Tremulous Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: quadregen on April 23, 2012, 10:23:09 pm
-
M. Kristall suggested I posted here. I posted Tremulous on the mac appstore. He asked me to post here regarding having it back on the appstore, since it's currently removed. I've made several changes as requested by Kristall, like fixing the version number, and putting the right web address. In case you were all asking yourselves, there's costs associated with having any kind of app on the mac appstore, and sales until it was removed barely covered the appstore expenses. This could actually help Tremulous get new people playing it and people developing it too. Tremulous got featured in the mac appstore when it was released, in their New and Noteworthy section.
-
I think it's wrong to ask money from people for a free, open source game. It's misleading.
-
Well… GPL never did forbid people from selling products licensed under it (if you distribute the sources), so it's pointless at most.
-
In case you were all asking yourselves, there's costs associated with having any kind of app on the mac appstore, and sales until it was removed barely covered the appstore expenses.
Firstly, I'm interested to know what/why it would cost you money to provide a software product for Apple to sell. Would Apple really charge you to host content when they're already taking a cut of your sales? I don't believe it. Maybe if you're buying advertising but otherwise, no.
Secondly, I take it from "barely covered the appstore expenses" that you still managed to cover these alleged expenses and make some profit on this free game that wasn't made by you. In that case, you are a morally corrupt bastard.
-
In case you were all asking yourselves, there's costs associated with having any kind of app on the mac appstore, and sales until it was removed barely covered the appstore expenses.
Firstly, I'm interested to know what/why it would cost you money to provide a software product for Apple to sell. Would Apple really charge you to host content when they're already taking a cut of your sales? I don't believe it. Maybe if you're buying advertising but otherwise, no.
Secondly, I take it from "barely covered the appstore expenses" that you still managed to cover these alleged expenses and make some profit on this free game that wasn't made by you. In that case, you are a morally corrupt bastard.
It's $99 yearly cost to host any app on top of the 30% cut that they take. That's without any advertising. When i say barely, i mean it helped cover some of the cost, it didnt make the $99 that covers this year, meaning that it's not a profitable venture to have it up there. In case you failed to see, last year it was actually a free download in the Appstore, and has been free at times this year too. If you had done any simple 4 second research you would've found all this out. In that case, you are a quick to talk self-righteous bastard.
-
Well… GPL never did forbid people from selling products licensed under it (if you distribute the sources), so it's pointless at most.
Yes, the GPL allows commercial exploitation, and well, not everyone has fast 100+ mbit downstream on their homes, which is why its not completely pointless. The mac appstore is a very good way to promote a product too.
-
It's $99 yearly cost to host any app on top of the 30% cut that they take. That's without any advertising. When i say barely, i mean it helped cover some of the cost, it didnt make the $99 that covers this year, meaning that it's not a profitable venture to have it up there. In case you failed to see, last year it was actually a free download in the Appstore, and has been free at times this year too. If you had done any simple 4 second research you would've found all this out. In that case, you are a quick to talk self-righteous bastard.
I'd still be taking your word for it since I couldn't find anything about costs other than the cut they take. I would fully appreciate any sources you could give for this cost. And this really is only out of interest: I don't need to know whether you actually made money to come to the conclusion your morals are broken. You submitted free software to a place where it is sold. Any profits would go to you despite the fact that you didn't make it. You didn't even announce what you were doing here until it was taken down (for what I can only guess were these very reasons).
-
Yes, the GPL allows commercial exploitation
Stop right here.
You are everything that is wrong with open source. The GPL was made in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, and the potential for an honest group of people to market a product. The GPL was not made with the intent of some bottom feeder like you taking a product he has nothing to do with, attempting to sell it for profit, and then coming here to try to goad people into another commercial venture. You are the same sort of human garbage as this guy, (http://www.mcburrz.com/) and many others that try to sell free software to gullible consumers.
Get out.
-
Yes, the GPL allows commercial exploitation
Stop right here.
You are everything that is wrong with open source. The GPL was made in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, and the potential for an honest group of people to market a product. The GPL was not made with the intent of some bottom feeder like you taking a product he has nothing to do with, attempting to sell it for profit, and then coming here to try to goad people into another commercial venture. You are the same sort of human garbage as this guy, (http://www.mcburrz.com/) and many others that try to sell free software to gullible consumers.
