Originally Posted by fatalsaint

Note what I've said: I'll find free alternatives, write it myself, or won't use it.

but something as graphically intensive and world-in-depth as that game took 1000's upon 1000's of hours to build. People need compensation.

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

Note what I've said: I'll find free alternatives, write it myself, or won't use it.

There are usually decent quality free alternatives to commercial software (openoffice). There are not a large amount of decent free games like Savage II.

So therefore I have to scale my philosophical opinions with practical application. Just like with the movie industry.

I may hate the way the way they do it.. but that's the only "legal" way it's done.. and since I won't go without my movies I am forced to abide by their silly rules (to an extent. You won't find me sharing or distributing **** online.. but damnit - I *will* get a copy to watch on my computer! (meaning ripped from the dvd I bought.))

So with Games I had to raise my bar if I wanted to game at all: I'll pay for the software itself if it supports Linux natively. WoW does not, therefore I wouldn't re-buy the game discs. WoW however works perfectly in Wine, and the installer is free, and they've fixed their game in the past to maintain Wine compatibility when an update broke it and users complained - they offered me a loop hole through my own logic. They don't "officially" support it.. but they do tend to make sure it'll work for me.

Fallout 3 I don't play.. they don't support Linux, and there's no free download. So I go without Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead.. two very great games: Both will work in Wine - but I won't support the game until it's either made officially to work with Linux (or at least show they'll try retain wine-compatibility) - or they make it free.

Originally Posted by azorni

And I still don't get your point.

A protocol is an intellectual construction that is as much useful as its implementation. From the point of view of the defense of intellectual rights, they are both as important, and i don't see why one should be more "protected" than the other. This was my initial point.

Originally Posted by Fargus

So if it was possible to do under free software then why didn't you?

the point you were making earlier was that you didn't use retail software - you just stated that you were using retail software. QED

Originally Posted by mrojas

In the many pages this thread has grown after I left it yesterday, I see a lot of post-rationalization (Gimme, Gimme!!), and very little empathy.

Originally Posted by azorni

Apart from Turing or maybe Pascal, nobody as ever designed a piece of software all by oneself.

Same as for the bicycle, if I must design one, i hope I won't have to pay fees for the license for wheels.

Originally Posted by Fargus

Commercial software takes a similar amount of time and effort to develop - surely that means that developers deserve compensation too or is it only eye candy that deserves to be paid for?

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

So we moved the definition of entitled to stuff I didn't pay for.. to removing something I do pay for?

You are not guaranteed or entitled to anything but the right to live. I am against federal-funded schools, welfare, healthcare, and every other item people claim they are "entitled" to simply by living or being in some place or state or position. I know many disagree with me and that's fine. (states may be different.. even better communities or cities can opt to pay for schools.)

However, if I pay for my internet connection, and my ISP doesn't provide: That's a separate issue.

I decided, because I'm bored, to google define entitled and got this:



The bold is what I'm referring to. I do think if you pay for something.. you are "entitled" to certain things you would otherwise not be. This is why I hang my head in shame at Bratag's emails from people who received free software - and act like that. At least if they paid for it.. there's something to complain about. If it's free.. you aren't "entitled" to **** from it.. including and not limited to the software even working at all.

Originally Posted by Fargus

The point is that one is freely given to the community by the originator, the other isn't!

Originally Posted by Bratag

Yes and who do you think writes that opensource/free alternatives? In almost every case its a developer or group of developers who have other jobs which support them and an amount of free time. If they were to lose that job that supported them don't you think it would be acceptable for them to get something out of the project they so diligently supported for free for so long?

Open office was StarOffice before it became open office (sun purchased and open sourced it) and was in fact a paid product. The ONLY reason it exists in its current form is that Sun provided the source and a dedicated group of people maintain it. That could all change in a second if their circumstances changed.

I would quite happily produce every single line of code I write for free if someone will come up with a system where I am provided with the necessities required for living and maintaining my current lifestyle. Until that happens my time and my experience and valuable commodities, no different than a doctors or carpenters or any other service profession.