On Sunday 22 June 2003 23:23, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> Leo Spalteholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On June 22, 2003 10:25 am, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > Is this Free Software? It doesn't seem to be. It's nice that the
> > > US army is willing to release violent propaganda for "Linux"
> > > systems, but if it's not Free Software then I don't see how this
> > > is any better than running quake3 or unreal tournament.
> >
> > Oh for christs sake, come down from your ivory tower already.
> > Its better than running quake3 or UT because unless you're stealing
> > those games, you have to pay for them.
>
> No I've seen gratis (free to download) versions of quake3 out
> there. They might have been demos but they let you play online. And I
> don't mind paying for software if I am free to copy, modify, etc. it
> :)
>
> > Is that not enough for you? Stop your bitching and complaining and
> > appreciate this for what it is, a free, high quality game with good
> > linux support. I think its amazing that this even got done.
> >
> > Damn these free software holier than thou zealots really drive me
> > through the roof. Sorry to everyone else for the rant.
>
> I'm sorry that I offended you by pointing out that this is not
> technically Free Software. Debian aims to be a Free operating
> system. Now I might run a piece of proprietary software if I really
> have no choice (I even use Windows), but I always consider the
> alternatives.
>
> I think that the engine to quake2 is available as Free Software
> (GPL'd I think) and it can load custom maps and such, which are also
> free. That's much more amazing. A commercial company GPL'd a major
> game. It's not that surprising that the US army releases a binary
> only copy of their game for linux.
I don't know why everybody is flaming Bijan. I think his argument is
valid.
Call me a zealot, or anything you want, but I really care about my
freedom. Accept is guys, there are people out there, who care about
free software. There are people, who really do not run anything other
than free software. There are people, who really beleive that software
should be free (as in freedom) and that it is not right to buy a
software, which you don't know how it operates.
I actually kind of expected DoD to release the game as Open Source. Back
in the old days, DoD didn't have problems sponsoring BSD. They paid
the University of Berkely to develope the TCP/IP stack, because they
needed this protocol. And the university developed it, and put it into
public domain (The BSD license is kind of public domain). That was teh
right thing to do, because BSD was developed by tax payer's money, so
it was everybody's right to use it, and to modify it. (Even MS
benefited from that act).
How is it different now? I don't know. Other than the fact that maybe in
70s, most software was published with source code, but it's the
opposite now a days.
The way I view the situation, DoD needed to to develop this game (for
whatever the reason), so they paid someone (or some company) to develop
it. Why didn't put the source into public domain? They certainly should
have done it. It is exactly like the TCP/IP situation. Clearly, if
TCP/IP wasn't Open Source, it wouldn't have had the success that it
enjoys today.
I mean, you guys have paid your hard earned cash to the government, and
that money has been spent to develop this game. It is your right to see
how it has been developed, and how it works. It is your right to modify
it to suite your needs.
Why hasn't the DoD (or who ever developed this game) released under Open
Source? What is the advantage of keeping the code secret?
Cheers
--
/* "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a
conservative without changing a single idea."
--Robert Anton Wilson*/
Aryan Ameri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
