[ILUG] games.linux.ie

[Paul J Collins]

>>>>> "JC" == Jerry Connolly <jerry.connolly at eircom.net> writes:

    JC> Paul J Collins said the following on Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:51:11AM +0000, 
    >> I consider all proprietary software a restriction on my
    >> freedom.  Can you show me a proprietary software company that
    >> is not out to make money?
 
    JC> I don't personally see anything wrong with making money.  I
    JC> have coded for money in the past, and will do in the future.

Again, your quoting has messed this up.  The statement above was a
corollary to:

>     JC> We're not talking about everyone, we're talking about
>     JC> proprietry software producers. Their goals are not
>     JC> necessarily the same as the open source developers.
> 
> Most decidely so.  Their goals are to make lots of money while
> restricting users' freedom.

I have no problem with people making money.  I have no problem with
people being paid to write code.  Some of my best friends are paid to
write code.

    JC> Where possible I like to share it with others, but this is not
    JC> always possible.

Since I have yet to write useful code as part of my job (mainly just
scripts that anyone could write in five minutes), I have no experience
of writing free software in a corporate setting.  Pretty much all of
the vaguely useful or interesting code I have written on my own time I
have released as free software.

    >> You don't achieve a goal like that by singing songs and waving
    >> banners.  You do it by writing solid software, licensing it
    >> under a suitable license and letting everyone else do the same.
    JC> This makes a lot of sense to me.  If free software is better,
    JC> then of course I'll use it, but if free software isn't
    JC> available with the functionality I require, and I don't have
    JC> the skills or the time to develop it, then I'll have to pay
    JC> for it.

Examples?

    >> Try reading what I'm saying, and ease up on the trigger finger,
    >> Tonto.
    JC> Stop acting like someone peed in your cornflakes every time I
    JC> use the word "proprietry" and you've got yourself a deal.

Tacit approval of proprietary software is peeing in everyone's
cornflakes.  Unfotunately, given the gamer bias of this list, I don;t
expect to find much support.  Games always seek clemency based on the
"games are art, not software" argument.

-- 
Starving artists queue here.