaries yourself, you, as the creator tend to be the most trusted source for them, and as a result, searches for the product nearly always land your page/distribution point first.

And yes, you can always protect your trademark per the Mozilla/Iceweasel example. Open source/free software license violators tend to get called out pretty hard.

[phx]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I can't imagine why any real developer would just give away years worth of work for free.

Maybe because you care for the Amiga and want to provide inspiration and help to other developers for creating more software.

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I meant Ami/WinArcadia...the games currently don't have network support, but it could be added fairly easily.

I tried WinArcadia under WINE now. It works, including joystick support.. But after having the window open in the background for about a minute, its contents start 'bleeding' into all other windows heavily. WINE is nice to have in case of an emergency, but most of the time it's not a solution for everday use. I'm not critisizing you, obviously. Just saying.

There are about ten game ROMs included with the distribution, what kind of license do these have?

There's nothing magic about GPL that it is "free software" and nothing else is.

Nothing "magical", no. But 30 years of experience, several court battles plus the defacto standard for free/libre software licenses.

the GPL is flawed in my opinion for the reasons stated above so

Granted, lots of people don't like the GPL. But if the major players in the free/libre software movement - who, in the eye of the public, have been defining the meaning of the term "free software" for decades - say that you're not free by their definition (i.e. the definition the rest of the world uses), answering "you know shit" might not be a good idea.

[wXR]

Since it keeps coming up, maybe something else we should do in this thread is get honest feedback about who is making money off of Amiga software these days – how much and how often would be a good start. Does anyone fancy opening the kimono on software that is still for sale? I'd be very curious about the OSes, WHDLoad, and any other games or utilities.

[Megol]

Originally Posted by Korodny

Good thing you mentioned harassment twice now, despite nobody in this thread actually harassing anybody else - according to your own words.

The rest of us are trying to have an adult discussion, thank you.

How adult is is to first complain that people do not open up their software and then admonish one that have done just that, just because he didn't use your favorite "poison"?

[kipper2k]

Originally Posted by wXR

Since it keeps coming up, maybe something else we should do in this thread is get honest feedback about who is making money off of Amiga software these days – how much and how often would be a good start. Does anyone fancy opening the kimono on software that is still for sale? I'd be very curious about the OSes, WHDLoad, and any other games or utilities.

You really do seem to be asking a lot of questions that people may consider personal ?

[klx300r]

Originally Posted by amigakit.com

...I sometimes see users on Amiga forums stating that they do not wish to pay the small fee for some Amiga software written by a bedroom coder and instead wanting it for free. But then in other threads the same posters have given £70 to Microsoft for an XBox game.

+1, I've always bought a program/game I enjoyed and today I try my best to donate to the Amiga developers that make my hobby still enjoyable in 2015 with new/interesting programs/games..common sense or at least courtesy really

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Korodny

I tried WinArcadia under WINE now. It works, including joystick support.. But after having the window open in the background for about a minute, its contents start 'bleeding' into all other windows heavily.

That's a pity. Not sure whether I will be able to do anything about that as I don't run Linux so can't reproduce it. Probably needs a fix to WINE.

>There are about ten game ROMs included with the distribution, what kind of license do these have?

The companies concerned are all out of business so they are effectively PD.

>Granted, lots of people don't like the GPL. But if the major players in the free/libre software movement - who, in the eye of the public, have been defining the meaning of the term "free software" for decades - say that you're not free by their definition (i.e. the definition the rest of the world uses), answering "you know shit" might not be a good idea.

I didn't say "you know shit" or anything to that effect. Anyway, there are countless open source projects that are not GPL, eg. AWeb, Handy, MAME, MESS, Apache, etc. (Obviously a lot of people don't like the GPL and don't want to use it.) I don't see anyone saying that those programs aren't open source. I don't accept Stallman and other assorted toejam-eaters as being specially entitled to redefine what common English words and phrases mean. Like I said, it is much less free to force someone to write a letter, mail their payment (for something that is meant to be "free"!), and then wait weeks/months to receive anything, just to see the source code of the (supposedly "free") software they have paid for.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by kipper2k

You really do seem to be asking a lot of questions that people may consider personal ?

Well, why shouldn't we openly discuss this? I suspect we could shut down all discussions of "why should I give it away?" with some baseline facts. Or indeed quite the opposite, if folks are making mad scratch off of Amiga projects, unbeknownst to the rest of the world.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by wXR

Well, why shouldn't we openly discuss this? I suspect we could shut down all discussions of "why should I give it away?" with some baseline facts.

Yes indeed, because nobody could legitimately want to hang onto the thing they've created! Clearly if they don't want to give their code away, they must just not have been hit with the facts that prove they should!

[wXR]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

Yes indeed, because nobody could legitimately want to hang onto the thing they've created! Clearly if they don't want to give their code away, they must just not have been hit with the facts that prove they should!

People are free to do what they want with their creation, as has been said many times and which should otherwise be obvious. What I'm interested in, is laying the facts out, and having an open and honest discussion. In as much as we can encourage the abolition of rumor, I believe we should attempt to do so.