It's not the same scripts, and there's one difference in outcome: Debian just
removes the proprietary firmware, leaving in error messages telling you the
names of the firmware files, while Linux-libre replaces those names with some
slightly stylized version of "DEBLOBBED" (I want to say eithe
> Debian's kernel by default ships without the potentially non-free kernel bits
Does Debian actually use the Linux-libre scripts to deblob their kernel? Or do
they have their own in-house solution?
Also, is Debian's de-blobbed kernel (after Squeeze) effectively the same as
Linux-libre?
Yeah, they cannot completely open up the old Source engine due to the
middleware. Would be interesting if Source 2 is all in-house.
Yeah, people would still spend hundreds of dollars on gun skins on CS:GO or
TF2 no matter if the game was libre or not.
Yeah, people would still spend hundreds of dollars on gun skins on CS:GO or
TF2 no matter if the game was libre or not.
Yeah, people would still spend hundreds of dollars on gun skins on CS:GO or
TF2 no matter if the game was libre or not.
Valve could liberate the Source engine and provide paid support for game
developers easily, they could still earn a LOT of cash.
In another note speaking of games, this one guy did a comparison between
Ubuntu 15.04 and Windows 10 and the new Source 2 engine in DOTA 2 performed
better on Ubuntu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM8qXbJqMvs&html5=1
I know its all non-free and all with the game, platform, and firmware, but
People seem to have a negative opinion on Debian because they offer a
"non-free" repository that you can easily not use. I guess the same goes for
the "restricted" and "multiverse" repositories for Ubuntu which contain the
non-free bits.
Kernel wise, Ubuntu will include the bits from upstre
I didn't quite say we shouldn't talk about proprietary software. That's
really taking it out of context. I said we shouldn't talk about playing
specific proprietary games (any specific one(s)). Particularly on a free
software forum like this. It's quite hypocritical. Talking about specific
Hi, I love playing games. But I have a problem, some game runs with low fps
like Nexuiz, cuz fully libre systems just not enough for playing some games.
My fully libre laptops are Macbooks 2,1. So, for play some games I must to
use my not fully libre systems: i5 3570k 4000hd, i7 3840QM 4000hd
Sorry, I thought Remedy changed the original Build's license to a libre one.
Well, i believe it is a free software hatred by major companies like apple
and eletronic arts, but everone is entitled to an opinion.
tWell, i was talking about the original build engine,wasn't i?
Btw, did you happen to see this today?
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/09/ubuntu-convergence-x-apps-running-mir-video-2
1.) Rich? I hardly would say that a price fixated by the developer ($1, $10)
for source code makes it "rich people only" if the consumer is willing to out
of of their way to support your game. You ask people to crowd fund a game,
which has NO guarantee that the game is ever going to be finish
A successful libre game is really few and far in-between if you are going the
crowd funding route. Like I said in a previous post, the most successful ones
have a name or property tied to it. Shenmue 3 was able to bypass 2 million
dollars within hours of the crowd funding release. You would t
> You're shipping non-free software if people want so.
Should it not be an individual's freedom of choice to choose what the fuck
they run on their machine?
If people want to run non-free software, they will do so. If you start
imposing YOUR will on other people
and telling them what to run,
> " i for one while pay 50 bucks for games that are DRM free"
I read that and that's the part that was the problem.
You make a good argument, but I'm not convinced we're taking the wrong action
here. Everybody here is running some non-free software out of necessity.
Should we stop helping people to move away just because they're not capable
of jumping to Trisquel in one step? I can't accept that.
That's what they seem to be saying.
Let's revisit this topic when Mir gets released with either 16.04 or 16.10
and compare to Wayland.
Why was this downvoted? I linked to a site and provided basic information.
Whatever.
Now you know why people don't use "free software" and instead use "open
source" because it confuses between free as in price and free as in freedom.
Maybe from now on, I should just use libre so you guys can stop twisting my
words. :-)
I always meant free as in "freedom" and in relation to
"And I just want to thank you for making it easy to buy hardware that will
work with Linux-libre"
Same here!
"Like Id Software's Old ID tech engines and Ken-Silverman's Build engine
(technially non-free, Because it's free for non-commercial use only.) "
http://wiki.eduke32.com/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
Eduke32 is GPL. Also, you have forks of Eduke32 for Redneck Rampage.
And , more awesome, you
"There is no need for the conditional tense now that Cloud Imperium Games'
crowd funding campaign has raised $89 millions to develop Star Citizen:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals";
Ssshhh... we're not allowed to point to stuff like this because it's clearly
not possible for
"Let's say you pay for tickets to go to a concert or live standup or sketch
comedy. That guy off the street who didn't pay shouldn't have the right to
view it as they do not have the right to do so."
