[App] SkyBoxer — for the mac.

[tundramagi]

Firstly, I meant commercial use or not shouldn't be considered in an OSS license and shouldn't be part of it.

If commercial/selling use was banned it wouldn't be an OSS license. It would be a communist/socialist license. The free-software movement has done more in ten years than the communist/socialist programming "scene" has done in 30.

It's not like one can lock up a recursivly-licensed free-libre software product: the guy who the "evil commercial entity" sells the thing to can just give it away again as intended.

I don't really understand why one would license a small app ment to support a free-opensource project using a license that is less free. Nexuiz is huge, look what you gain from it. Why put your own semi-contribution under a sharewareish license rather than make a true contribution (under the GPL or similar)?

Why the "damn can't let those fsking COMPANIES exploit my work!!!!"(-- yea, not going to happen--) attitude.

There is a burning clear line of demarcation between FL/OSS and freeware/shareware, so don't try to mix them up . That line of demarcation is weather or not an author feels jelaous enough of "The Man" to "make sure" that "The Big Guy" can't profit off the "Little Guy's" work: class struggle/warfare (even if that big bad evil big guy would only profit once before the thing was out in the open again). OSS devs aren't interested in such: FL/OSS is for everyone (both big evil rich people that the communists/socialists hate and the poor people and the communists/socialists aswell). Shareware/freeware/etc is built on the idea of class struggle; of being the "little guy" fighting against "goliath" or "the rich capitalists"... that's what it's whole community is based on.

[tundramagi]

You can use and distribute the thing for free. Don't take credit for it, and don't charge for it (as if…).

He does not forbid using its result for profit. He just forbids selling his PROGRAM, but no restriction on its OUTPUT (unlike, for example, Terragen). And that he can do. Skyboxes made with it CAN be included under the GPL with Nexuiz, as long as source of the skyboxes (if applicable) is included.

Such restrictions on works created with programs were demeed void in the US more than a decade ago. Anyone can put whatever they want in their license, but whatever you make with that program is yours and you can license it however you wish.

[tundramagi]

I'm even selling your maps for 20$ a copy. You get nothing, cause GPL that permits.

Enjoy your money. I'm not going to get angry if someone else makes some money off the stuff I gave away (my maps). I'm not an artist: I don't get all hurt if someone else is prospering: I don't feel entitled to $$$ from my work, nor to stop others from making $$$ from it.

I know that to gain economically one must usually create or do something at assists others in gaining economically. Creating art does not meet the definition of that. I don't expect to get paid for art nor am I going to fume and stamp my feet if someone else some how gains off the fun I've had making said art.::: I'm not an arteeeste.

[tundramagi]

Alien: you seem to dislike the idea a free-opensource (as defined by both the OSI and the FSF) software. I suggest you either become a mega-imaginary-property-capitalist or a no-rich-peeps-can-use-my-stuff communist: windows or... I dunno I guess apple, but theyre really part of the first group too... just watch all the cartoons on newgrounds.com and play the nexuiz map "our shining glorious future"... but maybe not with nexuiz... maybe with either unreal 3 (somehow map converted) or... some communist version of a quake engine you rebuilt that no rich people are allowed to use either.

[Alien]

And you're mixing what OpenSource software really is with FSF or OSI definitions. OpenSource by it's name gives you access to code and shouldn't be bothered by anything else. Or forcing the attribution makes the work non-opensource? It can't be gpl'ed, but it is open.

One has full rights not to RELEASE as GPL if one doesn't want. If you want 100% freedom for companies and resellers, release for public domain or wtfpl. There can't be more freedom than this.

[Alien]

You can use and distribute the thing for free. Don't take credit for it, and don't charge for it (as if…).

He does not forbid using its result for profit. He just forbids selling his PROGRAM, but no restriction on its OUTPUT (unlike, for example, Terragen). And that he can do. Skyboxes made with it CAN be included under the GPL with Nexuiz, as long as source of the skyboxes (if applicable) is included.

Such restrictions on works created with programs were demeed void in the US more than a decade ago. Anyone can put whatever they want in their license, but whatever you make with that program is yours and you can license it however you wish.

Have a link? Would be interested to find about the EU situation.

[tundramagi]

And you're mixing what opensource softwares is and FSF or OSI definitions.

One has full rights not to RELEASE as GPL if one doesn't want. If you want 100% freedom for companies and resellers, release for public domain or wtfpl. There can't be more freedom than this.

The FSF and OSI definitions ARE what free-opensource IS.

What YOU want it to be is some vangaurd communism bullshit where the poor working class triumph over the damned evil profit makers. It IS NOT THAT.

Damn, I wish nexuiz had more Linux users than windows etc: then we'd have more people that understand OSS rather than trying to redefine it into their david-beats-goliath-(and-becomes-new-goliath) worldview.

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You're not a fan of the freedom to redistribute. You want that to be restriced. Sorry, people far smarter than you have allready thought this stuff up, you can't redefine it, and you can't argue with the success that FL/OSS has had because it has been friendly to BOTH the "little guy" AND to the "big guy (Buisnesss)". The fact that companies are not barred from selling FL/OSS code means they can build products ontop of it, which means there is a reason to support the underlying FL/OSS platform and it's developers... by paying them!

If there was NO freedom to redistribute opensource coders WOULD NOT GET PAID AT ALL! Linus would NOT be payed (you cited linus being paid as a "reason" to can the GPL... yea whatever). The __REASON__ that OSS has FINANCIAL BACKING is because the oss code is NOT restricted to non-commercial use (something that YOU don't agree with) or resale.

Oh and where is the non-commercial avante-guard community... oh no where. Yep, FL/OSS really should follow them!

[Alien]

Ok, then use your free-opensource definition and leave opensourced non gpl compatible code for casual use. You can't define what opensource is cause it's general term. Defining opensource only from FSF or OSI point is the same as defining what OS is from microsoft point of view. They are general terms and therefore can't be defined by some corporations, foundations, initiatives.

Yeah, the companies are not barred from selling, but they don't provide source code either.

[tundramagi]

Ok, then use your free-opensource definition and leave opensourced non gpl compatible code for casual use. You can't define what opensource is cause it's general term. Defining opensource only from FSF or OSI point is the same as defining what OS is from microsoft point of view. They are general terms and therefore can't be defined by some corporations, foundations, initiatives.

Why when one is benefiting from true-free-opensource software, and one contributes a piece of software to assist, does one choose not to make their contribution true-free-opensource software aswell?

It's almost as if one thinks that one's contribution is "better" that everyone elses and deserves more "protection" (against those damned evil capitalists making a dime: stealing said dime from the mouth of an african child for shore (FSCKING WALL STREET!!1111)), "protection" that true-free-opensource software doesn't provide.

No one's going to port this tool to linux and windows now for general use by nexuiz mappers, and the tool will not join the nexuiz svn, because no one is going to be interested in working on something that feels that is it "better" that the whole library of things that have been previously contributed to nexuiz... so much so that it (the tool) needs that extra protection so people don't try to sell it to other people.

[Alien]

Now, you have true-free opensource. I doubt it's true or free, but you could use OSS by FSF/OSI definition the same way as using free by FSF/OSI definition.

Why one should be forced to release smth as GPL if he uses GPL products? By the same definition, all products should belong to microsoft if developed on windows.

One can release his code according to his own wishes which GPL does not provide. One could ask to pay for a license to sell and even close the forked code while still giving out the source code to anyone for personal use.

BTW, freedom of speech: http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermai ... 08465.html 4th point.