this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
380 points (95.5% liked)

Games

32654 readers
1184 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lodra@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hmm I may be confused. Do you believe that software companies shouldn’t be allowed to build and sell libraries? I.e. They should only be allowed to sell full products, ready for an end user?

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not the person you're responding to but I definitely think that Library should be able to be made, however I don't believe that they should be able to prevent a project from going open source in the case of company using the library going under, or if they wanted to keep it closed Source they should have to do something similar to what class action lawsuits do where anyone that is affected by it and opts into the agreement get some sort of compensation. Because it really is like a rug pull you buy a product and then the company makes the product unusable

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Except that isn't how it works, and could lead people to buy a library for a day, then opensource it.

Open source means any code used is widely available to anyone. Having a library you pay for means it cannot be widely available, or nobody would buy it. No more licensing game engines, paid libraries cease to exist since there is no incentive to make them, everything goes the "open source way" which means hard to use, opinionated, unintuitive software that is maintained by random people who rarely know what they are doing. No online banking, since you can't certify that easily and it wouldn't be profitable. No card with points and goodies in your supermarket for the exact same reason (points have a calculable value in real money). No online healthcare, etc etc

[–] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

I am aware that this would kill SaaS overnight, that's an intended feature.

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough regarding sass, though I disagree with the opinion.

But I’m asking about builders of partial software. For example, consider a single developer that builds a really great library for handling tables. It displays a grid, displays text in cells, maybe performs some operations between cells, etc. On its own, this software is useless but is very useful for other people to build other products. Should it be illegal to sell this software?

[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

I agree with you.

Though I would say that the grid software on its own IS useful. It's useful to developers, otherwise they wouldn't use it. Saying it's useless is like saying a hammer is useless because it's not a house, it's only good for building a house (among other things).