[Savannah-hackers] Re: submission of Waves, Clouds, and Sand - savannah.nongnu.org

[planet10]

> > Of course I understand the ethical concern, but usually it's more
> > effective to have a 2-part plan: avoid proprietary component while
> > lobbying for/creating free replacement.
>
> In your case, you do not avoid proprietary components. You simply
> propose to create a free software that will require anyone that way to
> use it to install proprietary driver.

Of course I'm aware that such a game would today depend on a non-free
driver for maximum speed (you can do anything in software, and much
better, like ray tracing).

I was talking about the Savannah course of action, not my own: you are
avoiding the non-free component, but I don't see the next step of
obtaining a free replacement.

Also, let's just hypothesize that my approach works, and results in free
drivers being made available: Would Savannah then no longer be opposed to
hosting my project and the driver itself?

It's kind of like letting someone else do the dirty work, then reaping the
rewards.

On the other hand, "The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we
cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily
for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very
program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for
installing a proprietary program."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

So that acknowledges a situation where proprietary software is depended
upon.

(Doesn't that also mean there's no excuse for your installing Windows or
proprietary games either, according to your own organization?)


> Can you explain why ATI or Nvidia would release a free driver if using
> their proprietary drivers become a norm?

Right now, those drivers ARE the norm.  Almost everyone who has those
cards uses those drivers, and under Windows.

Since we're already in that position, there's no reason to fear it.  Let's
figure out how to convince them to release free drivers.

> Do you remember the origin of the GNOME project?
> At this time, using Qt, non-free at this time, was easier, faster.

Apparently lobbying from the KDE folks who used it got TrollTech to first
agree that if they went under, Qt would be released as free software.
That was a first step.  Continued lobbying got it GNU GPLed under UNIX.

> Obviously, if your program "actually does something" only if you
> install a proprietary software, it's easy to disable your software.

Heck, kill -9 can do that.


> > No, an improvement in BOTH areas.  Right now we have proprietary games
> > with proprietary drivers; in the future we will have free games with
> > proprietary drivers, then free games with free drivers.  It's the middle
> > step.
>
> Your point of view could be qualified as evolutionist. But this theory
> is far too simple to be realistic.

It's not a theory.  It's a very general overview.  Check this one out:
UNIX is not free, nor are the applications that run on it.  People start
making free applications (the GNU project) that run on a proprietary
system.  Then people make a kernel (Linux), and the whole system is free.


> You are right, new computers are mainly needed to run games. But
> actually, industry/states does not buy software to play games. And
> it's seem far more essential to me.

There are lots of other 3D applications besides games, as I mentioned.
But games are a big part of the home market, which the GNU project has to
address in order to reach the majority of people.


> > Direct the pressure gradient outward and talk to the hardware
> > manufacturers.
>
> There's no pressure. We tried to explain how we understand the GNU
> point of view, that we both, Jaime and me, share - and you probably
> noticed that we do not have exactly same profile.

Well, of course there is pressure.  The GNU philosophy, unlike the Open
Source philosophy, describes their point of view in moral and ethical
terms.  That is certainly a way to pressure people.

> Apparently we failed.
>
> The rules of Savannah will not change today. You didn't prove that
> making a political stand is useless (It would be hard).

I don't know what you're talking about.  I argued that making a free game
is better than having only non-free games, from a technical and ethical
view.  You acknowledged that this stands a chance of being correct.

Since the game code itself would be free software, I would like to host it
on Savannah.  Unfortunately the hardware that we both have in our machines
is only partially usable with free software drivers.

My question was whether the "do nothing" approach was effective in
advancing the GNU cause.  I was saying that rather than merely telling
developers to "avoid these features", a more effective approach would be
for the FSF to talk to the manufacturers directly.  Then you can say,
"we're working with NVidia and ATI to make free drivers available for the
hardware that almost all of us paid for and have in our systems."

So instead of JUST turning me down, turn me down AND start talking to
the 3D companies.

The sooner that process is started, the better.

> I was thinking at the contrary that what worked with Qt and MySQL was
> the fact that many people refuses to install non-free stuff on their
> computer... and so there was more advantages for Qt and MySQL to be
> really free.

MySQL was pretty popular back then, before it was GNU GPLed.  PostgreSQL
wasn't up to par at the time.  IIRC, MySQL was free for non-commercial
use, which helped it get popular.  I think users convinced them to free it
by talking to them, rather than by avoiding it.

> Same problem: how can you incitate someone to free a software after
> accepting it as non-free. You accept as non-free, you build on it: you
> depend. You are not in position for any lobbying. You can only ask for
> pity.

Actually, you become a customer, talk to your vendor, and make requests.
If you simply avoid it, then NVidia only hears from people who use
proprietary software and operating systems.