Slashdot Mirror
How Will Steam on GNU/Linux Affect Software Freedom?
rms has published his thoughts on Steam coming to GNU/Linux. He notes that the availability of proprietary games may very well help spread GNU/Linux (but the FSF prioritizes spreading software freedom). And, you're better off at least having a Free operating system instead of Windows: "My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community? Any GNU/Linux distro that comes with software to offer these games will teach users that the point is not freedom. Nonfree software in GNU/Linux distros already works against the goal of freedom. Adding these games to a distro would augment that effect."
Or: How will the FOSS community affect Valve? Already they've contributed a bit to the graphics stack, hired a few folks from inside the community, etc. But Steam also makes use of DRM and distributes software in ways that are opposed to the ideals of many in the FOSS community (and even the wider Free Culture community). Given Gabe Newell's professed love for openness, might we see their company culture infiltrated?
...who intentionally confuse the freedoms of the user with the freedoms of the proprietary software developer.
Linux has failed on the desktop for the past decades and will continue to fail on the desktop in the future decades.
Face it the ONLY thing bringing Linux to the desktop currently is GAMING.
Would you prefer Origins on Linux or Steam? Frankly I would prefer neither as both are VERY ANTI COMPETITIVE but Linux needs something and this could be it.
frankly, i don't see the point why some of us should be ideologues in the community. it's divisive and it may not allow for greater efficiency. I'd go with what Linus said "whatever works best"
There are plenty of free game engines out there, we don't need all of them to be free. The assets will never be free either, and that's the product in the end, that's what the game is all about.
The engine being free would make supporting the games in the future easier, but with the underlying architecture of the platform being open and well documented, it isn't impossible.
Twinstiq, game news
I say this as a free software developer: At some point, you just want software and don't care about the politics. Not everything has to be political -- just look at Chick-Fil-A as an example of how this way of thinking can backfire.
I play games for entertainment, not to make a political statement. Let's keep the two worlds separate.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Asking for information, not trolling:
What is the point of the BSD licence? Why not just go straight to public domain (for new works)?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
It indemnifies the original author from any damages arising from use of the software.
i.e. if some company uses it and their product kills 50 people, the original author can't be held liable.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take the other freedoms away. If you value other people's freedom as much as your own, the GPL takes nothing from you. If you on the other hand are someone who takes without giving, then the GPL is still the right license, to protect against you.
Free software is most certainly an admirable goal.
But if market forces and existing conditions mean that proprietary software is the most expedient way to get the software delivered to the customer, then that's what will happen.
Valve gets Linux bugs fixed, and they can make legitimate and credible arguments for things that should be changed about Linux. There is no doubt that they are contributing to the long term health and stability of linux.
If the vendor has proprietary software and the customer finds it to be the best solution, the job of the operating system is to get out of the way and allow the customer to do what he wants.
The goal of GNU and the FSF was never to lock out commercial providers, but to provide a free core system. Nothing is being broken, stolen, taken away, or rescinded.
The whole article is nothing but pseudo-pedantic flame bait.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
that emacs and gcc were written on HPUX systems
what's the "lesson" to be learned from these programs?
Did Google Earth for linux affect software freedom?
How about VMWare Workstation?
Do these products take away our choices?
Do they take away choices from people who don't even use them?
IIRC BSD license basically says "do what you want, but credit us".
There's also a liability limitation clause and a prohibition on changing the license or removing the copyright notice. The variation in the BSD licenses (there's a few closely related ones) mostly stems from just how much attribution is required; some want rather more than others. The difference rarely gets BSD people very worked up.
The net effect of the BSD license is to disclaim economic rights while maintaining something as close to moral rights as is recognized by US copyright law. You'd word it differently in European copyright law, where moral rights are recognized as as separate concern completely to economic rights (and aren't normally traded).
There's nothing wrong with wanting credit for one's own work. If it's in public domain, however, people can just use it, and I believe it's not illegal to claim the work is yours, though they won't have licensing/ownership rights
If something is truly in the public domain, you can do anything with it. This includes adding text to it that looks like a copyright notice. (I think this wouldn't make your copy of the work be non-PD in itself, as copyright notices in themselves are not a substantive creative element of any work, but I can't be sure. But the placing of the text there, that can be done.) There are also jurisdictions (not in the US) where the only way a work can enter the PD is by having its copyright term expire. PD is way more complicated than BSD (or the GPL variations), even though it sounds like ought to be simpler at first.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Why has it automatically "failed" simply because it's not on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desktop?
