> 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 sufï¬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 >
Hmm... Do you mean that it would be better to correct the original language used while preserving the meaning and still point it to the original author? Like translation? If so, it can be reasonable that original authors wouldn't allow that. In historical text, we often want the primary source instead of a source of what a second party think of the primary source. That is ensure accuracy. Abit of ethics involved also. But if you wish to modify, I guess it is still better to note to reader it is a "modified" version =) --- Lam YongXian Adolflam.com FSF member #5279 _______________________________________________ Advocate mailing list [email protected] http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
