#1 fave game for pandy?


BattleJewels is free; at least, should be .. there was a 'demo version' floating around, but the full version should be around .. I should check :eek:


jeff

Onpon is one of those GPL fanatics that cuts off his nose to spite his face. If full source code isn't included with a viral redistribution license, then it's spawned from the very pits of hell and not fit to be trodden on by his brown socks and sandals. It's not a question of price, it's a holy war for these guys.


D.

Silliness; sometimes its not really a viable option; I've done more than my fair share of open, and sometimes I also like to put bread on the table :)


I'll open source up BattleJewels one day, but not just yet :eek:


jeff
 
Onpon is one of those GPL fanatics that cuts off his nose to spite his face. If full source code isn't included with a viral redistribution license, then it's spawned from the very pits of hell and not fit to be trodden on by his brown socks and sandals. It's not a question of price, it's a holy war for these guys.

No, if it was a "holy war", I would be launching my DDoS attack army (which I don't have) at nonfree software developers. It's not a "holy war" by any stretch, it's a boycott.


Also, you've got my requirements wrong. Copyleft is not my primary concern. Freedom is. I think copyleft is a good idea, but public domain or permissively-licensed programs are perfectly fine, too.


Copyleft isn't really "viral", either. It's more of an immune defense. The license doesn't spread anywhere; it just prevents the program licensed under the copyleft license from being re-licensed under a different one. New code is only required to licensed under the GPL if it's combined with the program (and at that, still only in the context of the program).

Silliness; sometimes its not really a viable option; I've done more than my fair share of open, and sometimes I also like to put bread on the table :)

http://www.gnu.org/p...hy/selling.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do believe you're getting your quotes wrong, onpon. Be careful with attribution.
 
I do believe you're getting your quotes wrong, onpon. Be careful with attribution.

you're preventing him from exercising his right to freedom! Quotes should be able to be attributed any way he likes so long as the quote remains intact! THIS MEANS WAR! WITH SANDALS!


D.
 
you're preventing him from exercising his right to freedom! Quotes should be able to be attributed any way he likes so long as the quote remains intact! THIS MEANS WAR! WITH SANDALS!

Erm, no, that's not true. Moxie just pointed out that I made a mistake and (implicitly) asked me to correct it. That's not even forcing me to fix the mistake, and surely you know that many free licenses (especially for art, such as all CC licenses) require proper attribution? A simple requirement such as correct attribution (i.e. no plagiarism) doesn't hurt freedom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you're preventing him from exercising his right to freedom! Quotes should be able to be attributed any way he likes so long as the quote remains intact! THIS MEANS WAR! WITH SANDALS!

Erm, no, that's not true. Moxie just pointed out that I made a mistake and (implicitly) asked me to correct it. That's not even forcing me to fix the mistake, and surely you know that many free licenses (especially for art, such as all CC licenses) require proper attribution? A simple requirement such as correct attribution (i.e. no plagiarism) doesn't hurt freedom.

You're trying to deny me of my freedom to ridicule your ridiculous position, and I won't have it young man. The more you tighten your license, the more great software slips through your fingers. You shun any author who declines to provide source code for free, as if you have any right at all to have access to that which you have invested no effort into. You're like a schoolchild who stamps his feet and declares that anyone that won't play their game by his rules shan't play at all, but when confronted and called to account for his entitled attitude attacks those whom he is trying to restrict passive-aggressively.


I'm onto you, you restricter of freedoms, and you won't get away with it!


D.
 

Really, your "jokes" are not funny. Telling someone in an authoritative voice to not redistribute a program that they already have the right to distribute would make you a jerk, but it doesn't take away their freedom because demands have no legal merit by themselves (there must be a contract or law involved, and the only related law here is copyright, which has already been taken care of by the free license).


Similarly, my refusal to accept your unfunny "jokes", which are essentially just terrible stawmen, does not restrict you from "ridiculing a ridiculous position" (that I don't have). I'm not just going to silently ignore your "fun" when this "fun" involves pretending that I have positions that I don't have, no matter how funny you think it is.
 

Really, your "jokes" are not funny. Telling someone in an authoritative voice to not redistribute a program that they already have the right to distribute would make you a jerk, but it doesn't take away their freedom because demands have no legal merit by themselves (there must be a contract or law involved, and the only related law here is copyright, which has already been taken care of by the free license).


Similarly, my refusal to accept your unfunny "jokes", which are essentially just terrible stawmen, does not restrict you from "ridiculing a ridiculous position" (that I don't have). I'm not just going to silently ignore your "fun" when this "fun" involves pretending that I have positions that I don't have, no matter how funny you think it is.

In other words, you're unable to defend yourself. You're a shameful man, Onpon4, a shameful man. You deliberately restrict your enjoyment of others' work simply because they won't provide you with their hard work for free. That's not only silly, but it's also spoilt.


D.
 
What's silly or spoilt about deciding to only use Free software?


Do you also consider it silly/spoilt to not buy iPads because you don't like locked-down hardware (even if there are TONS of gratis apps!)? Or to refuse to use Microsoft Windows even if it came pre-installed on your new laptop?


Or for that matter, to be a vegetarian? Or someone who uses a bike and public transport instead of a car? Or to not want to watch Hollywood chick flicks?


Some people have certain ethical/moral/whatever principles they like to stick to, and I don't see anything wrong with that.


If you consider those principles to be ridiculous, that's fine, then you clearly have different principles. You can discuss your differences if you want, or try to convince one another to change their opinion. Let's do that in a nice and grown-up way though. And no, ZXDunny, it's not because you're older than onpon4 that your argumentation automagically becomes more mature than his.


</SANDALS>
 
In other words, you're unable to defend yourself. You're a shameful man, Onpon4, a shameful man.

I have to defend myself from strawman arguments?

You deliberately restrict your enjoyment of others' work simply because they won't provide you with their hard work for free. That's not only silly, but it's also spoilt.

I never said "for free". I'm talking about freedom, not price, and I would gladly pay for free software assuming I have the money to spare and have an interest in or use for the program. No wonder you're strawmanning my position if you don't even know what free software is.


I'll leave your "spoilt" crap to what _wb_ said.
 
In other words, you're unable to defend yourself. You're a shameful man, Onpon4, a shameful man.

I have to defend myself from strawman arguments?

You deliberately restrict your enjoyment of others' work simply because they won't provide you with their hard work for free. That's not only silly, but it's also spoilt.

I never said "for free". I'm talking about freedom, not price, and I would gladly pay for free software assuming I have the money to spare and have an interest in or use for the program. No wonder you're strawmanning my position if you don't even know what free software is.


I'll leave your "spoilt" crap to what _wb_ said.

You said non-free; hence you expect (no, you demand) access to the source code. Not only that, but you demand that you be able to do whatever you want with that source code, including releasing (should you choose) modifications that may cast the original in a poor light - and you intentionally restrict other's freedom to do what they want with the source - they can only have it if they comply with your wishes for unrestricted distribution. You have a very funny idea of what "freedom" is.


What I find to be very amusing is that you used all this non-free software at one point, and that you would intentionally deprive yourself of that enjoyment over the fact that you cannot have the source - which is a pretty idiotic thing to do, in my opinion.


Still, carry on if you wish, while the rest of the world continues to enjoy things that may not be free as in freedom, but are free as in beer (as the saying in your dwindling community of adherents goes).


D.
 
You said non-free; hence you expect (no, you demand) access to the source code. Not only that, but you demand that you be able to do whatever you want with that source code, including releasing (should you choose) modifications that may cast the original in a poor light - and you intentionally restrict other's freedom to do what they want with the source - they can only have it if they comply with your wishes for unrestricted distribution. You have a very funny idea of what "freedom" is.

Then I'm sure you would not be opposed to being told that you are not allowed to change a house which you own, or make duplicates of chairs you own, or not being allowed to fix your broken devces. Of course, that would be silly, wouldn't it? Why should you be allowed to do what you want with your house or chairs or devices? It would be perfectly reasonable for you to have to contact the original manufacturer or builder of the object in question in order to get any repairs or modifications done, even though you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself.

What I find to be very amusing is that you used all this non-free software at one point, and that you would intentionally deprive yourself of that enjoyment over the fact that you cannot have the source - which is a pretty idiotic thing to do, in my opinion.

It's not just about source. You're simplifying the issue. Source is just a precondition for two of the necessary freedoms.


So what if I used nonfree software before? I don't do that anymore. In the past, I traded freedom for a small amount of entertainment or convenience. I don't do that now because I value freedom more.

Still, carry on if you wish, while the rest of the world continues to enjoy things that may not be free as in freedom, but are free as in beer (as the saying in your dwindling community of adherents goes).

The free software community isn't "dwindling". I don't know where you get this idea from.


