Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

[z1lt0id]

I'd prefer to see an open source steam client, but that may be something they'd never resonably be able to do because of the DRM. Either way, the first step is get them here. If its a success, you never know.

I could see them releasing the majority of the client, just remove the DRM information from the code maybe.

[Micket]

Where is that site which listed the reasons for wanting F/OSS, pointing out why one would care more about the license for the software on a laptop than a microwave?
I think its pretty relevant here.
F/OSS has far greater practical relevance for tools than for games.
If some part of a game was made into a general library, for some reason, then the importance of the license for that would instantly increase.
And what if the save data is some proprietary data? The worse that can happen is that you lose it, and its not important (as opposed to work related material)
I don't think RMS would requite artists to hand out the PSD-files with all the layers intact (because otherwise you can't change it as easily), or otherwise refuse to look at it.
Nor refuse to sit in a car that was designed using proprietary CAD-software.
Just like a car or a painting, games are an end-product. It just happens to be digital.

* B.t.w, This might actually also push for better open source GPU drivers

[ownagefool]

I could see them releasing the majority of the client, just remove the DRM information from the code maybe.

Actually, I think the main reason they won't open the client today is because they're in a shaky situation with competitors. The main issue, in my mind, is they wouldn't want to give up their competitive advantage to MS whilst MS have spent many years trying to steal their customers with Games for Windows Live and the Xbox. By the sounds of it, Gabe expects this only to become more of an issue with Win 8, which is there is the big Linux push. If Linux manages to fracture the steam community enough that valve feels safe, they'll maybe begin to open up to the idea that the source doesn't need to be closed to the client. They wouldn't want to give MS easier time cloning steam when they're still behooven to Windows as an OS.

After the obvious MS issue, again they won't want to give their code to the likes of EA with origin. Of course, in time competitors will be able to reproduce all this anyway, so maybe they'll be able to convinced at a later date that the likes of EA aren't a big when you consider the client will only be a GUI with a bunch of API calls anyway. Still, I suspect this argument will only be possible after you see 1 million online Linux players, which may never happen. Time will tell though, maybe Gabe really has drunk the open source kool-aid.

I don't think RMS would requite artists to hand out the PSD-files with all the layers intact (because otherwise you can't change it as easily), or otherwise refuse to look at it.

RMS already basically stated (which I believe is new, but I don't follow him, so i wouldn't know) that he doesn't believe art assets need to be open source. He also states that he believes people should still be allowed to sell software, which in reality would be the sale of such assets in an open source game. This is how ID can still sell quake3, even though they open sourced the engine. Course, they wait a few years before they open source as their engine is primarly how they made money. Valve on the other hand (I don't believe, but I don't really know) don't make most of their money from source licenses, thus it makes sense that a source engine with hooks into steam could potentailly make valve more money.

Still if you want to make the argument that Valve should open source anything, you should specifically focus on the arguments pertaining to how it would benifit them, as opposed to how it would benefit you. I thoroughly believe it would benefit them to have their platform completely ubiquitous, which I believe open sourcing (or just providing APIs) could help with, and I also believe that their games and engines are now vehicle for promoting the steam platform, which is why they're are rumors that both their upcoming games are either going to be fairly cheap or free. There are potential negatives of course, and unless you can understand those, there is very little use trying to convince valve at all.

I imagine the people in charge of making such decisions are fairly smart, thus it'd be useless to attempt a dialogue with them without a resonably tailored non-bias argument.

[gens]

This just highlights how stupid this guy can be! Many of these games take substantial amounts of cash to develop and as such the developers have no chance of paying the bills if they don't use some sort of rights management. In fact if people tried to take Stalmans advice there wouldn't be a games industry at all.

In any event im happy that the concept of open source is wide enough that many license can fill a developers needs. Frankly I can not see any wisdom at all in offering software with a GPL license attached. One doesn't want to be associated with such lunacy.

just what i was gonna say, maybe not that extreme thou

Stallman is a really smart individual, no doubt about it
from whats he's usually saying, id say he is an utopist and therefore has a rather naive view of the world(geniuses tend to be naive) thus belives anyone can do anything just for fun
nothing wrong with that, utopia is a good goal, its just so far away

[ownagefool]

just what i was gonna say, maybe not that extreme thou

Stallman is a really smart individual, no doubt about it
from whats he's usually saying, id say he is an utopist and therefore has a rather naive view of the world(geniuses tend to be naive) thus belives anyone can do anything just for fun
nothing wrong with that, utopia is a good goal, its just so far away

Stallman doesn't believe you should work for free, but he probably does believe there is a limit to the amount you can milk a piece of work. He believes in a world where if someone pays you for software, you provide them the source. This means you need to charge people the amount of hours you worked on the software as opposed to developing software, and selling it to a load of people for $10. You could try to do that in Stallmans world, but you'd need to have a vehicle to stop them downloading that software from elsewhere. For the Redhat OS, that vehicle is support and updates; Sure CentOS still exists, but redhat makes a lot of money with an OS they largely give away for free.

