onpon4 wrote:It's libre because though it has the potential to be obnoxious, it does not take away any of the four essential freedoms.
I looked it up on the GNU website
and it seems like you might be right, but I think the Free Software Foundation is mainly concerned about making the code free. In a regular program the graphics are usually less important (if it has any) and what you really care about is the functionality of the program. Substituting the graphics is usually not a huge deal. For games it is totally different. Graphics (and other artwork) are often equally (if not more) important as the code so I think it might be necessary to use slightly different definitions in order to describe what it means for a game to be truly free.
onpon4 wrote:The URI example given there is a good one. Another good example would be if the author asks to be in the credits, but you don't have a credits screen, so you just create a text file called "credits.txt" to save time.
Are you saying you think a credits.txt would be enough for a game? That would be acceptable I guess.
eugeneloza wrote:So... the author created a piece of work and gives it away for free.
Remember that we are talking about free software here. Just being free of charge
is not good enough.
eugeneloza wrote:And he asks just for one tiny thing. Don't deceive, that you did it (and when you don't say "author is..." people are lead astray to think you did all the job). He is still the author. And he wants it clearly pointed out.
How come is that "non-free"?
I'm OK with the "don't deceive" part, but I don't think I deceive anyone by not mentioning people. If I lied or refused to answer questions about the authorship that would be deceiving.
Everything we do is a continuation of what other people have done. We never start from scratch. A painter has learned from other painters. He also uses a brush. A brush was at some time invented by some person. The particular brush is design by yet a another person. And so on. But still, the painting only got one name on it.
We are not forced to include credits for all authors of compiler, libraries, and other software so why should images be different?
eugeneloza wrote:Well... yes, that might be a minor (but forced) advertisement for the author. Emm... does it really that bad?
I think so. It's not so much the exact nature of the credits, but more the fact that it forces things onto the end product. I think the observable behaviour (including the interface) of a program that is free software should be allowed to be modified in any way one wants.
eugeneloza wrote:And finally... isn't it nice to be good??? It's MY pleasure to credit all the authors. Even those who released their works under CC0. Even those who died several centuries ago. Hey, guys, YOU ARE GREAT!!! I wan to thank you and I acknowledge officially you're great!
I'm not opposing credits. I'm only opposing being forced to have them. Go ahead and have credits if you want.
This thread was started because I had serious doubts if attribution licenses should be considered to be in the spirit of free software. This is important to me on an ideological basis, but it is unlikely to affect my own games because I prefer doing all "artwork" myself (I'm not claiming to be good at it).
The OP would be surprised while reading such free licenses as GPL or AGPL.
What do you mean? I don't need to include all copyright holders of the GPL licensed code in the credits.