Ann Widdecombe [External Link]'s speech anyone?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Actually, can they legally make improvements and not contribute the changes back upstream? Doesn't Zlib license forbid that? I know it doesn't say so explicitly but it was approved by FSF and I though all FSF approved licenses were based on this premise. Also, if it doesn't, how can it be described as "compatible with GPL"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

First of all, sorry for replying to an old comment but I don't visit GOL often any more.

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: cprn

Quoting: ElectricPrism[...]3. The Legal Angle

On #3 -- the Legal Angle -- strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with charging money for GPL software.[...]

There are two types of copyrights - I'm not sure what's the legal term in English but one type is money related and the other one is bragging rights. You can never get rid off bragging rights - you're the author and you cannot "sell" or "give away" being an author.

I'm not really sure what you're referencing or which region of the world.

Most if not all of the EU, I guess. It seems the proper English name for the personal aspect of authorship (bragging) is "moral rights" or sometimes "personal copyrights" and the proper English name for the economic aspect of it is just "copyright" or "proprietary copyrights". What I meant is one cannot pretend to be the author even if they have obtained the right to sell a piece of code. Of course one can just take a GPL licensed project and put it on Steam for money but they have to put it there as themselves and if they do so "as is" without asking the original authors for a special lease or some kind of one-off license, they'll most certainly violate parts of the project that aren't GPL licensed, like media files or trademarks.

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: cprnSo no, strictly speaking it's not okay, to just "redistribute" the project and take money for it.

I know it seems shitty, but people charge to redistribute FOSS all the time.

Not really. What people charge for is mostly the work around the project, e.g. services they provide like hosting or support. Also they don't pretend to be the author and they clearly attribute the authors + distribute the source code and license. And if they do change the source (to fit their packaging) they do so in general manner and send the patches upstream. If they wouldn't, AFAIK it'd violate most of FOSS licenses.

Quoting: ElectricPrismZorinOS ( https://zorin.com/os/pro/purchase/ [External Link] ) is a distro which packages and sells collections of free software.

Ardour ( https://community.ardour.org/download?platform=win&architecture=x86_64&type=compiled [External Link] ) sells copies of its software when you select Windows or Mac installation.

ElementaryOS had a paywall to download their OS ( And then all of you flipped out on them )

Ubuntu has a paywall for their OS download

RedHat charges yearly licenses and the Linux Kernel doesn't flip out on them for it.

They're a distribution. When you put work in compiling packages together, integrating them, preparing an installer, a set of guidelines for how to put new packages into your distribution, often a dedicated package manager, when you host your own repositories, on top of that provide support, etc., you can take money for it even if all of the software you compiled together is free of charge.

Quoting: ElectricPrismFlatHub could easily have a free repository with [ slow speed ] and one with [ fast speed ] and throttle the slow one and sell access to the [ fast speed ] legally to make a quick buck -- the same goes for any Linux distro with repos. It would be 100% legal.

Absolutely, as long as they don't pretend to be the authors of that software and they only act as a mirror and everything in their repository is actually licensed in a way that allows for that distribution. Mind you games, i.e. media files, often aren't.

Quoting: ElectricPrismThere's really not much difference between a maintainer who repackages for Steam or a FOSS Game and then shoves it into the AUR ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/0ad-git [External Link] ), or Debian ( https://packages.debian.org/stable/0ad [External Link] )

Both are repackaging and redistributing.

AUR is distributing installation scripts (PKGBUILDs) and not the software itself. That software is being downloaded by said scripts from the original authors or from different repositories. It's more like someone here posting a link to a software instead of the software itself (e.g. a link to GitLab instead of the content of a source file). Also maintainers are often people directly involved in a project or sometimes there's an explicit permission for adding a project to a repository included in the package (especially when it comes to media files).

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: cprnIt'd have to be "redistributed" under a different name and with at least some (if not all) media files replaced or missing.

Not really. If there were a AppImage and they simply redistributed it without modification AFAIK that would fulfill all obligations just fine.

If you ZIP a directory full of mixed licensed files it doesn't absolve you of the obligation of keeping to that licensing. If you link to a ZIP file hosted by someone else, it's okay. I'd guess it's the same with AppImages. And FOSS licensing mostly lets you do it as long as you do so free of charge and e.g. attribute the original project.

Quoting: ElectricPrism

Quoting: cprnOn top of that a clear attribution to original product would have to be made.

