Video games are more important than freedom

>video games are more important than freedom

>Implying libre games don't exist

We had this thread yesterday.

ARE YOU TRYING TO BE THE NEW "16 GiB" GUY?

STAHP, PLEASE.

>freedom is more important than pizza

filltered

I rather have this guy, he'll help drive Sup Forums away. They hate being called manchildren and also hate smug lolis.

>not running them on a KVM

>implying pizza is the same as 2D loli

What's your high score on Tux Racer?

This thread again?

aaaaaaaaaaa

>having child porn in my pc is more important than video games

>KVM magically makes non-free software free

>freedom is more important than 16 GiB of random access memory

>it isn't

Epic meme. lots of /vr/ games are libre, emulators are libre, and a quite a bunch of modern games are libre. I don't care about the latest call of battlefield 2016 with half the content day 1 DLC.

>implying I give a shit about the software I'm using on a KVM
>running Nvidia open source drivers on Linux
>running non libre Linux with blobs
>running backdoored hardware
Literally who cares. I like free software, but limiting myself to that is too restricting.

Suck my cock dude

>muh games

>tfw 16 GiB of RAM, pizza and only libre software

...

>memes

You have achieved enlightenment

You graduated Sup Forums

dubs of truth

Now you can ascend to Sup Forums

KILL EVERYONE ITT

>steam is more important than my privacy

>I need my generic run of the mill first person shooters so I can pretend I'm a real soldier.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
-Moot, founder of Sup Forums and 9gag

>thinking anything has value

Nihilism is for the weak

>thinking you're strong by being subjective and irrational

>Implying and protecting

Just get a mac

>being you

*Projecting

Don't worry, I went through my nihilism phase when I was 16 too, you'll grow out of it eventually.

I haven't seen people complaining this much about other people since High School

you dun play vidya games yuo nerd :-DDDDDDDD

>doesn't own a desktop with windows 10 solely for gaming
>doesn't own a MacBook for all other things

wait, some of you actually don't do this?

I have the freedom to chose what os I run, and I exercise that freedom by using windows.

Oh, my IQ will naturally drop after 16? xd

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as open source games, is in fact, free games.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term “open source software” instead of “free software” to describe what they do. The term “open source” quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community.

Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the image people have of them, whether or not it was true.

The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.

The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, “Software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse—and this includes “open source software.”

The official definition of “open source software,” as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”:

Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the “official” definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term.

The main argument for the term “open source software” is that “free software” makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that. It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.

Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. The term “open source” is offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be “more acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source movement stem from this decision.

This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.

Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.

Yes, I like to play TF2 occasionally more than I like to eat my own toenails

Freedom to play closed source games is more important than freedom in general

Didn't read this.

At present, we have plenty of “keep quiet”, but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.

We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software (which Qt was when it first became popular), and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word “free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.

If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever before.

Is smug loli from proprietary VNs?

The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of “open source” is the same as that of “free software”: there is no legal constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances myself.

But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a trademark? Not necessarily.

Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so. For example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said this:

As is common in the open source community, users of the ... technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM ...

This did not actually say that the program was “open source”, but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and later adopted a new license which does make it free software and “open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did not qualify as either one.)

And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:

Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.

Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But Cygn

Proprietary pig disgusting

Living in constant paranoia is true freedom

...

Yes, Monobeno

The anime you autists know and love was made using proprietary software on a Windows machine.

>anime is more important than not being autistic

Isn't it?

long story short both agree to the end result, just not the philosophy that gets them there.
freedom for freedoms sake vs freedom because its better

Open source software has nothing to do with freedom or software.
Just fucking stop.

>open source software has nothing to do with software

No one said it did you mongoloid, you're thinking of libre software B)

I do have both. Freedom of choice [to use steam on Linux] and games.

>inb4 drm
>inb4 other freedom implications
>inb4 GNUfag reply

>steam on linux
Non-free. You might just as well use Windows 10.

>"""freedom""" is more important than productivity

It's my freedom to use it. Prove me wrong.
I'm truly free™ [to choose my software]

Grand Theft Auto V is literally the reason why I still have windows 7 installed.

>inb4 go back to Sup Forums
I don't care, the game is like crack to me. I got rid of it once, but later bought another copy of it used because it keeps haunting me.

So you got banned, huh?

No, I almost never played online. I hate online. I thought the NSA was using the game for domestic surveillance against me so I got rid of the game. I've regretted that and I guess I was being paranoid so I bought a used copy for offline play only.

>I thought the NSA was using the game for domestic surveillance against me
You could have just read its source code.
Oh wait. You couldn't. Because it's non-free software.

I know it's non-free, but I can never keep my mind off the game.

There is no such thing as a "freedom" to change and recompile software. That's an entitlement.