Quoting: hjahre

Quoting: katp32Anyone know if this bundle includes DRM free copies or just Steam keys? Last time I bought a bundle I was disappointed :<

Seems like the only drm free content is the ebooks. All of the games must be redeemed on Steam

They used to have the Humble Trove with a few interesting DRM-Free games, but I don't know if the new version has DRM-Free games or whether the launcher works on non-Windows platforms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: STiATMost of Adobes software is actually web-based now. Distribution shouldn't be much of an issue.

I don't doubt Adobe loves the idea of web-based software, where users have no access to the backend code and so distributing cracked editions is made much harder. My issue is they aren't doing it fast enough. Photoshop on web is still in closed beta. I don't see them putting After Effects on the web, but I would be pleasantly surprised if they could manage it. And if they could somehow get Acrobat DC and inDesign on the web too, I would be happy.

All I would need to do is install web-based DRM on a secondary browser to use the software...and I could stop spending so much of my time complaining about Adobe.

And in 2028, the last H.264 patents will hopefully expire, and DaVinci Resolve can finally bundle some H.264 decoders/encoders on their GNU/Linux software. If that happens, I might be able to drop After Effects for Fusion. I'll still be transcoding from AAC, of course...

Quoting: STiATNobody needs to talk to dozens of entities (distributions), they talk to Valve. And I think that's a key point of success there, Valve takes care it runs basically anywhere as long as it runs on a reference platform (which was originally debian based and is now arch based). And a device with actual market share of course. And I think we can agree Steam Deck pretty much gained some share.

Whatever company does this is not going to be Microsoft or Apple. It's probably not going to be Google, either. This mythical company's only reasonable angle is to convince all of the OEMs (Dell, Acer, ASUS, HP, etc.) to bundle their OS. Well, technically that was tried with netbooks in the 2000s, but there's no reason we can't try again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhat interests me more is the closed source, commercial software side. This could set up Flathub as a distribution source for Linux software from closed source software publishers. That could be good for Linux. Not in the short term good for open source, but I think that on Linux, open source software tends in the long term to win out (less so in games, which have various weird characteristics such as being ephemeral and art-heavy). What one could see is an increased ecosystem of closed source (mostly non-game) Linux software distributed via Flathub, complementing the ecosystem of mostly closed source game software from Steam, and combining to make Linux a viable desktop for more and more use cases. But the open source software continues to be distributed on it mostly via more traditional distro repositories and package management. As the Linux desktop grows, with more user and developer base I would expect more and more of the open source alternatives to these Flathub-distributed closed source applications would reach critical mass and gradually supplant the closed offerings.

I would like to agree with you, but I can't see Adobe ever writing software for GNU/Linux. Affinity Serif maybe, though unlikely.

Distributing your software on GNU/Linux is hard and backwards in most people's eyes, so this is a big problem (perhaps the biggest) being solved, but it is not the most important problem. One of the problems Valve solved was distribution; they made it very easy to get games to users in exchange for money and for users to install them. Users didn't have to do anything different from what they were already doing, and much more importantly, developers didn't either. Valve worked with Codeweavers to improve compatibility for other publisher's software on a platform they don't care about, and now some of them do care, at least a little.

I don't think Flatpak, regardless of how polished it is, will get software publishers caring about GNU/Linux, but it does solve a pain point for many small developers who want to support the platform but are put off by the horde of distribution methods. I think the market share needs to come before publishers will consider distributing their software on GNU/Linux, and the only tool we really have to help with that is WINE.

Though this does raise the question of how much Flatpak's sandbox impedes the developer's ability to implement DRM and associated watchdogs. This would be particularly unappealing for Adobe, for example.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIs it really a "competitor option"? I don't think Flathub is maintained by some specific other distro company. My understanding of Flatpaks is that they are just an independent piece of software, like LibreOffice or something. If Canonical were to start considering the whole open source ecosystem to be "competition" they would have problems.

On the other hand, for every other distro, Snaps really are a "competitor option" since they're created and maintained by not just a particular distro, but by a for-profit corporation, and Snap as currently written works with just one repository, Canonical's.

I think there is a disconnect between your two arguments here. Libreoffice is shepherded by Collabora; they sell support/development services for it, so I don't think that's a great example. But also, businesses can sell services for free software (and sell free software on its own as Ardour does, though this is rarer), so doesn't it make sense that anybody who offers a service which competes for their market is a competitor, regardless of whether they're earning money from it? I mean, Amazon lost money for years so they could service more of the market than competing companies.

And businesses can also sell competing services for the same software. Mumble is a great example of this. You'll see a lot of businesses offering Mumble servers.

I know there's a sense that free software organizations aren't competing with each other, and the fediverse is a good example of the collaboration that's possible between developers, but even if you aren't competing for profit, you can be competing for something else. Namely, funding. I seriously doubt anyone is going to consider funding Cinelerra-GG, because it has such a small slice of the market. Cinelerra got funding ~20 years ago when it was the only kid on the block, but Kdenlive, Olive, and Blender VSE are much more likely to get funding in these times because of their market share.

Even outside of free software, businesses will gleefully partner with companies in different industries for joint ventures, so cooperation and 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is not something unique to the free software community.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Oh well. I play this game too much anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MayeulCI really liked the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic. Not sure I can enjoy vanilla HP (such as this) after reading that.