However, it's legal and a common task for fans to upload videos of concerts
and standup act
Well, you do see collaboration on big projects, but that tends to be by
multiple corporations who have a vested interest. Something that comes to
mind is the Vulkan graphics project. It is happening because all these
companies want a better graphics stack and become less reliant on DirectX.
"I just don't see the point in continuously having to ask money from people
again and again through multiple rounds of funding. That's how you start to
irritate your backers and they just want to you to release the damn thing
already."
Yeah, if the people running the project are horrible an
I get what you mean, I see free software supporters as a spectrum thing
instead of a binary false dichotomy. There are are people that are dependent
on non-free software and can't afford the switching costs of spending
downtime to learn something like Blender, but appreciate the free software
I'm no web design expert, so forgive my ignorance. can't the N°1 and 2
points be replaced by Wordpress or similar?
About offering the source code for a fee: I remember the guys at Ardour doing
that. But I wouldn't separate it from buying the program.
I think it's best to educate people to comp
You seem to have a counter argument for everything don't you? :-)
I just don't see the point in continuously having to ask money from people
again and again through multiple rounds of funding. That's how you start to
irritate your backers and they just want to you to release the damn thing
I think he can be forgiven for misunderstanding.
Can you please rephrase this post to make it understandable? It sounded like
something interesting.
To be fair, I clearly suck at publicity. I need to improve on that. As of
today, there have been just over 3,000 visits to ReTux's contribution page.
That's not very many. An established publisher wouldn't have this problem.
I really doubt it's because of something other than Windows and gaming
consoles being so popular...(i.e. it's Money and nothing more than that
if you ask me).
I guess this is why some of us are Free-Software Diehards!
Many game companies like EA and Rockstar HATE Free software so badly, They
dont even release their games for GNU/Linux (for Rockstar, i think this is
true, but i may be wrong). Some companies release their game engines as free
software, Like Id Software's Old ID tech engines and Ken-Silverman
I don't know why there aren't any nonprofit game developers that develop
games with libre engines. By "non-profit" I mean they make money, but the
primary goal is their mission and it could be lobbying to make cracking DRM
legal and reverse engineering game engines.
"I just think that if less people did it and swallowed their pride for the
greater good of a project, that we would have better quality free software
code."
People say this so much but whenever anyone sits down and tries to do this,
nobody agrees on what project to focus on as everyone has
People will never agree as they are stubborn and will protect their ego. If
there is a disagreement, they will create their own community. After time,
there is conflict within the new community and members leave to start yet
another.
There may never be a solution to this. That's why compani
Did you even read it? THE GAME ENGINES WILL BE FREE.
If I had Mark Shuttleworth money, I would put it towards building libre
hardware. I want an open society so true innovation can happen without
restrictions.
Unfortunately, companies with the big money are focusing on mobile and tablet
devices and are locking things down more and more.
"Crowdfunding is supposed to help with getting the initial capital. What
happens when you need more money to deliver your project and sustain it for
years? Are you going to alienate and piss off your original investors if you
cannot meet those demands?"
If it turns out that the initial crow
I re-read my post a few hours later and actually felt bad about what I said
there. I apologize for those comments and initially meant to say "most"
instead of none. I actually use your repos for the kernel and VLC and am
thankful for that.
I just feel like I bang my head against the wall so
I keep on seeing crowdfunding being mentioned as the best solution, but from
what I've seen, only the games that have a big name behind them or franchise
get the full funding. I'm talking about Shenmue 3, Mighty Number 9, and that
Castlevania spinoff.
All of these success stories result in
> How is the approach different from Debian?
It's a bit difficult to wrap my head around this. We're not a distribution
and only attempting to draw people away from non-free operating systems.
Including partly non-free ones.
> Encouraging people not to even talk about this software does not
"And not all people are unimaginative."
I didn't say all people were. Just those that can't imagine any other funding
model as being valid.
"Not all people are assholes who *want* to make stuff proprietary."
Haha, but the reverse is true and all people that make proprietary stuff are?
Than
"Would you please open your eyes? It's obviously _not_ working.
I wished too that it would work and a lot of people could make a living from
developing great free software games; reality is different though."
And this means that I can't "like to see more people doing what onpon4 is
doing and
Thank you for your support.
ok i dont know what happen to my last post but i have heard this From
JupiterBroadcasting a lot and i agree we need an os standerd amd pratice -
recently had to email FSF for some ? and i will never do it again- i will not
be treated like an idoit. we need to rethink how we approach new user
I just want to say thank you for contributing all these years the Linux-Libre
repository you maintain. It's really helped *a lot* of users get on board
with newer hardware *still being sold*. Without that there would be a good
chunk of people here who wouldn't be on Trisquel today.