You may enjoy your nonfree gratis programs now, but you won't if you find out that there is a serious problem for you that the original developer is uninterested in fixing, or if you have trouble running the game in the future because the original developer stopped porting it long ago, and the current nonfree OS you're using is not backwards-compatible with that ancient binary-only copy you got. I've experienced both of these occurrences, for the record. (Please don't give me "use an emulator". This is not always viable, and the key issue is you're not allowed to fix the problem with the program, not that the problem exists.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I may interject (ignore if I may not):

Then I'm sure you would not be opposed to being told that you are not allowed to change a house which you own, or make duplicates of chairs you own, or not being allowed to fix your broken devces. Of course, that would be silly, wouldn't it?
I don't think Dunny has said anything to suggest this. He hasn't said that "free" software is bad, nor has he suggested that given the choice between "free" and "non-free" he would choose "non-free". He takes issues with your rejecting something simply because it doesn't conform to your sense of "freedom".


To use your house analogy, imagine there are two houses: one is an awesome house near your work but is in a community which puts restrictions on what kind of yard work you can do (yes, these places exist, this is not entirely hypothetical); the other is some ways from your office, a little run down, but is not part of a community so you can freely do whatever you want in your yard, build fences or plant trees or whatever you want without having to seek approval. Your dedication to "freedom" that Dunny is taking offense to would be the equivalent of rejecting the good house near your office out of a strict sense that you should always be allowed to do whatever you want with your yard. It doesn't matter that the house is really good and that you don't think you'll ever have a problem with the restrictions, you are rejecting it for the single reason that there are restrictions at all.


I have to agree, this is a silly stance to take, depriving yourself of something you enjoy for no reason other than it doesn't fit your philosophy 100%. Whenever the choice exists, I will absolutely take the "free" version myself, even going so far as to pay more for it, or at a loss of certain features that I wouldn't need, but where no option exists I make the concession and just use the "non-free" version. I cannot comprehend using something, deciding that I like it and would like to continue using it, but ultimately rejecting it and choosing nothing instead because I don't have the ability to modify it, especially when I am unlikely to even want to modify it.
 
I don't think Dunny has said anything to suggest this. He hasn't said that "free" software is bad, nor has he suggested that given the choice between "free" and "non-free" he would choose "non-free". He takes issues with your rejecting something simply because it doesn't conform to your sense of "freedom".

He was saying that it was silly ("ridiculous") of me to expect to have the freedoms I expect from software. I just applied those freedoms to everyday physical objects and retorted that it must also be silly to expect similar freedoms with the physical objects. I don't see where the incongruity is.

To use your house analogy, imagine there are two houses: one is an awesome house near your work but is in a community which puts restrictions on what kind of yard work you can do (yes, these places exist, this is not entirely hypothetical); the other is some ways from your office, a little run down, but is not part of a community so you can freely do whatever you want in your yard, build fences or plant trees or whatever you want without having to seek approval. Your dedication to "freedom" that Dunny is taking offense to would be the equivalent of rejecting the good house near your office out of a strict sense that you should always be allowed to do whatever you want with your yard. It doesn't matter that the house is really good and that you don't think you'll ever have a problem with the restrictions, you are rejecting it for the single reason that there are restrictions at all.

It sounds to me like you're talking about local laws. That makes absolutely no sense as a comparison. For the comparison to be proper, we need to be talking about the house itself, which you own, and you being denied the right to modify it by the builder of the house. The house is built in such a way as to make it almost impossible to figure out how to change it, and it is illegal to do so even if you find out how to; the original builder of the house has a legal monopoly on modifying and fixing this house both because only he knows how to do it and because anyone else who tries to do it will be sued.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think Dunny has said anything to suggest this. He hasn't said that "free" software is bad, nor has he suggested that given the choice between "free" and "non-free" he would choose "non-free". He takes issues with your rejecting something simply because it doesn't conform to your sense of "freedom".

He was saying that it was silly ("ridiculous") of me to expect to have the freedoms I expect from software. I just applied those freedoms to everyday physical objects and retorted that it must also be silly to expect similar freedoms with the physical objects. I don't see where the incongruity is.

So what if I write a piece of software that runs on Hardware X? I have fans of my previous work, but they all run Hardware Y. I have ideological reasons for not wanting hardware Y being able to run my code - maybe I disagree with the manufacturers methods of employment or somesuch.


If I want to be able to maintain my rights to have my code run on the platforms I choose, I absolutely must avoid licenses like the GPL like the plague that they are, because they remove those rights from me. If I open the source, then I no longer have any control.