So far, GNU/Linux on the desktop has "failed" to become widespread enough that users expect to have local support options of the "carry in your PC and we'll fix it" sort. And until Valve's recent announcement, it has "failed" to attract developers of major killer apps.
I see this as a great thing because games is pretty much the last reason I have for a dual boot system. Anything serious I do under Linux as its a far better tool, but some of my favorite games are windows-only so I still need a windows partition around. Assuming they start to port most windows games to Linux too, I can finally dump my windows partition.
I know gaming won't change any minds in corporate IT depts, but at least it may encourage non-technical users to try Linux at home. It seems that a large reason corporates have for justifying continuing to force their employees onto Windows is that "everyone is more familiar with Windows than Linux". Lets hope steam on Linux can help to change that too.
Ok, so BSD protects software authors from lawyers while GPL protects software users from exploiters?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The GPL gives lots of freedom to the peole using it, it only remove the "freedom" to remove somebody else's freedom.
There are many reasons that can justify BSD type licences over GPL, but they all boil down to:
"I would like to use this software in something proprietary..."
And it would be much better to state this clearly rather than vaguely allude to the GPL "being not what I think others should want.."
I consider games not to be "software" for some time, it became part of entertainment industry, like films or music. It is created by large studios where programmers are only one ever smaller part of team. For this reason, I consider Steam equivalent of YouTube: channel that enables me to consume commercial entertainment, on my free OS, that remains fully GPL (minus GPU driver).
839*929
There is a very specific definition of "free" being used in this context; opening up the software to modders in the fashion Valve has does not qualify. The wikipedia article on the subject explains it well. The importance of this definition of "free" and what could or should be done about it is what the debate here is revolving around; the definition of what does or does not qualify is well established by this point.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
In terms of software freedom, Steam won't affect much itself. The client is proprietary and as far as I know, every single game featured on Steam is proprietary (although stuff like the iD games can be run using replacement open source engines), but basically it's all one big closed-source pot. It will bring more attention to Linux and maybe some more commercial games, but that's about all.
Now, the only problem I can see is that bringing Steam into Linux will mean another selection of users will becomes used to the idea of DRM (Steam) and having games tied to a single point of failure (Steam), whereas before they were used to having installers that you could backup and install without requiring verification from a third-party. But anyone who's read my posts know I'm beating a dead horse here - I've said it all before about the dangers of keeping all your eggs in one basket, but from what I can tell, games are a special class of software in which this isn't really a concern. It's not crucial or necessary software, so a hypothetical scenario in which you can't play anything due to issues with Steam verification in a longer term scenario don't phase people much.
TL;DR : Steam on Linux will increase Linux's perception in the gaming world, increase its usage base for a bit (at least until some people go back to Windows because it runs some particular tool they didn't realize they needed before throwing away Windows after being swept away in the hype), but it won't do shit for software freedom.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
RMS probably somewhat inadvertently made a very interesting remark.
He separates the Game Art from the Game Software...
And admits that Game Art could be "non free"...
One of my current activities is designing Gaming Maths, the way the maths are made has a strong impact on the enjoyment (or lack of) any game.
I would argue that the "artistic" as opposed to "software" component is just as great as the artistic component of the graphics.
I also think that there is a fundamental difference in Gaming apps versus Infrastructure or Activity Apps.
If I provide a text processing system or an OS or an Identity management app, all user data trapped into these applications are naturally "content" owned by the user, and it should be normal for the user to be able to share it just as s/he wants.
And it is immoral to force them to be promoter of their software if they want others to be able to read their presentation, or share files, etc...
But Gaming datas are for the most part relevant only in the game, and although some elements like "avatar design" might be usefully standardized, most parts should not been seen or manipulated outside of the game, because it would destroy the interest and artistic integrity of the game.
Having the "freedom" of adding 10000000 flogotz to my flogotz count is meaning less, and if I really want I could just lie about having found the amulet of yendor...
Reading the source code of a game is interesting, but I do believe that the social contract between a game designer and a tool designer is very different, and not just for the game graphics.
Therefore I think RMS can be assurer that at the end Valve opening to Gnu/Linux is not just neutral but a real gain.
