after reading these 8 pages and the article i think this turned out to be a religius[FOSS/pay] war with no sense [ppl seems to automatic post his religious side without analize or previous reading the facts].
ok so far i think that stallman has 2 hardcore points[no is not about FOSS/pay]
point 1.) i think stallman is more focused on the FOSS mentality for steam products[hence not readeable as open source code] if they really wanna fit the community POV, and FOSS comunity is not about free[as 0 dollars] or open your code and stop eating or closed is heretic and should be burned. FOSS mentality is an proved engenieering POV about technical questions that has proven to be very succesfull so far which collides in some aspects with another succesful POV in how to do things from the engineer perspective[sure the are other more religious POV wich i leave zealots to discuss them].
so from where i sit i see stallman proposing a more FOSS solution to valve but not around valve products[believe me or not is a big diff], for example i think valve can massively benefit from an FOSS version of the game engine[putting the steam and drm bits as blobs libraries so be a FOSS or pay game it get easy to use the steam plataform to publish it], how you may ask?
a.) cost cutting: everytime you have to modify/adapt/update/upgrade/port your code from a bussiness POV it means burn tons of cash/overtime/hire developers/learning curves of the tech or base tech/etc. and normally this happen is very long release cycles and then you need aftermarket support to improve it or be more competitive and at the end of the day we pay for that but an shared effort between valve and community can bring you many hands/fresh ideas/eager testers/project support/faster adoption of standars and new technologies cutting that initial investment by a LOT but at the same time the community gains a well tested/rich/evolving game engine to our project/fun wich can be published on steam if you wish to add the drm blobs[in case of free games i think they just need a closed steam link cuz drm is not neccesary] and being GPL for example other publisher like EA will avoided like the pest cuz you are forced to contribute the changes back.
b.) support from users: having a portal where you can find many games free and payed [lets say lfd2 or the indie humbles for example] is a lot more attractive than have to purchase from a miriad of providers and considering option 1 that game creator should have a very low cost entry which will translate in cheaper games[and in many cases contributions to the engine] wich will attract more users
c.) support from game studios: in the long run if valve and the community can create a long standing/well documented and massively supported engine[valve should talk with unigine michael <--- hint] with superb graphics[valve lacks a bit here] upto date with you preffered OS/libraries the AAA+ studios will seriously consider migrate from unreal nightmare
d.) better change for small studios: if you lower the entry cost for developing games and valve actually give change to small companies to publish their games we can have some nice revival of the games[we all agree games are more and more boring/simplistic and some new blood could push AAA studios to work harder]
e.) many more but keeping post simple
now im not talking about open LFD2 or the valve publishing plataform[wich is their main bussiness if you were asking] but to work in sinnergy with the community in a mixed enviroment to provide mutual benefit, so is not about releasing texture or open products code is about a FOSS plataform base system to create those product cheaper/openly and more efficient for both sides[it doesn't mean linux only either since as you see many projects are multiplataform and FOSS] and i think valve and the community can greatly benefit from this [you can see this model working in projects like PHP, MySQL, apache, firefox, the kernel itself and a miriad of many succesful mixed projects]
note im not stallman im just trying to interpret his thought from a technical POV and i will response only technical question since im not interested in religious warfares from zealots/trolls of either side
ok so far i think that stallman has 2 hardcore points[no is not about FOSS/pay]
point 1.) i think stallman is more focused on the FOSS mentality for steam products[hence not readeable as open source code] if they really wanna fit the community POV, and FOSS comunity is not about free[as 0 dollars] or open your code and stop eating or closed is heretic and should be burned. FOSS mentality is an proved engenieering POV about technical questions that has proven to be very succesfull so far which collides in some aspects with another succesful POV in how to do things from the engineer perspective[sure the are other more religious POV wich i leave zealots to discuss them].
so from where i sit i see stallman proposing a more FOSS solution to valve but not around valve products[believe me or not is a big diff], for example i think valve can massively benefit from an FOSS version of the game engine[putting the steam and drm bits as blobs libraries so be a FOSS or pay game it get easy to use the steam plataform to publish it], how you may ask?
a.) cost cutting: everytime you have to modify/adapt/update/upgrade/port your code from a bussiness POV it means burn tons of cash/overtime/hire developers/learning curves of the tech or base tech/etc. and normally this happen is very long release cycles and then you need aftermarket support to improve it or be more competitive and at the end of the day we pay for that but an shared effort between valve and community can bring you many hands/fresh ideas/eager testers/project support/faster adoption of standars and new technologies cutting that initial investment by a LOT but at the same time the community gains a well tested/rich/evolving game engine to our project/fun wich can be published on steam if you wish to add the drm blobs[in case of free games i think they just need a closed steam link cuz drm is not neccesary] and being GPL for example other publisher like EA will avoided like the pest cuz you are forced to contribute the changes back.
b.) support from users: having a portal where you can find many games free and payed [lets say lfd2 or the indie humbles for example] is a lot more attractive than have to purchase from a miriad of providers and considering option 1 that game creator should have a very low cost entry which will translate in cheaper games[and in many cases contributions to the engine] wich will attract more users
c.) support from game studios: in the long run if valve and the community can create a long standing/well documented and massively supported engine[valve should talk with unigine michael <--- hint] with superb graphics[valve lacks a bit here] upto date with you preffered OS/libraries the AAA+ studios will seriously consider migrate from unreal nightmare
d.) better change for small studios: if you lower the entry cost for developing games and valve actually give change to small companies to publish their games we can have some nice revival of the games[we all agree games are more and more boring/simplistic and some new blood could push AAA studios to work harder]
e.) many more but keeping post simple
now im not talking about open LFD2 or the valve publishing plataform[wich is their main bussiness if you were asking] but to work in sinnergy with the community in a mixed enviroment to provide mutual benefit, so is not about releasing texture or open products code is about a FOSS plataform base system to create those product cheaper/openly and more efficient for both sides[it doesn't mean linux only either since as you see many projects are multiplataform and FOSS] and i think valve and the community can greatly benefit from this [you can see this model working in projects like PHP, MySQL, apache, firefox, the kernel itself and a miriad of many succesful mixed projects]
note im not stallman im just trying to interpret his thought from a technical POV and i will response only technical question since im not interested in religious warfares from zealots/trolls of either side
Comment