@t3g-i agree but the Linux community needs to agree on what is what- i
recently email the FSF about couple of things and they rubbed me the wrong
way. i'm sorry but we need to have change in the big boy playground so us
little guys (newcomers} can also play and help premote libre free sofware
Well, I get your overall sentiment, but I'm not sure I totally agree in that
"nobody" has/is. There are a half dozen people here at a minimum that either
do contribute something. Be it development time, work on maintaining a
repository, work on maintaining a distribution (at least 3 people wh
"I've been on these forums 4+ years and besides Ruben packaging a Trisquel
ISO every few years, no one here has really contributed anything to the free
software cause of any significance."
Wow. Just. Wow.
Your entitled to that position, but its contradictory to movement's position.
Non-free software is unethical. If you don't agree then it's not the right
place for you.
Sorry, I was distracted by your incorrect usage of "your" and "you're". :-)
Anyways, I softballed some solutions to the free engine debacle so hopefully
it was helpful.
I think your missing the point. It's not a topic we should be discussing
here. We shouldn't be having a discussion on DRM in relation to gaming. Any
game with DRM is non-free and not appropriate here. If you feel otherwise
it's a discussion you need to take elsewhere. In fact your not in agre
I've been on these forums 4+ years and besides Ruben packaging a Trisquel ISO
every few years, no one here has really contributed anything to the free
software cause of any significance. People here are more concerned in
pointing fingers and telling you that you are wrong without providing
It's not about the money. It's about reality. Sometimes to move forward you
need to take baby steps. * We don't tell users what distribution to get *. We
ask them what distribution would you like? And if they don't know they get a
'default'. The default is based off the assumption they don't
1. Your not following what I'm saying. If you waste time trying to get people
to understand your view point who aren't listening you might as well be
talking to a brick wall. It's better to spend time addressing the problems
which are holding people back from being able (due to lack of compet
i going to say this and be done with it- games are not evil- i am, tired of
people saying video games cause voilence but im sorry they dont but the linux
cummonity needs a game devolper team that runs an GPL engine and only focus
on games for linux but untill then i for one while pay 50 bucks
Check my comment above:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/do-drm-free-games-matter-even-if-game-non-free#comment-77905
One example is
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-pocket-wee-gnu-linux-desktop
"Default configuration:Ubuntu
Compatible with Microsoft Windows 7"
If Chris was 100% to free software like he preaches on here and fights with
people, he wouldn't offer Ubuntu or even mention it. S
This is the point I was trying to make in my original post. It is stupid that
the engine is closed source, but it is ok for the artwork to be not "gratis"
if you are trying to sell an actual game.
Some games like Team Fortress 2 are free to play but the only thing you pay
for is cosmetic it
Those artists are trying to make money from live performances because that is
the only way for them to make their own money these days. Gone are people
buying $20+ records (ever since Napster) and instead people would rather
download them on their smart phone, stream via a site like Spotify o
For a while I have been trying to think of ways to encourage more people to
make their games more freedom friendly but also get paid to continue to do
what they love. I do agree that making games DRM free is a good step in the
right direction, but there should be more than that.
You do have
How about a Free Philosophy page? You can have Games be a subpage on that and
have sticky topics on "Evil Consoles", "Windows DRM Games is a lesser evil of
Consoles", "DRM-Free/non-free Windows Games is a lesser evil of DRM Windows
Games", "DRM-Free/non-free games on a free OS is a lesser evi
Most Developers go for the convenience like the "I have to use Adobe" world
of Content Creators. When it comes to Games, they use middleware that have
re-licensing restrictions and in a lot of cases, making non-free software
free is just as hard as legally making a non-free fork of GPL Code,
Yes! Let's do it!
> DRM is a breach but not as bad as Windows 10
That doesn't excuse DRM, however.
I would argue that Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler, but that by no means
legitimises Stalin.
Agreed, interesting topic but there is nothing new to be said about it.
I think we're getting off topic... if people keep bringing up non-free
games...
for me guys - i am a gammer and i see why but i also learn since coming to
GN/ linux that DRM is a breach but not as bad as Windows 10! knowing me i
will install steam on this desktop like i have on my laptop and play my
games! the free games in the repos are fun but bothing beats pamajas sa
To answer OP: That's a problem the aswer for which is different for every
individual. But it's still non-free software.
