Seriously, I don't get the fanboy. Open source is fine.
Well, I could
call you “fanboy”, too, because of your apparent strong pro-copyright position. But I won't because I don't want to sound like a dick.
But there are valid reasons for closed source, proprietary, or any other model that does not fit the "definition" of open source, which is technically different than FOSS, which is technically different from open libre free freedom free as in beer or any other derivitive expression, license, or software.
What are these “valid reasons”?
Btw: Neither free software nor proprietary software is a “model” as in “development model”. Or how do I have to understand the term here?
Btw 2: While “free software” and “open source” are technically different
, their definitions are still very, very similar. Look it up.
This alone implies that you think you are entitled to my work. Please explain this.
It's not an entitlement. To create, copy and share creative works is part of human nature, and to simply want to follow human nature is not an entitlement. You make is sound as if it would be evil to do so.
What IS an entitlement, however, is insisting that one alone gets to dictate to all other humans in the entire world what to do, simply because the law says so. In fact, even the idea that one person alone can
hold an exclusive monopoly right on a part of culture is a blatant form of entitlement. It is entitlement to want to dictate who can and cannot do something with that part of culture.
I'm not saying that copyright does not exist, but I am questioning the ideology of copyright.
Also, this is the Internet, the largest copying machine in the world. There's a simple rule: If you do not want something to spread, do not post it in the Internet. If you post anything in the Internet, you have de facto surrendered control over it and have to expect copying, sharing, ridicul, pr0n versions and whatnot. If you post something on the Internet, and whine about its usage afterwards, frankly, its kind of your fault, too. It does not matter if this is legal or not, the Internet does it anyway. This is just how the Internet works. Like it or not, you can't change it anyway.
I choose to protect my self and my work. You are not in this process, have no say, right, or opinion. You are not I. I create, release, and protect. Where do You fit in? You choose to use or not. There are no rights. There is only a choice.
Nobody is harmed, nothing is lost when anyone's creative artwork is copied. And what the heck is this “choice” thing you keep talking about?
Copyrights are patents for works that are fundementally the same thing, the work of an individual.
And that is patently false (pun intended). Copyrights are NOT patents. Copyright law and patent law are very different with very different histories and justifications. Please read more about these things before making such absurd claims.
Do you also feel that all knowledge should be freely available? Your arguements imply that this is core to your beliefs.
Almost. Not all
knowledge should be public, but all knowledge of public interest should, in general, be public. Why should it be different? Do you want to keep the general public stupid and uninformed? I hope not. It's benefits all of us if we share knowledge instead of keeping it a guarded secret.
Excluded from this is private personal data like birth name, birth date, social ID, passwords, etc. Here it is justified to have secrets.
And avoid the arguments that imply I, as creator, have no rights to impose upon my creation. You are not entitled to MY creation, unless I say, and at my discretion.
Look: You are not my master.
This is not the same. Confusing the philosophy of open source, and the rights of users to choose open source or closed, does not equate. Open source refers to a users ability to not only possess the code for use, but to also see the code, and to make modifications. A users right to choose the software of their choice is actual freedom. Even if their choice is not in their best interest.
The rabid FOSS fanboy comes across as someone who expects the freedom to use, copy or modify my literary, artistic, musical, or code development endeavors. Is the same expected of the manufacturer of your car, refrigerator, or your doctors MRI? The arguments are not different. If you can see beyond the fanboy, you'd see that your freedom lies only in choices, not in access to some "forbidden" black box.
I don't understand what's up with your “choices” argument … It's about the Content DB only, and not about controlling the entire Internet. Jeez.
Well, the other things you mentioned are not software, so are irrelevant to this discussion. Don't worry, I am not one of those crazy open source proponents who forcefully apply the label “open source” on countless non-software things, no matter if it actually makes sense or not (most of the time, it doesn't). This list
makes me want to puke.
However, transparency in general is a good thing. In general. But that's very very off-topic.
You seem to think before you read and understand. I in no way implied anything like this. I merely suggested that self-rating is preferred to outright censorship. It was you who began with accusations of censorship, that the ratings would mean content would be censored. That was the gist of your initial post.
I already stated that I am fine with a rating system if and only if it is optional and objective.
If you're not proposing to censor Content DB for “questionable” content, then all is fine. :)
The rest of your post comes off as rabid FOSS fanboy. Don't throw some hyperlink to explain yourself, use your own words to defend your contradictions.
It doesn't help your case if you call me “rabid FOSS fanboy”. It really does not help your case if you deliberately choose to ignore reading material. It's not even long. :( Why should I use “my own words”? I would just repeat what has already been stated, so that's just redundant. I can not stand willful ignorance.
Also, what contradictions?
If you want to empower users, nothing short of giving them ALL the options actually empowers anyone. The power remains in someone else's hands. And that is contradictory to FOSS.
It's still technically and legally possible to develop proprietary mods for Minetest. And we can not and will not prevent anyone from doing that. Although I will condemn it (unsurprisingly).
But I disagree that Content DB should “feel obliged” to host all of them and present them to the user on a silver platter and basically give them free advertisement. Being on Content DB should NOT be a free-for-all. If we just allow everything, Content DB must host malware, too, because of “user choice”.
Proprietary developers should get no support from us (or better: not too much support), they should simply host their stuff elsewhere. That's basically all this is about. And no, such behaviour is not unethical. Simply refusing to collaborate and refusing to give someone a platform is not unethical.
I don't get why you are defending the rights of proprietary developers since it doesn't even affect you.
EULA: I hereby agree to continue to create mods, answer questions, get berated, offer advise, and otherwise be a positive contributing member of the Minetest.net community.
Sorry, I won't sign that. I contribute to the Minetest community whenever I feel like it.