I've never even seen an Amiga!

If you want a modern example of stupidity getting in the way of using code the way you want, look at the Intel ICC compiler. If the code it produces is running on a CPU that doesn't have the 'GenuineIntel' string from CPUID, it chooses the worst possible algorithms it has in its libraries. Intel says it's supposed to ensure correctness, but everyone knows it's to make non-Intel chips look bad.

True, but it is only the author of said product that has the right to set the product's price. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. You certainly do not have the right to pirate it.

I didn't pirate Linux. Did you pirate Windows? I'd bet money yves did.

The GPL is effectively about user freedom. It basically states that the freedom of many is more important than the freedom of few. Its purpose is preserving and enforcing the freedom of the users. Those not intending to profit from their software can release it using the GPL and trust that their works will continue to be free for modification and redistribution, regardless of whether or not they're integrated into some other software. It basically prevents somebody from taking your hard work, enhancing it ever so slightly, and charging the world for the product as a whole, despite you doing most of the work.

The LGPL is basically the same thing, except that it allows for the software to be contained as a separate module, and linked separately. This way you can freely use it without restrictions to your own software. It effectively solves the "problem" being discussed about the GPL. Not all software is a good candidate for that though.

Basically it's bullshit for commercial developers to want to use free software and then turn around and charge unreasonable licensing fees for the derivative. Don't get me wrong: I certainly want commercial developers to use open source software. They should just contribute back to the open source world instead of exploiting it. If that open source software wasn't available then each of those libraries and programs that save the day would cost your company another licensing fee. There would be plenty of half-assed implementations and you'd have no way of knowing which worked and which didn't until you had already coughed up the annual budget. It adds up very quickly. It's expensive to use broken software that you aren't allowed to fix.

As programmers, you need to get paid for your work. Your 9-5 or whatever you work. However, you don't need to get paid every time somebody runs your damn program. If the software has a productive purpose then somebody is going to be willing to fund it. After they've done so there's no good reason to keep charging for it (except for greed). For now the entire software industry is built on greed though. I think the GPL is a very good way to force the greedy shops to feed on their own kind.

GPL only makes sense if everybody is using it for everything. And if the goal of GPL'ers is to take over the world, they are sadly delusional. If Allegro were GPL, the only difference would be that fewer people would use it.

The main perspective of people who love the GPL is:

If you use my puny GPL software and make a profit, I feel like I've been taken advantage of. Why? Well, if you didn't use it, then I'd have nothing. If you did use it, then I'd still have nothing. But I judge my happiness based on how much I have relative to you. If we both have nothing, I am happy. If you have more than me, I am not.

Now, I have nothing against people who use the GPL. It's their right. And in fact, for most applications it doesn't really matter much at all. I can use your GPL program without ever touching the source code and contaminating my own.

But the motivation of using GPL for a library is just one of selfishness and elitism. If you don't belong to my GPL open source club, then you cannot use it.

Again, the author has every right to say that, but to pretend it's for the greater good... well, that's just pathetic, and I feel a little bit sorry for somebody who has wasted his own time developing software with such misguided intentions.

You could've just used DosBox or even install VMware to run an older OS if you want to play classic games

These games are neither dos based, nor do they run without 3D acceleration.

EDIT:

It was a gamble on the user's part to buy these closed source games that paid off.

In what way? Developers need to waste time removing proprietary code from it at the very least. Releasing the source after the fact does not help the original developers whatsoever (well, maybe except goodwill or something); only the users benefit.

Ignorance with respect to the long term dangers of closed source software (e.g. compatibility issues with newer systems).

Even if that does work, that means in principle shelling out $180... something I wouldn't have to do if the game was OSS.

Note that I haven't even started talking about buggy software that I can't even attempt to fix because I have no access to its source.

Do you mean that it's a gamble to buy a closed source product, period? Eg it might have been shit? Yes. That's true for any product that you buy, closed source or not. Having access to the source does not mean it's economical, effective or possible to "fix" the game/software yourself. Especially not for 99% of the users out there.

And for games - if you modify it, you're not really playing THAT game any more. Artistic vision and what-not.

If it is possible with a minimum of work (such as if they don't need to re-factor the code too much), it's a significant boost to their brand, and a good way to advertise a future game.

However, I suspect it will happen less now. It seems that there is indeed a good market for old games made to work on new systems (such as www.gog.com, which sells great games at really reasonable prices).

VMWare Player is free. All you need is downloading the vm from somewhere else, or use some free tool to create the vm, like this one.

Those statements would be yours.

The GPL doesn't do that. In fact, the GPL explicitly allows anyone to take your work, not change it at all (or change it however they like), and then charging the world for the product as a whole.

The condition imposed by the GPL is that if you do sell the product, then you must also grant the purchaser the right to modify and distribute the product (under the same GPL terms).

The GPL isn't about preventing people from charging money. It's about preventing people from turning open-source software into closed source software.

...

In any case, for my own purposes, I value the freedom to be able to choose and change the licence of the software I write. So even if I intend to release software under the GPL, I still wouldn't use GPL components, for fear that I'd lose my freedom.

I have used the GPL licence a couple of times, and I expect I'll use it again in the future; but I see it as a way of protecting my rights rather than protecting the freedom granted by open source software.

Don't mix up two words:

• power

• freedom

Freedom is not to choose any license you want when using foreign code. If you think that you have a naive definition of freedom. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want, it means you can do whatever you want as long as you respect the freedom of others. You seem to be forgetting the second part all the time. If you can't take GPL code and put your own code under the GPL, then I would ask: What is restricting you to do that?

You think it's dumb, but basically you wanted to take away the freedom of others and the mechanism seemed to work here, because you could not use it. What's wrong with it?