Get out.
If this guy wants to sell something that's gpl'd, by all means, he may do it. For example, red hat sells their own version of linux (that is gpl'd). Normally, selling oss means that you get something extra (like support/installation for rhel). If I sell free software in an irl store, I'd probably charge for it, so I could pay for the packaging. It's completely legit to sell an open source piece of software, especially if it's not free to distribute.
-
I hope we're on the same page here.
I don't question that it is legal, I just find it immoral. It would perhaps be justifiable if he was making the game more available than it is already: he would be selling the service rather than the product. Yet tremulous is already pretty darn available. I wonder if those who bought tremulous from him without knowing it was free to download here would agree with me.
-
quadregen, aren't you by any means quadregus? You seem to have quite a similar mentality.
-
It's $99 yearly cost to host any app on top of the 30% cut that they take. That's without any advertising. When i say barely, i mean it helped cover some of the cost, it didnt make the $99 that covers this year, meaning that it's not a profitable venture to have it up there. In case you failed to see, last year it was actually a free download in the Appstore, and has been free at times this year too. If you had done any simple 4 second research you would've found all this out. In that case, you are a quick to talk self-righteous bastard.
I'd still be taking your word for it since I couldn't find anything about costs other than the cut they take. I would fully appreciate any sources you could give for this cost. And this really is only out of interest: I don't need to know whether you actually made money to come to the conclusion your morals are broken. You submitted free software to a place where it is sold. Any profits would go to you despite the fact that you didn't make it. You didn't even announce what you were doing here until it was taken down (for what I can only guess were these very reasons).
https://developer.apple.com/programs/mac/
The mac and iphone/ipad appstore has free software that is both sold and offer free. Whether you like it or not, the appstore brings in lots of potential new tremulous fans. Anyone here wants a check? It wasnt taken down because of it being free software, but because of a technical problem. Apple doesnt care what license an app is released by. Free software is about sharing code its not about paid/free.
-
Yes, the GPL allows commercial exploitation
Stop right here.
You are everything that is wrong with open source. The GPL was made in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, and the potential for an honest group of people to market a product. The GPL was not made with the intent of some bottom feeder like you taking a product he has nothing to do with, attempting to sell it for profit, and then coming here to try to goad people into another commercial venture. You are the same sort of human garbage as this guy, (http://www.mcburrz.com/) and many others that try to sell free software to gullible consumers.
Get out.
If this guy wants to sell something that's gpl'd, by all means, he may do it. For example, red hat sells their own version of linux (that is gpl'd). Normally, selling oss means that you get something extra (like support/installation for rhel). If I sell free software in an irl store, I'd probably charge for it, so I could pay for the packaging. It's completely legit to sell an open source piece of software, especially if it's not free to distribute.
Exactly. Most of the time its packaging/shipping costs, it's not the content itself, but the media where the content is shipped. And I would like to try adding some features like gamecenter to tremulous on the mac appstore.
-
I hope we're on the same page here.
I don't question that it is legal, I just find it immoral. It would perhaps be justifiable if he was making the game more available than it is already: he would be selling the service rather than the product. Yet tremulous is already pretty darn available. I wonder if those who bought tremulous from him without knowing it was free to download here would agree with me.
Well, the mac appstore makes tremulous available to their bid audience. I'm trying to see whether i can add appstore specific features to tremulous too.
-
if your plan is not to make money, but to make Tremulous more well-known (which is doubtful), then make it clear, to all buyers, that "this game is free and open-source, and can be downloaded from <...>" (also, optionally, that "if you have payed for this game, then you have been ripped off"), and lower the cost of the product as soon as you have covered all Appstore expenses.
also, i'm not attacking your decision to cover costs, but your illegal actions of violating the GPL (the copy of the license should have been included, the source code should have been made directly available, etc.), which i have not verified, but have heard rumors about.
-
Source code and license both come with the bundle app. Do all open source software come with that whole "this is free, and shouldnt be paid" clause?
-
Source code and license both come with the bundle app. Do all open source software come with that whole "this is free, and shouldnt be paid" clause?
