thinking of a modified GPL that allows witholding updates 60 days or something.
Follow
🇳🇱
@icedquinn to what end.. note you can withhold up dates as long as you want so long as you dont release the program.
@icedquinn makes some sense. However if your careful enough to seperate out the packaging of your assets and your source code you can probably get away with keeping the assets private and only open source the source
@icedquinn
@freemo
This is not a licensing issue unless you are being a cunt. People complaining because they are too lazy to create assets from scratch does not justify a modified GPL. This type of behavior is why Free Software has lost. Non-compliance and enforcement ruins it for everyone. If people don't want to comply with the developer's wishes, then use something else.
@freemo
This is not a licensing issue unless you are being a cunt. People complaining because they are too lazy to create assets from scratch does not justify a modified GPL. This type of behavior is why Free Software has lost. Non-compliance and enforcement ruins it for everyone. If people don't want to comply with the developer's wishes, then use something else.
@nullwhereman @freemo it's just not how those markets work.
and the "lol just sell services" cope has failed the GPL. amagoogle proved it.
and the "lol just sell services" cope has failed the GPL. amagoogle proved it.
@icedquinn
@freemo
I did not say anything about selling services. There are ways to get around the GPL and still do what you are wanting. I and many other people do it without any issue. There is no justification for punching a hole in the GPL. If you don't like it, use something else.
>
and the "lol just sell services" cope has failed the GPL. amagoogle proved it.
You don't need to sell services to make money or be successful with the GPL. Complaining about non-issues or being lazy won't get you anywhere.
@freemo
I did not say anything about selling services. There are ways to get around the GPL and still do what you are wanting. I and many other people do it without any issue. There is no justification for punching a hole in the GPL. If you don't like it, use something else.
>
and the "lol just sell services" cope has failed the GPL. amagoogle proved it.
You don't need to sell services to make money or be successful with the GPL. Complaining about non-issues or being lazy won't get you anywhere.
How do you know it was the developers wishes not to allow for a 60 delay delay of release since there is no GPL that provides that option, and thus the developer never had the chance to consider if that was the license they wanted to adopt in the first place.
@freemo
@icedquinn
The developers have all the power to set their terms unless they are using other works. There is no justification for adding arbitrary clauses to existing licenses that would defeat the original purpose of the license.
@icedquinn
The developers have all the power to set their terms unless they are using other works. There is no justification for adding arbitrary clauses to existing licenses that would defeat the original purpose of the license.
now what some of them do is just flat out ignore the obligations.
the ones that are honest run in to the trouble of having a hard time competing for members because they can't really do anything without everyone else also getting it immediately.
by putting a short delay it allows the small server to have some exclusive 'thing' that will, eventually, still be released. but in the interim they still have uniques to pull players with.