|
|
|
|
|
by dmonitor
254 days ago
|
|
SRB2K is very frustrating to me for a few reasons - it is very nearly perfect, but has some minor issues especially in regards to the strength of frontrunning (early leads tend to become unbeatable)
- the development team has mostly abandoned it in favor of the sequel, which completely abandons the brilliant simplicity of SRB2K
- the development team kind of take a rude approach to the GPL. They don't really accept PRs from the community, and work in secrecy rather than out in the open. They still publish their work, so they comply with the license, but it's a bit lame
- The modding community is super weird about reusing other people's code and will pitch a fit if you get caught reusing someone's lua script without their permission. |
|
The four freedoms allow you to share your enhancements with the community, they don't say the original author has to accept them. They pursue their own vision for the software, they give you all the sources and license you need to pursue a different direction.
Stallman has also talked about how "works of art" (pictures, stories, music) are different from "functional" works (software, recipes, typefaces, etc.). He thinks that nonfree "functional" works are unethical, but is ok with a modest copyright time limit before being permitted to remix/modify art:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.ht...
> But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a contribution to art, but it's not desperately urgent in most cases. If you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait that long
With that in mind, he'd want game code to be published under a free software license, but would be ok if the "art" of the game remained briefly copyrighted. Probably not what modders want to hear!