B) procuring software is a two-way street … the producer assigns terms by which access is obtained, and you agree to those terms in exchange for that access. If the software is SaaS then if the producer chooses to shut down the service then you are SOL. If the software is provided with a long list of terms via Steam, then you are basically buying SaaS with local caching and execution. Maybe don’t reward producers by agreeing to one-sided deals like SaaS?
This kind of headache is what prompted Richard Stallman to come up with the idea for the GNU license. Maybe you think that is too radical… but maybe imposing your ideas of what licensing terms should look like on (only?) game developers is radical also.
For the same reason I think software developers have the right to choose to release under copyleft, I think they have the right to release under SaaS or copyright. I don’t think it is fair to take those rights from them. (I may choose to avoid SaaS or other proprietary models where possible, but I am not pure about it… I just do so recognizing that proprietary tools are a band-aid and could become unusable when any upgrade or TOS changes.)
As one example, keep in mind that some governments may choose to punish a software developer for making “offensive” (by whatever their standards are) content, and rather than fighting a losing battle in one jurisdiction so you in some other jurisdiction can keep using that controversial software the developer may just choose to cut their losses and turn it off for everyone. If you force them to release it anyway then said punitive government may continue to hold the developer responsible for the existence of that software.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.
also, no modern game companies with any relevance use a FOSS license.
so the way i see it, gamers have two options:
stop playing videogames
or
only play supertuxkart and dwarf fortress
neither of these would happen at a scale large enough to force game studios into making their games FOSS.
the only way i can see of making this happen is by either:
a series of very popular, targeted boycotts at studios,
or
making governments regulate the industry.
and with the second option, history has shown that only small changes have a chance of passing. effectively abolishing copyright law for software is not something the EU will ever do, no matter how many signatures a petition gets.
The argument here is that they don’t need to open source or switch over to an FOSS license.
They just need to not actively prohibit people from doing custom servers and they need to release their own server files wheb their support period ends.
If that ends with violating a license agreement they have with another company that is exclusively a that company problem because as shown in the past, law supercedes agreement and contracts.
It will basically put branding companies at a either they don’t agree to let their stuff be used in games and not get the money for it, or they decide that it really doesn’t matter all that much if a community project can use their stuff. Simple choice
They can still release their bespoke parts without any of the third party licensed stuff. Even without instructions on what needs to be gotten and put back in. It’d allow the smarter guys in the community have a headstart to figuring it out anyway. Most licensed software can be replaced, look at the recent decomps like the Lego island one.
I don’t think they need to make their games FOSS to do right by the consumer. If you have an online game and no longer want to support the server part, it would be super cool to share that code, but at the very least companies shouldn’t be trying to shut down community servers. The same goes for the game itself, the source code would be very cool, but not going after people who still want to play the game they’ve chosen to no longer support seems reasonable.
If a company is ending support their ability to enforce copyright should also end, outside of people that are trying to profit off trying to resell the game as their own (which probably doesn’t happen all that much).
Dwarf Fortress is not free open source software! It’s a great game and runs natively on Linux. You can download it at no cost. But it’s not open source.
To address your first point. Yes it applies to other software, this initiative applies to games because the “buyer purchases a license to allow the seller to remove your purchase at some indefinite time later” practices have been most prevalent in gaming.
Extending the scope too far will bring in more opponents than allies and muddy the discussion. Getting a decisive answer here will inform laws on how other industries should be regulated in separate but parallel legislative processes.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
A) this issue applies to all kinds of software.
B) procuring software is a two-way street … the producer assigns terms by which access is obtained, and you agree to those terms in exchange for that access. If the software is SaaS then if the producer chooses to shut down the service then you are SOL. If the software is provided with a long list of terms via Steam, then you are basically buying SaaS with local caching and execution. Maybe don’t reward producers by agreeing to one-sided deals like SaaS?
This kind of headache is what prompted Richard Stallman to come up with the idea for the GNU license. Maybe you think that is too radical… but maybe imposing your ideas of what licensing terms should look like on (only?) game developers is radical also.
A) yes it does.
B) I’m assuming that you are somehow against this pro consumer movement. If so: why?
For the same reason I think software developers have the right to choose to release under copyleft, I think they have the right to release under SaaS or copyright. I don’t think it is fair to take those rights from them. (I may choose to avoid SaaS or other proprietary models where possible, but I am not pure about it… I just do so recognizing that proprietary tools are a band-aid and could become unusable when any upgrade or TOS changes.)
As one example, keep in mind that some governments may choose to punish a software developer for making “offensive” (by whatever their standards are) content, and rather than fighting a losing battle in one jurisdiction so you in some other jurisdiction can keep using that controversial software the developer may just choose to cut their losses and turn it off for everyone. If you force them to release it anyway then said punitive government may continue to hold the developer responsible for the existence of that software.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.
Sounds like the ol’ slippery slope argument.
nobody reads the terms of service, ever.
also, no modern game companies with any relevance use a FOSS license.
so the way i see it, gamers have two options:
neither of these would happen at a scale large enough to force game studios into making their games FOSS.
the only way i can see of making this happen is by either:
and with the second option, history has shown that only small changes have a chance of passing. effectively abolishing copyright law for software is not something the EU will ever do, no matter how many signatures a petition gets.
The argument here is that they don’t need to open source or switch over to an FOSS license.
They just need to not actively prohibit people from doing custom servers and they need to release their own server files wheb their support period ends.
If that ends with violating a license agreement they have with another company that is exclusively a that company problem because as shown in the past, law supercedes agreement and contracts.
It will basically put branding companies at a either they don’t agree to let their stuff be used in games and not get the money for it, or they decide that it really doesn’t matter all that much if a community project can use their stuff. Simple choice
They can still release their bespoke parts without any of the third party licensed stuff. Even without instructions on what needs to be gotten and put back in. It’d allow the smarter guys in the community have a headstart to figuring it out anyway. Most licensed software can be replaced, look at the recent decomps like the Lego island one.
I don’t think they need to make their games FOSS to do right by the consumer. If you have an online game and no longer want to support the server part, it would be super cool to share that code, but at the very least companies shouldn’t be trying to shut down community servers. The same goes for the game itself, the source code would be very cool, but not going after people who still want to play the game they’ve chosen to no longer support seems reasonable.
If a company is ending support their ability to enforce copyright should also end, outside of people that are trying to profit off trying to resell the game as their own (which probably doesn’t happen all that much).
Dwarf Fortress is not free open source software! It’s a great game and runs natively on Linux. You can download it at no cost. But it’s not open source.
nuuu i always thought it was! so sad
There’s this madlad called BlenderDumbass that’s making a FOSS GTA clone in UPBGE & Python
To address your first point. Yes it applies to other software, this initiative applies to games because the “buyer purchases a license to allow the seller to remove your purchase at some indefinite time later” practices have been most prevalent in gaming.
Extending the scope too far will bring in more opponents than allies and muddy the discussion. Getting a decisive answer here will inform laws on how other industries should be regulated in separate but parallel legislative processes.