No, only some of the more restrictive ones (I think the BSD license says that it can't be sold, not sure about the MIT license, it may allow it)
-
Source code and license both come with the bundle app. Do all open source software come with that whole "this is free, and shouldnt be paid" clause?
No, only some of the more restrictive ones (I think the BSD license says that it can't be sold, not sure about the MIT license, it may allow it)
BSD and MIT licence certainly allow the sale of the code. You just have to include the copyright notice somewhere.
-
Source code and license both come with the bundle app. Do all open source software come with that whole "this is free, and shouldnt be paid" clause?
No, only some of the more restrictive ones (I think the BSD license says that it can't be sold, not sure about the MIT license, it may allow it)
you have little idea. in terms of being less restrictive,
MIT > BSD >> GPLv2 >> GPLv3,
where ">>" means "significantly greater than".
-
you have little idea. in terms of being less restrictive,
MIT > BSD >> GPLv2 >> GPLv3,
where ">>" means "significantly greater than".
Firstly, you should really avoid such use of implicit double-negatives. It would be better to say 'in terms of being restrictive: [more restrictive license] > [less restrictive license]
From what I've read, it doesn't seem like you can order those licenses strictly. For example, GPLv3 allows you to break DRM on GPL software, which is a freedom that GPLv2 doesn't grant. Also GPLv3 was made to allow linking with AGPLv3 a slightly more copyleft license. The problem here is whether you consider the preservation of freedom itself a restriction.
I wouldn't say that the licenses differ significantly: They are all based around a similar philosophy, at least in the scope of all licenses. The ways in which they do differ seem to be either simply in wording or otherwise to guard against specific perceived loopholes that are seen as contrary to the spirit of 'liberating' software.
-
For example, GPLv3 allows you to break DRM on GPL software, which is a freedom that GPLv2 doesn't grant.
with restriction, in the current context, i refer to the restrictions imposed on the writer and distributor.
I wouldn't say that the licenses differ significantly
the MIT license says: no warranty; include the license.
the 2-clause BSD license says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license.
the GPLv2 says: no warranty; include the license; release the source code with any distribution.
the GPLv3 says: no warranty; include the license; release the source code; do not distribute patented, non-free content.
-
the MIT license says: no warranty; include the license.
the 2-clause BSD license says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license.
Re-read the BSD licence. For all intents and purposes the BSD (2 clause) and MIT licences are identical.
-
For all intents and purposes
WRONG.
also, the MIT license actually says: no warranty; include the license, optionally without the no-warranty statement.
again, the 2-clause BSD license says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license.
also, the BSD license (ie., the original, 4-clause BSD license) says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license; do not endorse derivatives using the names of the original authors; when you advertise the software, include the names of the authors.
-
also, the MIT license actually says: no warranty; include the license, optionally without the no-warranty statement.
again, the 2-clause BSD license says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license.
They are functionally identical given the context of this discussion. If you don't believe this is true then perhaps you could explain why they are different?
-
also, the MIT license actually says: no warranty; include the license, optionally without the no-warranty statement.
again, the 2-clause BSD license says: no warranty; include the license; in case of a binary distribution, display the license.
They are functionally identical given the context of this discussion. If you don't believe this is true then perhaps you could explain why they are different?
if you perceive the current context as whether one is required to provide the source code, then they ind33d are functionally identical in this context. (the current context is actually, more precisely: which one is less restrictive).
-
My opinions: don't care if it goes back up as long as it is as a free application like how it is on the linux 'appstore'
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit.
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit.
It's not making exorbitant amounts of profit, and thank you, yes, the license says its perfectly OK to sell. Nowadays though, the freemium model is more attractive. M. Kristall, do you agree?
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit.
Wait, you're giving someone permission to sell someone else's work? I'm curious, where did you get this authority?
quadregen,
I'd be grateful to you if you if trem was available on the mac store for free. However, if you attempt to be a scumbag and sell someone else's work without their permission, I, along with most of the trem community, will hate you forever.
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit.
