| commentid | objectid | typeid | userid | subject | comment | timestamp | parentid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7152 | Tribes 2 | games | -1 | Re: Linux binary with Windows CD | www.tuxgames.com | 2002-11-06 00:08:06 | 7145 |
| 7154 | Tribes 2 | games | 3 | Re: Linux binary with Windows CD | Tuxgames.com has run out of stock weeks or even months ago. | 2002-11-06 03:45:02 | 7152 |
| 7155 | Simutrans | games | -1 | nice game, but... | - sometimes vehicles lose their routes without reason<br> - passengers sometimes don't update their routes, if connections have changed<br> - it sometimes crashes if i build things on "civil" cars | 2002-11-06 07:40:09 | 0 |
| 7156 | Simutrans | games | -1 | i forgot to mention... | ... that you need much more different station names, i really often have different e.g. bus stations having the same same, although they are far away from each other | 2002-11-06 07:42:10 | 0 |
| 7157 | XOP for Linux | games | 5360 | Nice game! | This game is sweet! All the fun of Raptor and similar games, with far more replayability. The only (minor) problem I had with it was that the graphics are a little on the weak side in this day and age; I wasn't expecting stellar but I did expect to at least get good 640x480, and it doesn't do that. But it's a minor issue, and doesn't change how much fun this game is. Considering the game is a measly $15, there's little reason to not buy it if you like action games. | 2002-11-06 08:15:47 | 0 |
| 7158 | TeamSpeak | games | -1 | Re: License? | Have you ever read it? If you did you might be familiar with the LGPL, which allows you maintain a closed-source library linked against open-source code that calls its functions. Which is more or less what you'd be doing here. See, I can be an elitist moron and accuse you of not doing your research either. Fact of the matter is, I'm making a point that most of you can't accept - that there's no moral or legal obligation for anyone to release GPL'ed code for Linux, unless said code uses anything licensed under the GPL. | 2002-11-06 09:07:45 | 7150 |
| 7159 | TeamSpeak | games | -1 | Re: License? | Alright, first of all it's "reactionary," not "reactionay." If you're going to accuse me of not reading a message, at least have the decency to read your own (perhaps you should read it again). This site being Linux-centric has nothing to do with any of this argument, by the way, save for that I'm arguing the point that most Linux-centric people seem to think their God-given right is to the source code of other people's applications -- not that most of them ever contribute back to the community. Since you seem to think I haven't read the message, oh wise one, let's take a look at some of his points: "I notice that this utility is closed source freeware. The license is similar to the FMOD license - free (as in beer) for non-comercial use. While this is fine for people that just want to run the utility in the background while playing multiplayer games under Linux, its SDK cannot be used by games that comply with the GPL license, that would like to incorporate voice communication, because of the requirement that the application is non-commercial. " Now, read that again (I did, just like I did the first time). His gripe doesn't even make sense. Unless you were to sell a GPLed game that used the SDK, the licensing wouldn't be a problem for anyone. They're giving it away for free, and if you use it you must give it back for free. Kind of sounds like the GPL itself, doesn't it? Of course this would restrict someone from selling a GPLed game based on the library but hey -- take your own advice and "roll your own" if you don't like the terms. "The GPL specifically states that the software must be free to sell. Sorry if this sounds like a rant or a critism of the software but I think it needs to be pointed out." Well it sure sounds like a rant to me. The software isn't licensed under the GPL. It's someone else's software, they can do what they like with it. What does the GPL even have to do with this piece of software? Absolutely nothing. "GPLed games should only use SDKs/libraries that are compatible with the GPL." Oh, really? What about public domain release, the BSD license, the Apache license..all the other licenses included under the FSF's definition of free software? Too good for them, eh? Watch who you're telling to grow up, I'm not the one purveying attitudes like this -- I'm simply pointing those qualities out in others here. And next time you want to accuse me of not doing my research, do your own first. | 2002-11-06 09:16:32 | 7149 |
| 7160 | TeamSpeak | games | -1 | Re: License? | I also enjoy the fact that you accuse me of "anti-GPL" statements, when I never actually made any at all (again, take your own advice and read -my- message). My statements were ALL related to people's attitudes about GPLed software under Linux, not about the GPL itself. You're a liar as well as a hypocrite. | 2002-11-06 09:18:17 | 7159 |
| 7162 | TeamSpeak | games | -1 | Re: License? | > Alright, first of all it's "reactionary," not "reactionay." <br><br> Nice... That's very mature. You can't argue then you point out my typos. <br><br> > This site being Linux-centric has nothing to do with any of this argument, by the way, save for that I'm arguing the point that most Linux-centric people seem to think their God-given right is to the source code of other people's applications -- not that most of them ever contribute back to the community. <br><br> Well, that's exactly my point. You simply felt the need to say that about linux users in general. Even though that was not the case, because the original message doesn't have all that "anti-closed-source" tone. <br><br> > Since you seem to think I haven't read the message, oh wise one, let's take a look at some of his points: (...) <BR><BR> > His gripe doesn't even make sense. Unless you were to sell a GPLed game that used the SDK, the licensing wouldn't be a problem for anyone. They're giving it away for free, and if you use it you must give it back for free. Kind of sounds like the GPL itself, doesn't it? <br><br> Well, it is a problem with distros, you know? Because they sell the software. I would like to have my software distributed by, Suse or Mandrake, for instance. <br><br> > Of course this would restrict someone from selling a GPLed game based on the library but hey -- take your own advice and "roll your own" if you don't like the terms. <br><br> That's exactly what the original message suggested: use an alternative. <br><br> > "The GPL specifically states that the software must be free to sell. Sorry if this sounds like a rant or a critism of the software but I think it needs to be pointed out." Well it sure sounds like a rant to me. The software isn't licensed under the GPL. It's someone else's software, they can do what they like with it. What does the GPL even have to do with this piece of software? Absolutely nothing. <br><br> Exactly, it's not what your GPL software does to the closed source software, it what the closed source does to your GPL software: <br><br> if you use it, you can't release it as plain GPL. You need to use a special exception in your license, because the components that make the whole package are not GPL. If the library has restrictions of its own, maybe you can't even release your code as GPL at all. <br><br> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs <br><br> > "GPLed games should only use SDKs/libraries that are compatible with the GPL." Oh, really? What about public domain release, the BSD license, the Apache license..all the other licenses included under the FSF's definition of free software? Too good for them, eh? <br><br> You misread it again: BSD license is (now) compatible with GPL, so, yes, it can be used. And Apache, and public domain, because they are COMPATIBLE. <br><br> You see, the original message never carried that "GPL is good, BSD License sucks" tone you are trying to imply. <br><br> > Watch who you're telling to grow up, I'm not the one purveying attitudes like this -- I'm simply pointing those qualities out in others here. And next time you want to accuse me of not doing my research, do your own first. <br><br> I will consider doing my research when you point something wrong in my message, then I will admit my mistake. As I pointed out your errors once again. | 2002-11-06 11:44:46 | 7159 |
| 7163 | TeamSpeak | games | -1 | Re: License? | > I also enjoy the fact that you accuse me of "anti-GPL" statements, when I never actually made any at all (again, take your own advice and read -my- message). My statements were ALL related to people's attitudes about GPLed software under Linux, not about the GPL itself. You're a liar as well as a hypocrite. <br><br> "People" that are not even here. You just ranted away with no reason. I just gave you the taste of your own prejudice, not that I really believe you are like that, just as I don't believe there was malice in the original message. | 2002-11-06 11:52:47 | 7160 |