/tech/ - Technology★

Remember this is not >>>/g/

>>845220

This is a good thread. It has a point, a list of useful software tools, and a reason.

btw OP, milkytracker comes with a file called AIFFWriter.h which is a way to export non free AIFF files

>>845252

I agree, I like it.

Should I start learning Godot when 3.0 is just around the corner though?

>>845255

I've been fiddling around with the second beta release for a bit. If you have some planning or asset creation to do, I'd do that right now. There are a few bugs being worked out for the 3.0 release that should be in a couple weeks.

>>845255

Download the Beta release from their newsfeed (or compile yourself) to get into 3.0 immediately.

>>845217 (OP)

what if i don't give a shit about morality and i'm only looking for profit.

checkmate fedora retard

I like Love2D, especially as a learning tool. Big toolkits like Godot can be daunting at first.

Also why OpenOffice? LibreOffice is a much better alternative.

>>845262

>It's more profitable to pay out the ass for a license

>And you are still fucked if there's a bug they don't feel like fixing

I've got a bridge to sell ya

>>845252

What about aiff makes it a non free file format?

It's one of the simplest audio formats to write. I like it.

>>845252

Good thread?

He talks about free software and unironically suggests to either use Ubuntu or LinuxMint.

Try harder next time, kid.

>>845269

>>845270

>huh duh is not muh autistic brand of free software therefore is crap

GPL is not free

You cannot sell GPL'd software

>>845274

>You cannot sell GPL'd software

Of course you can, just as long as you make the source code available.

>>845274

>>845285

It's true however GPL is incompatible with Steam and most app stores. So just dual-license your game.

>>845285

name one piece of GPL'd software that people sell

not providing service for

not selling CD's or physical distribution media

I am saying the software is sold

>>845217 (OP)

Well, it's not even about it being "morally correct". It's good for you, the user of those tools, and good for the people that will use your software, assuming you decide to make it free software too.

>>845291

It isn't sold because it's a shit business model, not because the GPL disallows it.

>>845295

try reading the GPL sometime instead of basing your opinion off of the opinions of others.

>>845297

Nice try Stallman.

>>845291

Why would it not be possible? Just make the source code available without the assets, and sell complete game. Pirates gonna pirate. Or better yet don't partake in the immoral business practice of selling data, and crowd fund your labor instead.

>>845300

the license _requires_ no cost for the software

the GPL only provisions cost for distribution expenses and service fees,

but it requires _no cost_ for the software itself

that's why no one can name one single piece of software that is sold under the GPL

>>845300

as for the assets,

i don't want to make artwork and program software, only to sell the artwork while having to give away the software

I want to program, i want renumeration for my labor, i don't want to give my labor away

>>845298

I did, and there's nothing that prohibits selling of copies.

>>845300

this, godot dev makes 8.5k dolars per month on patreon.

the guys making the Wii emulator makes more on patreon or some shit.

the guy making monster island dev makes 35k per month on patreon.

if people need your work or software, they will pay for you to mantain it.

Krita is GPL and sold.

>>845302

grsecurity

;DDDDDDD

>>845302

No, retard. You may not charge for accessing the code itself when distributing that code. That means if you sell binaries and simply provide a link to the source, but that source also charges, then you are breaking the GPL. The software itself, if the source is available at no cost, then it can be freely sold. Nobody does this because it's a stupid business practice, and your'e grasping at straws.

>>845309

You may not charge unreasonably extra for the source code, but you may

- Provide the source code for free to people who bought the binaries, and not provide it at all to anyone else

- Sell the source code without giving anyone binaries

>>845309 (retard)

read the GPL

>>845307

>>845308

your words are worthless without sources

>>845291

ppsspp

>>845311

Krita in the Microsoft store:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96

Krita's license:

https://github.com/KDE/krita/blob/master/COPYING

>>845311

I did, and that's how I know you're a fucking retard.

>>845315

terrible argument there buddy

relying upon ad hominem as if it means anything

>>845314

Thanks for providing a source.

I do find this interesting however:

>If you buy Krita in the Windows store, you will support the development of Krita directly: currently, two volunteers from the Krita community are sponsored to work full-time on Krita. You will also have the convenience of easy installation on all your Windows devices and automatic updates when a new version is released.

And this is what I find really interesting:

>You will also have the convenience of easy installation on all your Windows devices and automatic updates when a new version is released.