And I think that instead avoiding to speak about it, it would be better to explain that:
There are interesting free games that you can use to play and to learn "how it is done"
There are interesting tools like Ogre3D to help you write games.
And there are non free games, it is somewhat frustrating because it might need something you do not have (if you processor is a MIPS it will probably not run), but it is very different from a non free Tool, and you are welcome to it.
And hopefully game designer will work with the various communities to make sure that the coverage is as global as possible, and not just as "economically optimal"....
If a developer chooses to restrict the choices of his/her users, the user is more than welcome to find another solution to his/her problem, leaving the user in the exact same position as if the software was never developed. The users have had nothing taken from them. (We'll leave software patents out of it, which are separate from copyright; you'll get no argument from me that software patents are a good idea. Most developers of proprietary software hate them just as much as RMS.)
I have no issues whatsoever with the GPL itself. I have no issues with the obligations it puts on distributors and re developers of the software. I DO have issues with the idea that developers should feel morally obligated to use it, or something like it. The developers should be free to choose whatever license he/she wishes, as long as the terms are disclosed to the user prior to purchase.
The "problem" is that the FOSS community is split right down the middle. On the one hand you have those that want things to "just work" and to have a true "third way" instead of only Windows and OSX, and then you have the "free as in freedom above all!" types that frankly don't give a shit how big a royal PITA the OS or software is as long as they get the source, your RMS faction.
Personally I predict that unless steam or somebody high up, say Canonical, simply forks things away from the devs you simply won't have Steam functional for very long because there are too many "source above all!" types in the kernel team. look up the ONLY major argument you get from a member of the kernel team about hardware ABIs and you'll see its a religious argument, with him going so far as to say "I hope everyone who uses binary blobs have their drivers break often!" which if that isn't religious dogma I don't know what is.
In the end as one of the Red hat devs points out the current system is completely broken and will only get worse because the current Linux philosophy simply doesn't scale, why? Because a handful of devs simply can't provide QA or QC for tens of billions of lines of code, tens of thousands of drivers, and thousands of programs in the repos, that's why. That is why you get half baked software in the repos, drivers that work in foo but not in foo+1, its not because the devs want to break shit its that there is no way in hell to test everything before release.
I just hope things like Steam on Linux will bring about real conversation and change, because I too would like a third way but at least for me and my customers Linux just isn't there yet. But if things don't change I have a feeling Valve is gonna find they need a huge dev team just to keep Steam running, much less add any new features, because it is simply too easy for someone upstream to make a change and break everything downstream.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Firstly, the article was written by Richard Stallman himself (you know, the founder of the FSF, and the architect of much of GNU); I would think he would know what its goals are.
Linus's goal is to provide a free core system. The goal of the FSF is to convince the world that proprietary software is bad and should not exist. ("GNU" is a system, and therefore cannot have goals in and of itself.) Please refer to such fine articles like "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html ) or Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html )
Frankly, I'm surprised that there was some non-trivial number of Slashdot mods equally ignorant of who RMS is and the goals of the FSF.
I've worked for both TI and the games industry all my professional life. With very limited exceptions I'd say Free Software and video games are not really compatible with each other. In fact, most of the time game companies are allergic to openness out of necessity.
The video game industry is tough and fierce. Much of the competitive advantages of any large studio come directly from the propietary technology they develop for their own games or the engines they license to other studios. Unreal Engine is a very good example of this.
Game companies, from the biggest manufacturer to the smallest studio, are plagued with trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code and tools that can't just be combined easily with their open counterparts. I don't see Valve's culture 'infiltrated' anytime soon because of this.
I think it's great for Linux users to be able to play games without having to boot Windows. But that comes with a compromise: not many advanced users install Ubuntu for their primary computer and I really doubt the software components and drivers needed to run Steam will be well supported in any other distro. Fedora, RHEL and Debian, for instance, have a policy of not including proprietary drivers or patent-encumbered software in the installation disc/image. It may be harder for the users of those distros to make it work.
In conclusion, it's a big win for the Linux user community but not so for the Free Software community.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
Ok, so BSD protects software authors from lawyers while GPL protects software users from exploiters?
By 'exploiters' you just mean people who don't share your world view.
The BSD license only protects software authors from lawyers, while the GPL also protects the software itself from the lawyers as well.
No.
