Ahh, I see. Thank you. But it's not that I have trouble conceiving the the point of view put forth by the FSF and others. I can see their concerns, their desires, the benifits of a right of modification and the many ways people (including myself) have been harmed by not being able to enjoy such a right, suffering vendor lock-in etc.
What I have trouble with is understanding the jump to the more absolutest position, to say that there is no exception to the rule, to say that all proprietary software is immoral. Certainly, some hold this position - I would say RMS probably does - but I see it as a harmful stance and a rare stance. Those who appear to hold it usually have a fundamental difference of opinion - one that neither of us will make any headway trying to convince the other of in debate - or are speaking hyperbolicly, in which case I would point out the harm of that.
> I suggest that you simply read the linked page, it explains it more explicitly and at more length.
I have, a couple of times at least.
> (You can’t argue that selling yourself into slavery is OK since enlisting oneself is allowed. If that was not the argument you were trying to make, I don’t understand it.)
I'm arguing we allow a form of slavery, in the form of enlistment. This doesn't make it moral. I think in some circumstances it can be moral - but this is an unbacked and unsubstantiated opinion, presented only to help provide my point of view.
>> I can sympathize a little with the "I thought I was buying it but all I got was renting a license" argument.
> It also dilutes the very concept of “owning”. When the Playstation was remotely downgraded by Sony
They were rightfully slapped with lawsuits for advertising a feature and then pulling it. This is wrong regardless of ownership. You could be renting or leasing your console and it'd still not be right. Ownership doesn't grant you the right to do anything you want with it - but that works both ways too.
> Who are you referring to when you say “pirates”?
I was specifically referring to people using the software without paying the license holder for it, in a copyright infringing manner. This does not include people using a no-cd crack on a copy of the game they own, this does not include people buying copies second hand. It didn't include the creators of cracks either, although my opinion would still apply to them. (EDIT: Subject clarity.)
> Are they the ones who crack the game? Those people are incorrigible and will only be aggravated by more copy protection and DRM
They will also be delayed, which is generally the goal of companies applying these techniques (sometimes successfully.)
> Are you instead referring to those which use a cracked copy of the game? Those people are impossible to make more helpless than your regular users.
They cannot be made more helpless, but they can be deterred (sometimes successfully.) I do recognize this reality.
> Your regular users, however, will be made to feel helpless if only DRM and online-only play (and no modding tools or source code) is provided.
I am not made to feel helpless when lightweight DRM doesn't get in my way. I am not made to feel helpless when I can't play Planetside offline, because the game makes no sense to play offline. Make no mistake though - I don't buy games with heavyweight DRM, and I don't buy games with stupid online-only requirements (I'll not buy the latest Sim City, for example.)
> I’d be more sympathetic if 99% of the server components of modern games weren’t only for their DRM-like properties
This is hyperbolic to the point of being untrue. I suspect you know that. Were it true, I would still ask you not to judge the "1%" by the actions of the other "99%" - if for no other reason than your own self interest in giving that "1%" (however small) a reason to not become 0% (however small that reason also is.)
>> But: surely it's only fair to compare the positive impact of my game against the positive impact of the activity that would have replaced it,
> Yes.
>> not against every possible activity?
> That was not my intention.
Cool. Then as part of the "1%" building games with optional server components, I'm doing better than the other "99%" - I like my chances.
One can never be sure about what someone else is thinking, buy davorb did link to the FSF page “Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software” (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....), and since I am fairly familiar with the FSF’s world view, I thought I could clarify, since you seemed to have actual trouble even conceiving any other point of view than the contrasting Open Source one. I suggest that you simply read the linked page, it explains it more explicitly and at more length.
Regarding copyright in general, I am personally very suspicious of the concept (as explained by many others elsewhere). But the FSF’s view is more narrow, focused on software, and your work is producing software, which makes this relevant. And the FSF’s argument why, for software, the right of modification (with implied source code) is important, is, I think, a compelling one.
(You can’t argue that selling yourself into slavery is OK since enlisting oneself is allowed. If that was not the argument you were trying to make, I don’t understand it.)
> Do you consider free as in beer - but proprietary - software to be immoral?
I would have to say yes. It is offering something nice which contains a hidden trap.
> Do you consider free as in beer - but proprietary, and subscription requiring - software to be immoral?
I don’t think so. What you are paying for is not the software, but the service, of which the software is a tool the provider uses to provide the service. Of course, this has other dangers (privacy and dependency), but it is not, I think, necessarily inherently a bad thing.
> I can sympathize a little with the "I thought I was buying it but all I got was renting a license" argument.
It also dilutes the very concept of “owning”. When the Playstation was remotely downgraded by Sony, I saw the argument made that of course Sony had a right to do that to everybody’s Playstation, since it was, and I quote, “their [i.e. Sony’s] console”. People actually had the idea that, even though people had paid money for a console and owned it, it was still, and forevermore, within the domain of Sony, and that Sony therefore had the right to do whatever they wanted to it. This is a dangerous dilution of the concept of ownership.
> And being okay with subscription payment model, but not okay with a one time fee payment model, requires some level of cognitive dissonance I simply don't have.
It’s a question of what causes people to dilute the concept of ownership, and what teaches people to be more downtrodden, helpless, dependent, and afraid. I am against that which does this. Technically the same deal, presented differently, might not have this effect, in which case I would not object to it (on these grounds, at least).
> And while I'd generally agree with your statement, I admit - I wouldn't consider it a bad thing if pirates felt a bit more helpless and powerless
Who are you referring to when you say “pirates”? Are they the ones who crack the game? Those people are incorrigible and will only be aggravated by more copy protection and DRM. Are you instead referring to those which use a cracked copy of the game? Those people are impossible to make more helpless than your regular users. Your regular users, however, will be made to feel helpless if only DRM and online-only play (and no modding tools or source code) is provided.
> Because that's simply not a fair or equitable exchange.
I’d be more sympathetic if 99% of the server components of modern games weren’t only for their DRM-like properties (online-only play even for single-player campaigns, etc.) If, on the other hand, the servers were an optional component, you might solve the ethical problem by simply charging a recurring service fee for the server access.
> And yet I feel judged.
Them’s the breaks.
> But: surely it's only fair to compare the positive impact of my game against the positive impact of the activity that would have replaced it,
Yes.
> not against every possible activity?
That was not my intention.