It almost reads as if the buyer is paying a fee for services which include automatic updates and an easy-to-use exe for installation.

It almost reads as if the buyer isn't buying the software at all.

But that is a case and example, even though there is speculation about it.

>>845320

That's not an ad-hominem, dipshit. Saying you're wrong because you're a dipshit is an ad-hominem. You're wrong and you're a dipshit, and the reason you're wrong right now is because you don't understand the GPL or what an ad-hominem is.

>>845322

fine

you can be the asshole

>>845323

And you can be the retard that doesn't know how to read and argues against well-known facts.

>>845325

why don't you go read the GPL

instead of using ad hominems

>>845326

I did, and you're wrong.

Don't forget about Enigma

>>845320

>Do my homework for me or I win the argument

Yeah, nah. Fuck off.

>>845331

>he hasn't listened the best of lmms album yet

wew lads.

>>845330

what homework?

If someone makes an assertion without a source, that adds nothing to argument.

However, when someone provides a source, I now have somewhere to derive whether my position is correct or not, along with any audience to discern for themselves who is correct or not.

I conceded that software was sold on the windows store, and it is plainly labelled as GPL v2, but there is room to contest the condition of sale as to whether a person is buying the software itself or paying fees in exchange for services.

>>845335

You can't prove that it doesn't say something you said it does. If you think it prohibits selling GPL software, then it's up to (you) to provide source, retard. Nice job fucking up the burden of proof too.

>>845338

>an image is an argument

Nice job, stupid.

>>845332

it's nothing sort of impressive, at least musically. on top of that, lmms is fucking shit for anyone who isn't some freetard making shitty EDM.

>>845344

>he thinks LMMS has any effect over a musician compositional skills, less alone his music production skills

wew lads.

>>845291

I was just saying you can, not that you should or that I endorse GPL. Personally I see it as a virus.

>>845336

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html

>You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.

You can only charge a fee for the "physical act of transferring a copy" under the GPL v1.

>b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).

If you make your software under the GPL v1 or derive your software from anything under the GPL v1, you must provide it to all third parties "at no charge".

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

>You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

Same as GPL v1 except an additional "warranty protection" fee was added.

>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Same as GPL v1.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

>You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

You can only charge a price for "copy" not the original work.

>d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

If you charge for the object, you may only charge if you offer it from a designated place and you provide the source at no cost.

>e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.

An extension of the previous section d.

>For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License

A person cannot charge a fee for license. A license is the right to possess, perform, publish, produce, or use a copyrighted work. You cannot charge a fee to use the software.

>>845348

None of that says you cannot sell free software. Again, it only says you cannot lock the source behind a paywall after distributing the binary. Why are you still being retarded? Are you illiterate?

>you must provide it to all third parties "at no charge".

This means the license, not that you cannot sell the software. You can still do that. And it's funny that you have to dig back at GPLv1 to get anything close to this "prohibition", you fucking retard.

Out of curiosity, does GPL block you from distributing highly obfuscated source code?

>>845351

No, because there is no way to tell if you're cleverly obfuscating your code of if you're simply an MIT (Mumbai Institute of Technology) graduate.

>>845350

I'll let other readers come along and form their own conclusions from the arguments made in this thread.

>>845353

>hurr I know more than the FSF about GPL

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

You fucking idiot.

I have been trying to get into Love2D recently. It seems a pretty comfy game engine that takes care of the low-level stuff, but leaves the high-level stuff up to the programmer. I hope that this means that I won't be fighting the engine when creating a game. I'm not a big fan of Lua, it has some really questionable design choices, but it could be worse.

>>845348

>You cannot charge a fee to use the software.

Now you're just moving goal posts. You cannot charge a fee to use a GPL software in the same way you cannot charge a fee to use a hammer. The entire point of Free Software is that users should be Free to use software as they see fit. When you buy a hammer you are not buying a permission to use the hammer, you are buying the hammer, or rather a copy of whatever prototype the hammer manufacturer has in their factory. In the same way when you buy a software you are buying a copy of the software.

>>845310

>- Provide the source code for free to people who bought the binaries, and not provide it at all to anyone else

This. I even asked Stallman about it and he sees no issue. Just include a tarball (or ZIP or whatever) of the source code with the download and you're fine, no need for a public repo if you don't want to.

>>845351

Technically yes, but as >>845352 pointed out, the line between obfuscated and just plain shit style is blurry. With that said, code that has been heavily obfuscated or minimized like what web developers do to keep their JavaScript files smaller, can easily be detected. No human has writing habits that shit.