I mean people who would violate the spirit and intent of the shared software that I and others have developed, by closing it and making it unavailable.
This is a practical necessity, given that patents and copyrights exist as an impediment to the type of knowledge sharing that allowed luminaries such as Isaac Newton to stand on the shoulders of giants.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I don't see how you, user, can claim any sort of moral authority to do whatever you like with my hard-earned time and effort. (Assuming, of course, my time and effort isn't based on Free software.) You want to write your own software and give it away for free to all and sundry, be my guest. But do not presume that I am under an obligation of any sort to give my product away. If that's a problem for you, you are certainly Free to not use anything I (or other developer of non-Free software) have created.
You can not trust proprietary software all you like and refuse to use it; that's fine by me. Nobody's forcing software on you. Now certainly interop and standards are a big deal, but if a standard requires interop with non-Free products... well, develop your own standard. Linus wanted a UNIX kernel that was Free, so instead of whining about how mean AT&T was, he wrote one.
There are indeed many pragmatic reasons to use the GPL, and as I stated earlier, I have absolutely no issues with it. None. I can see why a developer would choose it, and I think that it's a great tool. I applaud the efforts of those who want to make sure there are viable Linux distributions free of proprietary encumbrances.
Linux "stands for" a Free OS. Nothing more. I don't recall Linus ever stating he didn't want proprietary software to run on top of it.
GPL has a requirement. All requirements remove freedom.
I suppose that's a possible interpretation of freedom, but in a more practical sense I think your confusing freedom with anarchy. Anarchy says "do what you want, no matter what harm it causes others." Freedom means "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." In a world of shared resources, freedom is a balance, not an extreme. GPL and BSD just take different stances on that balance. BSD gives those that extend the code more freedom to limit their users. GPL limits the extender's freedom and instead gives more freedom to users down the line.
It's only "too restrictive" if you accept the BSD concept of "software freedom". If you accept the GNU concept of "software freedom", the BSD licenses are "too restrictive" (ie. ultimately more freedom limiting). In other words, the term "software freedom" has a completely different meaning for a GNU-ist than it does for a BSD-ist.
As to which license is ultimately more beneficial, I think it depends on the software project (and the stakeholder one is talking about). Neither are one-size-fits-all. I'm glad the linux kernel is GPL. I'm glad things like Django are BSD licensed. I think it depends on the project and situation.
So it clearly is just people who have a different world view to yours.
That's an interesting way of saying "people who would take my work and disregard my goals while distributing it". I choose GPL for a reason...
Wrong, the ability to close it and make it unavailable is absolutely not a characteristic of permissive OSS licenses, that's just disingenuous fear-mongering,
BSD freedoms ARE lossy. There is BSD code in use by Microsoft and Apple that has been extended, closed and made unavailable to the community. That sort of makes BSD code long-term unsustainable.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
GPL is too restrictive.
I'll never understand this argument. You want people to write code that anyone can use and strip away the users rights (that is, take the code, change it, and make it proprietary, so people can't even see the new code, let alone make modifications to it, yet you don't want people to write code that people who modify it and redistribute it have to give back.
If it helps, why not use GPLed code the same way you'd use proprietary software. That is, download it, use it, and pretend that you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
My point is this: If you're okay with a license that's permissive enough to allow people to use it to make proprietary software, then you're probably also fine with proprietary software. If that's the case, what's your problem with a license that gives you more rights than proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense.
Both act as if copying is stealing, both come up with these giant FUD scenarios of doom
The FUD's on the other foot.
GPL is called Copyleft for a reason, and that's because its explicit purpose is to encourage copying and sharing. It was made necessary by efforts from others, such as the RIAA etc to lock up the creative commons and reduce the right of end-users to own and copy their own digital data and tools.
All of this effort to conflate the GPL with restriction is propaganda and doublespeak of the highest order.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I'm sure you're just trolling, but there's no single definition of "software freedom".
When developing proprietary software for a client, I've often wished some software had BSD style license, so I could just take the code and use it in a proprietary solution, even if that kinda feels like stealing, just taking somebody's work, even when they explicitly grant permission to do so. BSD license is for just letting others use your code, with almost no restrictions, also allowing what some would call exploiting your code.