Your crusade removes freedom, end of.


And besides, if my apps or games need to be updated later on when the hardware is obsolete, then hey - I've got the source. If I lose interest, I may open it later. But do you really want to wait that long when you can enjoy it now? Again, you're coming across as a spoilt brat who stamps his feet when he's told that he can't have the source - "well then, I'll not play at all!" is your attitude.


Of course, you can go and play some cheap substandard knock-off which features a penguin in the starring role, but you will always know deep down that it will never be as good as the game or app it's trying to emulate.


D.
 
He was saying that it was silly ("ridiculous") of me to expect to have the freedoms I expect from software. I just applied those freedoms to everyday physical objects and retorted that it must also be silly to expect similar freedoms with the physical objects. I don't see where the incongruity is.
Of course you don't, because you didn't fully read or understand my rebuttal.

It sounds to me like you're talking about local laws. That makes absolutely no sense as a comparison.
and it is illegal to do so even if you find out how to;
You can't say that me talking about "laws" in one case makes no sense and then proceed to make your own argument about something being illegal. It is the exact same point, you just twisted it to say you think that it is unfair. My original statement stands entirely as it did:


You have a house which for whatever reason contains restrictions to what you can or cannot do to that house. This house is otherwise perfect, it is a good location, cheap, has everything you want, but you are not allowed to modify certain things without getting complete approval from the housing committee. It is a house you would own, but because of the community you are in you must abide by certain terms with respect to what kind of work can be done on the house or the yard. They are not laws, they are agreements within the community that you'd be moving into. It is the only house currently available that meets all your criteria, except this one. You rejecting software which you would otherwise have accepted if not for the license it is under is very similar to rejecting this house because of the requirement of going through the committee should you want to change some things. Your stance is actually even more silly than the analogy because if you buy a house and then find something wrong with it that you can't change you are stuck with a house that no longer meets your criteria; if you start using software which you cannot change and find a problem with it you can then choose to simply stop using the software then and lose nothing, you are free to abandon the "non-free" software the instant it starts causing problems and try to find something else that fits you.


You liked playing BattleJewels. You claim that the only reason you stopped was because the source is not available, as if Skeezix keeping his source code safe was necessarily hampering your enjoyment of the end product. You are willingly depriving yourself of something you enjoyed because it doesn't suit your philosophy 100%, not because there was actually a problem that needed to be fixed, not because you were coming to depend on it and would be in a bad position if it did ever break, simply for ideological purposes and a sense of righteousness. That, to me, is a very silly reason to reject something. I can see the philosophy being applied to software with proprietary formats, or hardware with proprietary drivers, or perhaps games which you pay for and can honestly foresee yourself playing many years from now, but to reject something fun which costs nothing and loses nothing if it stops working? I cannot comprehend this method of thinking at all.


If you must use your furniture analogy, then yes, if someone gives me a chair, a very comfortable chair which suits all my needs, absolutely free of charge, with the stipulation that I not attempt to make any repairs or modifications to it ever, that I cannot sell or give it away, you had better believe I will accept that chair regardless of these requirements, because hey, free chair. I will not feel any sense of entitlement to the right to modify the chair because not doing so was a stipulation of the transaction. If the chair breaks or I find it is no longer suitable I am quite capable of destroying it and getting a new one from wherever I wish. The new one may cost money, it may not be as good, but for the time that I had the free chair I enjoyed it. It seems unreasonable to me that you would refuse this amazingly comfortable chair entirely free of charge simply because you are not allowed to make any modifications to it.
 
If I want to be able to maintain my rights to have my code run on the platforms I choose, I absolutely must avoid licenses like the GPL like the plague that they are, because they remove those rights from me. If I open the source, then I no longer have any control.


Your crusade removes freedom, end of.

Being able to force users of software to not run it on the platforms they choose is not freedom, it's power. Just like an author of a book forcing you to only read at certain times of the day. And I don't respect your hunger for power.

You can't say that me talking about "laws" in one case makes no sense and then proceed to make your own argument about something being illegal.

You're acting like I have to either accept any and all losses to freedom or be a flat-out anarchist. That's ludicrous, and by that logic, you ought to move to North Korea because, hey, they give you free stuff, and who cares about freedom, right?


Come on, you can't see why the government telling you you can't put a fence in your yard is completely different than the writer of software telling you you can't study, modify, or redistribute your copy of the software, or the builder of a house telling you you can't add a new window?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top