Obfuscation isn't really worth the effort either, there are automatic tools that can de-obfuscate the code again. You lose all the comments and possibly the variable names, but it's still quite powerful.

>>845287

There are numerous GPL games and applications available on Steam. Endless Sky, Blender, Crongdor the Barbarian, and Strife: Veteran Edition are a few. There have also been "ports" of console games like N2O using GPL emulators. It looks like you're right about Apple's app store, but there's at least one GPL game on the Play Store called Pixel Dungeon.

>no mention of SDL

Weak faggot.

>>845377

>what is crossplatform input

I know there are better rendering engines out there. But SDL is amazing for cross-platform input.

>>845361

Love2D is very cool, because it's so functionally minimal.

>>845376

People only use SDL because they're afraid to learn to use a system's specific API. Prove me wrong.

>>845403

You are correct. I am too lazy to learn the windows, openbsd, freebsd, and mac osx API for input because fuck dinput on winblows and fuck EULA's on mac for cocoa or whatever they use now.

>>845217 (OP)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

>>845404

I didn't say lazy, I said afraid. Deep down you know that the APIs will break your spirit and make you feel dumb.

>Remember to make games using only free software.

>makes game with proprietary license

>>845423

>durr hurr abstractions are for pussy noobs

you're retarded

>>845344

>I'm a pro so i need blahblah studio pro (tm) to make pro (tm) shit

Professionalism isn't about the best tools, it's about the right tools and they make better results than impatient wannabes like you who'll never make it.

>>845409

> Avoid using these words so you have more freedom™.

>>845252

so what? AIFF is pointless anyway, one should use FLAC (for lossless) instead, or Opus for lossy

and it is also so trivial there's nothing to patent

>>845466

But am I wrong?

>>845475

>Opus for lossy

>Opus lossy

>O pusssy

>pussy

>>845466

Oh and also, "hurr durr" is a dead giveaway that you're a cum guzzling cuckchanner, just so you know.

>>845479

t. cuckchanner trying to fit in

>>845351

Yes, it says "preferred form for modification" or something, not "source code". It needs to be the form in which you would work on it.

>>845273

It's bloated, you faggot.

Using one of those distro, you'also using non-free software from their non-free repos, and using proprietary bloat in Linux.

>>845217 (OP)

>Only use free software

>Uses 8chan

Really makes you think

>>845529

https://github.com/OpenIB/OpenIB/

Not to mention that it's possible to use 8chan without running any of its code, which is Stallman-compliant no matter what.

What's the best free software for digital sculpting? Not modeling, sculpting.

>>845265

This reminds me I am working in a game at work as a sidejob. We are using Unity because there were some assets packs for it that solved 90% of development time, but we soon found out that Unity has shit support for controllers and doesn't contemplate the more complex devices for flying simulators and the likes. As a result, two of the reversers in the levers can't be detected because they are above the hardcoded limit of buttons a controller may have.

People have complained in the forums, but since it is a niche use case they don't give a fuck. As always, I think the solution consists on writing your own input controller, like pretty much everything in this "readymade dragondrop xd" engine.

Also, no wonder people complain about Unity games not being optimized. Shit encourages millions of layers of indirection to access a specific Entity.

>>845537

blender.

>huh duh I need muh zbrush because I'm a pro

>>845549

>text rpg

literally less than one day of work, do what you want.

>>845554

It's really not a day's work if I am to include a lot of text and music that I made myself, also I'm quite shitty at C and want to practice datastructures and whatnot with this project as well so the code should follow some standards.

>>845556

>shit

you're literally programming a console application retard, not some 3D game on opengl.

literally one month of work.

>>845560

Wouldn't want you to plan any commercial products because one day changed into one month at a moment's notice smh fam

>>845562

I don't get your point, but you're literally programming a console app, is literally the same type of games they did in the 70's.

unless you're going full pajeet enterprise mode with it, is just a bunch of procedural code with some functions and a lot of json text made in some scripting python app.

>>845377

Godot is a game engine, SDL is a library for cross-platform multimedia stuff. You don't even have to use SDL for games technically, you could use its gamepad input facilities in a 3D modelling application.

>>845549

Ncurses should be sufficient. Acutally, you should use only ANSI escape codes yourself, like a big boy. You'll learn a little bit, this way.