In Stallmans world, new development would probably be cheaper too as people wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel every 5 minutes. You could use whatever was already good, and build on that. This would be near utopic for software quality and delivery times, but those attempting to make a living from releasing your own apps for a priced shared amoung a large number of people would probably suffer the conseqences of that. In this world, Microsoft probably couldn't exist as the company they are, Redhat would flourish, and both Operating Systems would probably be better than they are.

It probably wouldn't be all the catastrophic. Most people professional programmers are probably hired by companies or do contracting work for specified fees, but it'd be interesting times for a select few. We don't live in his world though.

P.S. I'm a 'professional programmer', and I'd love to coast of my work forever. I like have the potential to do that, but I also accept that in my own mind open source is superior. I'm sorta a hypocrite, and definitely not a member of the church of Stallman. I just don't like to see people disagree with the man when they don't seem to fully understand his view points. Personally I feel anyone who supports open source should have a strong understanding of his opinions, even if they don't agree with them 100%.

[frantaylor]

RMS wrote emacs (the modern one that runs on Linux, not the old ones that ran on Multics and ITS) on HPUX, and he used the proprietary HP C compiler, and the proprietary HP linker, to produce his free software that originally ran only on proprietary operating systems.

He says that it is okay for free software to ride on the coattails of proprietary software and take advantage of proprietary technology because it works toward the goals of free software.

And here we have Valve announcing that they want to host their proprietary software on a free operating system. In exchange for the privilege, they promise to help diagnose and fix Linux bugs, and to make suggestions on what can be done to Linux to make it a better platform.

We have here a vendor who is willing to make contributions to Linux and is ALSO taking considerable risk by bringing their software catalog to the platform, and RMS is going to talk trash about them???

And recently we had to be subjected to Linus Torvalds lambasting Nvidia because they have the unmitigated gall to treat all of their customers in the same manner.

Is there something in the water or what?

Or maybe RMS, Linus and Mitt Romney have the same PR advisor???

[boast]

Linux/gnu is not just an OS, this is a cult you are joining. It is a way of life. You must study the FOSS philosophy, and then go around and spread it to others, trying to convert them and save them. Any software that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. There are our demands, and it is in the best interest of corporations to join us, or face the consequences.


amidoinitrite?

[frantaylor]

Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted.

Unless it actually manages to accomplish some sort of useful purpose, in which case we will look the other way.

[ninez]

RMS wrote emacs (the modern one that runs on Linux, not the old ones that ran on Multics and ITS) on HPUX, and he used the proprietary HP C compiler, and the proprietary HP linker, to produce his free software that originally ran only on proprietary operating systems.

He says that it is okay for free software to ride on the coattails of proprietary software and take advantage of proprietary technology because it works toward the goals of free software.

so above you use an example of software created when their was no OSS tools (essentially) at all. Obviously, he would be leveraging proprietary software and keeping his goals in mind.

And here we have Valve announcing that they want to host their proprietary software on a free operating system. In exchange for the privilege, they promise to help diagnose and fix Linux bugs, and to make suggestions on what can be done to Linux to make it a better platform.

We have here a vendor who is willing to make contributions to Linux and is ALSO taking considerable risk by bringing their software catalog to the platform, and RMS is going to talk trash about them???

I've read the article and i don't see him trash Valve, in any way in that article. He does say;

Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear.

However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.

but that isn't trashing Valve, but instead pointing out RMS's own beliefs that nonfree stuff is unethical. he then goes on to say and consider the advantages and possible disadvantages of a company like this coming to Linux, and asking a few ethical questions in his post... did you even read the article before making this post???

And recently we had to be subjected to Linus Torvalds lambasting Nvidia because they have the unmitigated gall to treat all of their customers in the same manner.

How is this (RMS) situation the same as Linus publicly telling Nvidia to essentially fuck themselves for being so difficult to work with, exactly???

Is there something in the water or what?

Or maybe RMS, Linus and Mitt Romney have the same PR advisor???

Well, Linus has done this kind of thing for years and years.... RMS has always had a big stance against nonfree software, hence why he created GPL and GNU.

...and who gives a crap about Mitt Romney? - a US politician whom has nothing to do with software / FOSS / or linux

[Larian]

Linux/gnu is not just an OS, this is a cult you are joining. It is a way of life. You must study the FOSS philosophy, and then go around and spread it to others, trying to convert them and save them. Any software that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. There are our demands, and it is in the best interest of corporations to join us, or face the consequences.


amidoinitrite?

Cults usually involve a sexual element in some way. And Stallman? Oh good god that's just gross.