For my own code, I always choose either GPL for LGPL, simply because my gut feeling is, that the "price" GPL/LGPL puts on code is fair, and anybody who thinks it's not can damn well not use the code then. Just as I have not used GPL code of others as part of my work, when my client has felt the "price" is unacceptable (though often it would have been very much ok or even benefical for the use case of my client).
But GPL is very much about the whole GPL ecosystem. Pieces of BSD-style licensed software work pretty well as part of GPL ecosystem, as can be seen by the multitude of such software, but a fully BSD-based ecosystem would simply not work. If it did, then Linux would not have pushed *BSD operating systems to the side lines, where hardly anybody cares about them.
GPL is too restrictive.
I'll never understand this argument. You want people to write code that anyone can use and strip away the users rights (that is, take the code, change it, and make it proprietary, so people can't even see the new code, let alone make modifications to it, yet you don't want people to write code that people who modify it and redistribute it have to give back.
If it helps, why not use GPLed code the same way you'd use proprietary software. That is, download it, use it, and pretend that you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
My point is this: If you're okay with a license that's permissive enough to allow people to use it to make proprietary software, then you're probably also fine with proprietary software. If that's the case, what's your problem with a license that gives you more rights than proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't help, when people pretend they don't understand the issue. Let's say there's a piece of GPL code you'd want to use, instead of rolling your own. Now only way to use that piece is to make your entire software GPL, usually there's no other way to do it if the piece of GPL software has more than one copyright holder, and even if there's just one copyright holder, getting a permission to use it with different license would be hours and hours of hassle, especially if copyright holder lives in a different country. Generally this makes the GPL code unusable, unless you can make your own code GPL too, and that's it. Now it's of course 100% fine, if the developer of the GPL code really wants this, if he really wants to make his code unusable unless the user is willing and able to make their code GPL too. But saying this is not restrictive is just patently false.
BSD-style license avoids this restrictiveness of GPL. The price for original coder is, that their code can be just taken and closed away, with just a trace of BSD copyright notice left visible. The reward for the the original coder is, their code might gain users which would have rejected it if it was GPL, and some of those users will give back, even if all don't.
And then LGPL offers a nice middle ground, it's a license I personally like a lot, for library-type code.
So it clearly is just people who have a different world view to yours.
That's an interesting way of saying "people who would take my work and disregard my goals while distributing it". I choose GPL for a reason...
Not that I question your choice of license, it's my preferred choice too, but it's important to realize, that when using GPL license, you're also denying use of your source code to those, who would gladly give back, but are unable to make their own code GPL.
Using GPL code of others is a bit of a hassle if everything you do is not GPL. Also the value of releasing GPL version of proprietary software is questionable, as you don't then automatically (without a copyright assignment mechanism, which is also a big hassle for everybody) get access to GPL improvements made by others for your proprietary version, ie. you gave them your software, but they might not be willing to give back to your proprietary version, which is what enables you to develop the GPL version in the first place.
This all makes BSD style license much more practical than GPL. It just avoids a lot of hassle for everybody, on the premise that defending against "exploiters" is not worth making extra trouble for anybody else.
See I just have to LMAO at this one, as you DO realize you are using MPAA logic, yes?
No.
As I responded to the other troll over here, GPL is called Copyleft for a reason, and that's because its explicit purpose is to encourage copying and sharing. It was made necessary by efforts from others, such as theMPAA/RIAA etc to lock up the creative commons and reduce the right of end-users to own and copy their own digital data and tools.
All of this effort to conflate the GPL with restriction is propaganda and doublespeak of the highest order. It's interesting to see you repeating it.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
But the GPL also hurts the original dev as well.
In my case, for instance, I had built a thriving Linux/Mac program with an active userbase of +1 million users and 150,000 active forum participants. Then a few people forked the GPL'd application and started on an Internet-wide vicious character assault against me and my program while lauding their own fork.
They proceeded to copy all of my code for years while ceaselessly attacking my name everywhere, even non-programming comments. The end result was that all the users of my app left (believing the lies) and went to the competition.
I had no recourse under the GPL. I couldn't create code to set us apart; they'd just copy it. I couldn't mix licenses. And both SourceForge and other places threatened to end my app when i put up explicit licenses prohibiting that one project from leaching my code.
They stripped my copyright from the headers and now you wouldn't even know that the vast majority of code they took was done by my hand. It's sad, man. It was my life work from 2003-2005.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!