I'd encourage people to avoid playing, paying for, contributing to, or even
discussing the games dependent on non-free code. Talking about them furthers
the publicity of the game. I'm not going to suggest we *censor* users who
choose to talk about them as that too would be wrong.
Digital restrictions make a mockery of copyright system in denying the users
access to the works after the 'limited term' for which the public was in
theory suppose later benefit from as a result of more works. Obviously DRM
prevents that from happening in theory if it were ever to actually b
And "free trade" agreements like TPP, TISA, TTIP will extend the copyright
term even further if passed :(
I personally bought many games that are closed source but have open source
engines, especially, when the developer of the game also develops the engine.
I find it stupid, when games, specially the engine, are kept close source. It
just hinders fans from keeping it up to date.
I dont´t dislike copyright, but it just doesn´t work for anyone, at least
for long.
A game can be copied, just like many other things. It can get incompatible,
specially the DRM... (old incompatible CD-checks aren´t fun).
When Games are considered art, then they should be archived as good as
"I think it may just be the only justifiable case for copyright today would
be those distributing content under copyleft licenses. These works truly are
for the benefit of all."
Indeed, and I think that any discussion of ending copyright needs to be
paired with a discussion of how copyleft
Are we allowed to talk about an idealized society, with a radically different
economic structure than ours?
I think you have to ask this question: Should we even accept copyright in the
first place? It's taking away what is otherwise peoples rights to free
expression. The justification for copyright was the benefit of the arts and
sciences. However it was always intended to be "limited". That was o
moxalt wrote:
Regardless of whether they implement DRM or not, they are still non-free
software, and must be opposed on those grounds.
And in addition from a security perspective, any non-free software one runs
has as much access to the computer as the user account under which it runs.
So any
There seems to be some confusion going on again.
"Or maybe its free software but has pay for assets."
Here you're again confusing libre and gratis. So for this purpose I'll try to
say libre. Saying "but has pay for assets" tells me nothing of that license
of those assets. Someone can pay for
Here's another question for you. Let's say someone develops a game that fits
your ideals of free software and free culture. Or maybe its free software but
has pay for assets. A customer goes on the site and buys the game and the
developer doesn't immediately offer the source code for that gam
"Ideally, you create a paywall for your game where they must pay for their
copy of it. But then realistically, once that tarball and source code is out
there after the first person buys it, it is distributed freely without
restriction according to the free software license. It reminds me of t
Ideally, you create a paywall for your game where they must pay for their
copy of it. But then realistically, once that tarball and source code is out
there after the first person buys it, it is distributed freely without
restriction according to the free software license. It reminds me of th
In this post you still seem to be confusing gratis and libre. At no point
have I said everything must be gratis. Please correct your understanding. :)
"...when you want to aim for something as big as a video game and want
quality work while still respecting freedoms."
It seems interesting t
So let's talk more about this art issue. You pay for the right to see a movie
in a movie theatre or steam a movie. Let's say you pay for tickets to go to a
concert a poetry reading. You and you alone specifically have the right to
view that medium for the duration. That guy off the street who
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/07/01/bungie-says-destiny-cost-nowhere-near-500-million-decade-long-story-planned/
RMS doesn't think a game's art assets have to be free-- he thinks everyone
should be able to redistribute art non-commercially, though.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/13/destiny-500-million/
It is the total package including the marketing in addition to the
development.
If that is inaccurate, there is another list at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
which has more info. Either w
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
"Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because
they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it
isn't software.)"
"Since the art in the game is not software, it does not need to be f
Let's think about this typical scenario:
I have 10 employees (which is pretty low) and have the intention to create a
game. Since the game is aiming to use a pure FLOSS engine, either I or
someone on that team has to build it from scratch which takes time and
effort. Let's say I aim for a y
Just out of interest, I want to point out what the numbers are like with a
500 million dollar game. I think you might be misinterpreting the statistics
(Wikipedia says that 500 million dollars was the total money earned from the
initially sold copies), but let's just assume you're right: at $
"You are telling me that a company should spend that amount of money and then
give EVERYTHING away for free?"
You of all people should know that when we're talking of free it doesn't mean
gratis. Free software and free culture aren't anti-money. Recall what I said
earlier that "I'd like to se
Except that a budget for a video game is much bigger than developing web
server software or a JavaScript library. I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars (GTAV was like $250 mil and Destiny was $500 mil) that is not
possible with a pure FLOSS game. You are telling me that a company should
"...and serves one purpose." Says who? Everyone deserves the fundamental
right to copy, modify and share. Period. It is the user's purpose that
matters, not the developer's purpose. The developer of the program is not
entitled to impose their purposes on someone else. All software is a "tool"
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