This is a moral argument, which directly contradicts the part you wrote before ("It'd have to be "redistributed" under a different name") -- which go ahead and argue it, i'm not going to disagree -- but again from my original post I prefer to stick to the legal requirements.

Yeah, I agree the way I wrote it in that post is unclear. IMHO it'd have to legally be one or the other. Either all of the parts of the project that aren't licensed for direct redistribution would have to be replaced - that includes titles, trademarks, media files - or individual licenses for above mentioned parts would have to be fulfilled however needed, e.g. by proper attribution.

Well, what I meant before is either now clear or even more convoluted but I hope it's the former. It's hard to speak about such matters when you aren't native with a law degree on top and possibly the whole matter is regarded in the foreign legal system.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ElectricPrism[...]3. The Legal Angle

On #3 -- the Legal Angle -- strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with charging money for GPL software.[...]

There are two types of copyrights - I'm not sure what's the legal term in English but one type is money related and the other one is bragging rights. You can never get rid off bragging rights - you're the author and you cannot "sell" or "give away" being an author. As such everything that isn't covered by the license is protected by default. GPL by default covers only code (i.e. software, not media files - there are different licenses for those). Besides, the last time I read full GPL there was a whole section about restrictions on use of trademarks and logotypes (even the unregistered ones). So no, strictly speaking it's not okay, to just "redistribute" the project and take money for it. It'd have to be "redistributed" under a different name and with at least some (if not all) media files replaced or missing. On top of that a clear attribution to original product would have to be made. There's basis for suing, it's just not feasible money-wise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, Liftoff has way better UI, is more user friendly, has nicer graphics and insanely fast drones (like 2x faster) and setting up the RC controller is a breeze. Velocidrone has more realistic flight speeds, slightly better physics (I think it comes to drag simulation but maybe there's more) and way better drone sounds simulation (the feedback on throttle control is awesome) but I couldn't set up the controller properly. Liftoff has less official maps (15 compared to 25, I think) but more polished. When I last checked only Liftoff was on Steam which made it very convenient to install and easier to browse community made content. So yeah, Velocidrone might be better for pros and semi-pros who want to focus on realistic simulation but when it comes to gaming and flight for pleasure I personally prefer Liftoff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Torqachu

Quoting: cprn[...] no dark theme.

[...] the choice of theme is under the about button. [...]

Thanks, found it, works.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As @officernice said - on Arch based distros install from AUR:
yay -S protonup-qt

If you have a high pixel density screen you might want to run it with a scale factor, e.g. with a script:
#!/bin/sh
env QT_SCALE_FACTOR=2 /usr/bin/net.davidotek.pupgui2

Also, for whatever reason on my install it doesn't theme according to qt5ct so no dark theme.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can't wait for drones to get long distance low latency 1080p60+ FPV and flight time of 60+ minutes. On the risk of blindness I'll spend most of my days soaring through the sky scaring freaking birds and whatnot. I'll mod the hell out of it too, so I could drop shit on people.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, if I understand it correctly, all this hassle is to get rid of micro freezes and tearing, i.e. to sync between GPU and app layer so that monitor driver could handle sync with the screen, right? I think there was a talk about limits of X from Ryan C. Gordon (Icculus) few years back that mentioned something like that is badly needed. So, yeah, finally. Way to go Pierre.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: cprnthe political correctness bullshit.

Oh man, whining about free speech and free art is everywhere. What's it this time?

I looked for a bit on a phone but can't seem to find a link now (it wasn't a YouTube video, Vimeo? Facebook?), you'll probably find it on a PC faster. I've seen an artist chick analysing the before and after and showing how the clothes on the main protagonist got neatly rearranged to stop showing her "daddy issues" character, sweater is now covering both of her shoulders, skirt is longer, some animations were changed to stop being "erotic" (like butt angle during crawling), etc. She also mentioned some dialogues have been changed but I don't remember if she quote any. Finally she paired all that with some news strips about how the old game was criticised by feminist movement and how "modernizing" was "supervised / approved" by some newly acquired female employee. There were some other in-game changes not regarding Edna but I wasn't paying attention, I guess. That chick had a whole series about games that got their "redux" releases and books that got made into a movie or a series (yes, you guessed it, she briefly got my attention when I was looking for stuff about Witcher series).

Honestly, maybe don't watch it. I wasn't bothered by the new art style before I've seen it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments