Lam YongXian wrote: >> Michael Fötsch wrote: >>> Russ Karlberg wrote: >>>>> That's why most people who develop free (as in freedom) >>>>> software commercially usually primarily use other methods of making >>>>> money >>>>> from it, such as selling support services and making paid-for >>>>> customisations. >>>> Well, OK, I can see that business model working for some types of >>>> software. >>>> But for things like games and packaged software, I'm not sure most >>>> people >>>> really care about support or customizations. >>> Maybe "software as a product" (packaged software) is a business model of >>> the past. (Just like packaged music isn't as profitable for the music >>> industry anymore as they wish it was.) >>> >>> Is the software part of games really so much different from other types >>> of software? I could imagine that if game engines are a commodity and >>> are available as free software, that there's a lot of money to save >>> during development. Even fewer units sold, or sold at lower prizes, >>> would turn this into a profitable business. >>> >>> Or think about online games: Again, there's a lot of money to save by >>> using free software on the server side. What the company that hosts the >>> game has to offer are services that cannot be easily duplicated, like >>> storage space, bandwith, regular updates, a community, etc. >>> >>> And then, who says that the artwork in a game must be under the same >>> license terms as the software? >>> >>> What if you are free to copy the code, but you still cannot copy the >>> graphics and music *for commercial purposes*? Before anyone jumps at me, >>> let me quote Richard Stallman (again, from "Misinterpreting Copyright--A >>> Series of Errors"): >>> >>> "So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, >>> and >>> movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can >>> reduce the >>> duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works >>> to be >>> published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a twenty-year >>> copyright, >>> because of the expense of producing them. [...]" >>> "For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, >>> noncommer- >>> cial verbatim redistribution may be suf�cient freedom for the >>> readers." >>> >>> I don't think that games would need a twenty-year copyright (or how many >>> games from 1987 do you know that still make a profit for their >>> publishers?); maybe 5, 6, 7 years is enough. If this incentive is needed >>> for games to be produced, so be it. That's what copyright was meant for, >>> in the first place. >>> >>> If you don't allow commercial distribution of the artwork, this would >>> prevent competitors from turning your work into a profit, before you had >>> a chance to recoup your expenses. I'd assume that ad-sponsored "warez" >>> sites would qualify as commercial as well, even though they don't charge >>> for the downloads. >>> >>> What is important is that non-commercial distribution would be allowed. >>> First of all, it seems it can't be stopped anyway, so why bother. >>> Secondly, there's not need to criminalize kids who swap games on the >>> schoolyard. >>> >>> (Is it controversial on this list to suggest that artwork should be >>> treated differently than software? I'd really like to hear other >>> people's thoughts on this.) >>> >>>>> you can modify it if you wish, resell it or give it away for free, you >>>>> can >>>>> contract other people to modify it if you don't have the time or the >>>>> experience.. [...] >>>> To me this seems to contradict the previous business model, if you can >>>> modify that software, give it away, hire someone else to maintain it, >>>> then >>>> you don't need a support contract and the company that spent years >>>> developing the software does not get compensated for their efforts. >>> That's the usual thing to do, even without free software! If a company >>> outsources software development to another company, the *customer* >>> usually wants to keep the copyrights. Then they're free to hire a >>> *different* company than the one that did the original development for >>> support and maintenance work. >>> >>> What the free software mode changes is that the initial development >>> becomes less expensive, as it probably builds on existing free software. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> M.F. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >>> Looking for earth-friendly autos? >>> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. >>> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Advocate mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate >> My viewpoint is that at least non-commercial, unmodified copying of all >> creative works should be >> allowed, because that's so easy to do with today's technology, and so many >> people want to do that. I >> think allowing other uses to be restricted probably still benefits the >> public (as it's generally >> officially supposed to do, and should do) as it allows more works to be >> made available. I also think >> the length of copyright should be reduced to 10 years maximum, as the vast >> majority of the profits >> are generally made in that time, and that would allow unrestricted use for >> everyone much more >> quickly than it does now. >> >> It's definitely true that software and artwork can be treated differently. >> Software is functional as >> it serves a purpose, whereas artwork is aesthetic. I think people should >> be allowed to modify all >> functional works, and distribute modified versions. Otherwise they can't >> control a part of their >> lives. For aesthetic artistic works, people often want to make derivative >> works, but that's less >> essential, so I think allowing the author/publisher to restrict the >> distribution of derivative works >> for a short time is probably still good for the public. >> >> I think restricting commercial distribution is a good distinction to make, >> as it doesn't interfer >> with people's general lives and their interactions with their friends, but >> it restricts a lot of >> large-scale distribution so it still gives a good incentive to authors (or >> more realistically, >> publishers). >> >> I think Richard's Stallman's article Misinterpreting Copyright is really >> good, and the approach that >> he advocates for copyright reform is the best way to go. I definitely >> recommend reading it. He also >> gives a speech with similar points called Copyright Versus Community. >> However, I completely disagree >> with him that modifying works of opinion is unethical, as long as you >> don't present the modified >> version as the original. Simply including a quote of someone's article >> involves distributing a >> modified version, and people sometimes want to modify works of opinion to >> use them in artistic >> works, such as sampling a speech in a piece of music. >> >> -- >> Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office files - >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html. >> Don't get Windows Vista, get GNU/Linux - http://www.getgnulinux.org. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Advocate mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate >> > > I think what RMS means is that you should not modify an opinion that would > reflect on the reputation of the original author. What you said is > actually similar to what he means, just that the _language_ used is > different =) > > --- > Lam YongXian > Adolflam.com > > FSF member #5279 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Advocate mailing list > [email protected] > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate >
It may be true that what he means is similar to what I'm saying, but I don't think so. He allows verbatim distribution of all his essays, but never distribution of modified versions, even if you do make it clear how it's different from the original. -- Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office files - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html. Don't get Windows Vista, get GNU/Linux - http://www.getgnulinux.org.
_______________________________________________ Advocate mailing list [email protected] http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
