The problem is that the entire basis of your claim is "prove me wrong or I must be right"....
What? When did I even hinted that? BFG10K is the one who said bring in solid proof or retract your statement. I have been going around this explicitly and implicitly. Now you are saying that my claim is based on "prove me wrong or I must be right?" Really, re-read post 371. I already said I can't prove it, but does that mean I am wrong? I simply turn the table and ask you for proofs in return. The only difference is, I did not ask you to retract your statement if you ain't prove it.
How did we ended up arguing like this? Where is the middle ground? Argument within threads are usually state and leave. Yes, there are times people challenge each other. I have no problem taken on your challenge as it is peaceful. You and I both went out do research trying to back up what we said. What is wrong with that? I continuously said that you believe in one thing and I believe in another. I never said that I am right and you are wrong if you can't prove otherwise. Not once I said "You are embarrassing yourself" right? Did I even said that you are wrong throughout this argument?
The problem originated by the demand BFG10K made, I demand that I have problems with. I said I don't see violation of forum rules in my part, and that is when you came in. Remember?
So If I can't get proofs than I must retract the statement. Who started this? Who started this idea? Why am I so wrong to ask others to bring in proofs/evidence on their statements where if I can't proof mine, I have to retract it? Why? Based on your definition, mine is extraordinary. Well, isn't that by itself an extraordinary claim? I repeatedly challenged that, only to be ignored.
Again, free as in beer is not free as in speech. Proprietary means it is not free as in speech; proprietary can still be (and in this case is) free as in beer.
Again, I understand that, and I have told you over and over again. The game is simple, I search for proofs/evidence to back my believe, that it isn't free, and you search for proofs/evidence to back your believe, that it is free. No, I am not talking about the code must run on windows OS, I am (we have been) talking about devs need to pay MS.
No, I can't find a proof, but I believe they do have to pay money, share revenue, or include features that devs don't really wanted to put in. You believed that lots of things are free too, like TWIMTBP? (Yes, I put this one in your mouth. This is the type that I am willing to retract if it offends you.) I personally hated the 30 second to 1 minute logo play. I hated them, but I understand why they are there. It is a trade, a fair trade, between however created the game, published the game, and/or have everything to do with the game that deserves it. Do you know PhysX effects are better with Nvidia video card? Why would devs want to hurt half of their potential customers by using it? Well, it is a trade between developers and Nvidia. I can't break down those terms, but it really isn't as extraordinary as you claimed it is.
You believe that the trade off is the fact that Dx code path runs only on windows, this itself is a fair trade and therefore the license
should be free. It is clear that you can't prove that, and I can't prove otherwise either. We could have left at that 3 days ago. Why are we still at it? Is it me who wanted to prove you wrong? Or is it you who wanted to prove that it is really an extraordinary claim? I am the defendent all these times. Please don't turn it around as if I am trying to prove that you are wrong. Clearly, I can't. At best, I can only say "well none of us can prove one way or the other," which leads back to the problem of "bring proof or retract" demand from BFG10K. If I have to retract, then you and I both have a lot of deleting to do. Am I correct?
Look at it another way. You saw my post, and have a problem with it, will you jump in and say "proof it or retract it" at the first place? I am fine with "Seero, that is a bold claim, can you back it up?" Which is what you said more or less. Unfortunately, you used the term "extraordinary", which is not an accident. You probably use it to justify BFG10K's demand. Be honest, did I think to much? or was that the case?
Homebrew only applies to consoles. I explained this before. You're trying to take a concept from consoles (a closed system) and apply it to computers.
GPL, LGPL and copyleft are all types of licenses that are related to free software. Believe doesn't work in court. If you get caught taking an item off a shop and your reasoning is "I believe it is free because...", then you probably gonna explain it in great details in the police station. If there is a label on it that saids "free to take", then it is different. Here you have a set of propreitary API, not only you are using it, which is free, but you are trying to sell a product that requires it to work. You are saying to the rest of the readers that it is okay to assume it is free, and I am saying that you need to pay for that. We can simply leave it here, or go on. Your call.