I've seen the Harry Potter movies in full before, but I was never a big fan of the series. So when I decided to read HPMOR, I wasn't expecting much. I only gave it a shot because of its reputation. It took me two tries, but I recently read it through fully last year and enjoyed it immensely. It was a wild ride.

HPMOR is controversial in the HP fanfiction community apparently, mainly for its interpretations of parts of the world and characters (and distrust of the author's Machine Research Institute organization), but considering I was never particularly attached to the parent series, I have no such issues with it. I like the themes and characters much more than the original series—namely its reinterpretation of one particular theme in HP.

To demonstrate how popular HPMOR is, there was a crowdfunding campaign for printing an unofficial Russian translation of HPMOR that collected over USD$175,000. For comparison, Mother of Learning's first ARC, an extremely successful original work, collected US$126,000. I guess technically it would be legal to sell fanfiction in Russia now or at least very soon...

So, uhh...I'm not going to play the game. I like HPMOR a lot too, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

3D Realms (formerly Apogee) is now owned by Saber Interactive (actually, it's owned by Embracer Group, because they're the parent company), which leaves them in control of the Duke Nukem trademark. They probably have better things to do than pursue trademark infringements on a series that hasn't seen a release in 6 years (one can hope, at least).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI disagree that regulation to prevent exclusivity is all that's needed. As I argued in my previous comment, this would overwhelmingly favor Disney, who owns multitudes more content than any other one company. They don't have an exclusive license with the content creators; they are the content creators. Copyright by its very intention created and preserves this monopoly. I point this out because outlawing exclusive licenses alone would ease but not solve this issue because Disney has an unassailable advantage. The only way it could work is if, as you say, compulsory licensing was implemented.

This in turn raises the question: Should corporations actually be able to hold copyrights? It's not like "The Disney Corporation" ever wrote a song, after all.

That's an interesting question that I don't have a single answer to. With regard to your 'kickstarter-like platform' idea, I meant to link you to this video because it describes something very similar (and heavy influenced my previous arguments): https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w. It's long, but interesting.

Now, should corporations hold copyrights? My feeling is that because corporations are legal entities and this touches many branches of law, not allowing corporations to hold copyrights would have undesirable knock-on effects elsewhere. But completely ignoring that, not having ownership over the work just makes life a lot harder for corporations—and small businesses. Do they have to get the permission of the employee who created the work to do anything with it? What if they go to a competitor, or start their own competitor? Despite being the primary significant investor in the work, they don't have any ownership in it, which seems rather imbalanced.

Of course, I understand why it's tempting we do things the way you suggest, with only individuals being able to hold copyrights. It's how the GPL works, after all. It certainly would have made people more hesitant to kick Steve Jobs out of Apple if he were the one who held the copyrights to the operating system (well, more likely it would have been Steve Wozniak, but I can imagine a scenario where Steve transfers ownership to Steve for a fee).

Ultimately, we all know that copyright is intellectually bankrupt, but this artificial monopoly is of benefit to many people. Disney has moved on from extending the Micky Mouse Protection Act and simply started trademarking popular characters. It's a much better solution because trademarks never expire (though it protects less, I can imagine companies being hesitant to needle a trillion-dollar corporation; the latest and most successful strategy in reducing the worth of our public domain over time.

This is all so tangled that it reminds me of why I use so much free software in the first place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hatoful Boyfriend was released in 2014. The game hasn't been updated since 2016—it puzzles me why the only update this game has received in over 6 years is removing versions for another platform. And this was done silently, without an official announcement.

Very strange.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerThe issue is the exclusivity - the monopoly. The music industry has compulsory licensing: people get to use your music and you get a royalty (whether the specific implementation is good or not is outside of the scope of it being a solution that exists).

Because I've never been particularly interested in music, I know nothing about the industry, so it's good to hear another perspective that I never would have considered otherwise. Thank you for introducing me to a new tentacle of copyright law; I'm always looking to learn more.

QuoteVideo streaming will need similar, or at least regulation to prevent exclusivity, if video streaming services are to be able to compete.

I disagree that regulation to prevent exclusivity is all that's needed. As I argued in my previous comment, this would overwhelmingly favor Disney, who owns multitudes more content than any other one company. They don't have an exclusive license with the content creators; they are the content creators. Copyright by its very intention created and preserves this monopoly. I point this out because outlawing exclusive licenses alone would ease but not solve this issue because Disney has an unassailable advantage. The only way it could work is if, as you say, compulsory licensing was implemented.

QuoteFar from being the solution - as you're arguing - monopoly is the problem.

My position is that copyright and patents, which are `intellectual` monopolies, last far too long, and is mostly what has resulted in this unfavorable situation for customers. Because I doubt many people (least of all Disney share my extreme opinions about copyright and patents, I proposed a solution that further enforces this monopoly—one company, government-regulated or otherwise, controlling all media. As I saw it, without nullifying the intent of copyright (which many parties are heavily invested in protecting), this was the only real solution. I like the idea of compulsory licensing more now that it has been presented to me, and even though it contravenes copyright law, most people seem to accept it.

What I would really like to see is something similar for books.

View this comment - View article - View full comments