LOL, what? You’re the one trying to make a point here, not me. Spit it out. I’m not gonna do your fucking work for you!

It sounds like you’re trying to “hint” at the idea that a bunch of games are using Epic Online Services and/or the Online Subsystem Steam API associated with it, but beyond that I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

If you’re trying to obliquely cite that as some kind of counterexample where it’s reasonable for a game’s source code to remain secret just because part of it is that library, then no, it fucking isn’t. I can’t tell whether EOS has the source code available along with the rest of the Unreal engine or not, but if not, it ought to be and IDGAF about any excuses Epic might have for not making it so.

If you go full blyatski and outlaw personal ownership, you get Soviet Russia, a nation whose contribution to global culture has been a few ballets, some long depressing books and precisely one video game, because nobody is given incentive or even opportunity to create anything, so they don’t.

To be fair, Soviet Russia probably has a bunch more stuff than that; we just don’t know about it because it didn’t get translated and distributed to the West. The “Dr. Livesey Walk” meme is from a Soviet cartoon, for example.

I can only assume artists got funded by government grants or something, IDK. It probably did result in a lot less of it being created than in the West, though.

(Also, I think the ballets and books you’re alluding to might’ve been pre-Soviet?)

Anyway, I completely agree that copyright and patents are a compromise, and that the pendulum has swung way too far to the side of rights-holders at the moment.

This would be the only type creative work that would be burdened like this.

It’s the only type of creative work that needs to be burdened like this, as all other types of works have always been “self-contained” (for lack of a better term) with no continued reliance on the publisher after the purchase.

Ditto with older games, BTW: you’ll notice that this “Stop Killing Games” movement didn’t start until the game industry started using tactics like DRM and “live service” architectures to forcibly wrest control away from the gamers. Before that, people could just keep playing their cartridges and CDs and even digital downloads, and hosting multiplayer themselves using the dedicated server program included with the game, in perpetuity and everything was just fine.

The industry got fucking greedy and control-freakish, and this is the inevitable and just attempt for society to hold it accountable.

I find it paradoxical that we’re trying to save the gaming industry by burdening (mostly) small developers. Larger studio will no longer be able to abuse the system, but complying will be easy for them.

I find it weird that you’re making what seems to me to be a strawman argument about “burdening (mostly) small developers,” as I’d say they are mostly not the ones trying to do this bullshit where they try to retroactively destroy art and culture because it stops being profitable enough. Indie studios typically don’t design their games to use publisher-operated servers with ongoing costs attached in the first place, let alone to self-destruct when they shut off!

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

If no such thing exists, they should create it.

So you have no excuse to be wrong, and are therefore trolling on purpose. Removed your own damn removed!

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

Not an open source license, so what the fuck is your point?

Now go refute my other arguments

Your word salad isn’t coherent enough to form any sort of “argument” in the first place.

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

You do realize that “copyleft” isn’t the same thing as those other terms, right? “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses can be “copyleft,” but they can also be “permissive.”

That’s what was nonsense about your “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” statement. All copyleft is open source, but not all open source is copyleft.

What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code.

What? That’s not true at all. You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

Edit: your comment was wrong in multiple ways, and I only addressed one before replying.

In addition to simply not saying what you claimed it says, CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses. That means OSI either rejected it or didn’t evaluate it at all. (I assume the latter, in this case, because CC-BY-SA isn’t even intended for software source code to begin with!)

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

Who is not authoritative on the issue.

Except they are, because they’re the ones who coined the term.

But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code.

The second you use the term “intellectual property[sic],” it tells me you either don’t understand what you’re talking about well enough to discuss it with precision, or you’re fatally biased about the issue…

They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.

…and the rest of your paragraph confirms your lack of understanding, because the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense.

(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)

Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!

Meanwhile, the administration pocketed the money.

I mean, sort of, but not really. The money went into the Federal budget, and even if some of it did get embezzled by Trump cronies, the money that comes back isn’t going to come back out of their pockets.

If the embezzlement happened, that’s a separate, additional crime on top of issuing the illegal tariffs themselves.

But it’s actually more important to me that the administration not get away with the illegal tariffs.

Then the only correct solution is prison (or worse) for the officials involved. Making the Federal government (i.e., we, the people) pay back the illegal tariffs does fuck-all to punish the corrupt officials responsible.

I’m not saying the illegal tariffs shouldn’t be refunded, I’m just saying it isn’t the punishment you’re looking for.

(Oh, by the way: the next step in your recap of the situation is going to be “the Federal government raises taxes to cover the ‘shortfall’ caused by refunding the illegal tariffs.” I haven’t heard anything about it yet, but you’ll see. We, the people will be left holding the bag again.)

The opposite of a threat in this case, but yes, still corruption.

Oh I see, you’re just a troll who keeps lying and spreading FUD. Reported.

Nobody can be forced to keep supporting their older stuff forever, assuming it is even possible.
There are solutions to keep a server online or to give ways to run a local server (a docker image comes to mind), but you cannot think a company will keep a server active after years to just make few dozens happy with all the implications.

No shit, Sherlock. That’s why the tenable and preferred option is for them to give it up once they’re done profiting so that the public can do it themselves instead.

I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.

LOL, nothing but FUD. Game publishers made plenty of profit before they came up with this “live service” bullshit, and they’ll continue to make plenty of profit even after we stop allowing them to screw over everyone too.

In case you weren’t aware of it, the only reason we grant copyright to creative works in the first place is to encourage more works to be created and eventually enrich the Public Domain. If the works never reach it (because the publisher is using technological means to destroy it before copyright expires) then they have broken that social contract and don’t deserve to be protected by it in the first place.

These live service game publishers are trying to eat their cake and have it too, and they simply aren’t entitled to that. The fact that they’ve been getting away with this theft from the Public Domain is unjust and must stop.

It’s not even an issue of “orphaned works.” Every work becomes Public Domain eventually; that’s the point of it.

In fact (according to originalist American sensibilities, at least) the entire point of copyright law is “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts” (i.e., to enrich the Public Domain) to begin with! Allowing works to be copyrighted (essentially, borrowed back from the Public Domain temporarily so the creator can profit, thus incentivizing the creation of works) is merely a means to that end, not some sort of moral entitlement.

Why are you lying about what I wrote? I never claimed the publisher should be forced to maintain it forever.

What part of sending the source to the government archive did you not understand?

Make no mistake, Reddit is a safe space for Nazis too. It may not be quite as obvious as the CEO doing a Nazi salute, but the admins actively support mods who promote pro-fascist disinformation.

‘Open Source’ is a term, that means, that the Source code is accessible, but tells you nothing about the liberties that the license grants.

No it isn’t. “Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

You’re getting it confused with bullshit like “shared source” or “source available,” which are propagandistic terms designed to confuse people about proprietary software being freer than it actually is.

Say I’m writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

Sure!

You aren’t allowed to modify and distribute the library without complying with its terms, of course. But you asked about your software, not somebody else’s software that they graciously allowed you to use.