Wait, you're giving someone permission to sell someone else's work? I'm curious, where did you get this authority?
quadregen,
I'd be grateful to you if you if trem was available on the mac store for free. However, if you attempt to be a scumbag and sell someone else's work without their permission, I, along with most of the trem community, will hate you forever.
It's the license. Anyone can do pretty much anything they want with the software, including selling it. If he wants to sell it, he can; and the authors have explicitly given him permission through the license.
-
You must get timbo's permission first right?
-
You must get timbo's permission first right?
NO! That's the POINT of the GPL. Youdon't need permission, and so that puts control in your own hands, and thus makes the source free.
-
Youdon't need permission
you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.
-
Youdon't need permission
you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.
I can see you're a fan of pedantry but he's already aware of the importance of the permissions given under the license, evidenced by the fact that if they weren't required then the license would be meaningless, as would this discussion. So when he says 'You don't need permission' he means other than those permissions under the license, possibly required by the license.
-
remember...
(http://img5.indafoto.hu/9/3/3383_ab24cd2b811ee48a416fc7a833d736a9/2302985_0978a33a5b13dfb77325068ec91c6f39_s.jpg)
-
LOL
why people wear clocks like that? :o
-
Youdon't need permission
you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.
You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price. Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license. And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.
You can all ready up more on the Free software foundation webpage.
-
Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?
Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit.
Wait, you're giving someone permission to sell someone else's work? I'm curious, where did you get this authority?
quadregen,
I'd be grateful to you if you if trem was available on the mac store for free. However, if you attempt to be a scumbag and sell someone else's work without their permission, I, along with most of the trem community, will hate you forever.
It's the license. Anyone can do pretty much anything they want with the software, including selling it. If he wants to sell it, he can; and the authors have explicitly given him permission through the license.
this is true for most of tremulous, but the art assets are released under creative commons, and i am unsure if you have the right to make money with that license.
furthermore, at least some of the sounds are in violation of copyright. including these in the game is "wrong" enough as it is, but making money from the use of such material is highly unethical as well.
-
You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price. Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license. And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.
You can all ready up more on the Free software foundation webpage.
The name (trademark) isn't released under the GPL and I don't believe the assets are either.
-
Youdon't need permission
you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.
You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price. Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license. And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.
you have a dull and WRONG understanding of
- what i said,
- the licenses that encumber the assets,
- the copyright status of the names, and
- life.
-
in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl
Tremulous is licensed in two broadly separate sections: the code and the media.
The code is licensed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE…
The media is licensed under the CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 2.5
LICENSE…
Names are not covered by copyright, nor are they licensed by copyright licenses
-
Youdon't need permission
you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.
You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price. Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license. And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.
you have a dull and WRONG understanding of
- what i said,
- the licenses that encumber the assets,
- the copyright status of the names, and
- life.
RTFL
-
RTFL
(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)
-
Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.
-
RTFL
(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)
Yes, "L" as in license; and that was for you. If it was for quadregen, I would have quoted him, without your comment.
Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.
Wrong way around; I think the license is permission, he doesn't.
-
RTFL
(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)
Yes, "L" as in license; and that was for you. If it was for quadregen, I would have quoted him, without your comment.
i've read the licence before any of you two and many more times than both of you.
Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.
Wrong way around; I think the license is permission, he doesn't.
WRONG. reread what i've said. (i've just basically repeated myself.)
-
I think the license is permission
Youdon't need permission
So you're saying you don't need to follow the license? No. You clearly don't think that's true. You're simply being inconsistent with your use of terms: 'Permission' either includes the terms of the license or it doesn't.
Pick one.
-
I think the license is permission
Youdon't need permission
So you're saying you don't need to follow the license? No. You clearly don't think that's true. You're simply being inconsistent with your use of terms: 'Permission' either includes the terms of the license or it doesn't.
Pick one.
The license is permission so you don't need permission (from the authors).
-
The license is permission so you don't need permission
ROFL!
-
The license is permission so you don't need permission
ROFL!
Would the wording
"The license is permission so you do not need any additional permission"
work?
Get your lawyering semantics groove on lads. :D
-
The license is permission so you don't need permission
ROFL!
Would the wording
"The license is permission so you do not need any additional permission"
work?
yes.
-
I'm glad to see we've reached the point we were at 18 posts ago.