Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Valve's Steam License Causes Linux Packaging Concerns

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    It was in the AUR, but since many people voted for it, so it came into the repos. Whats your problem?
    btw it is still in the repos and imo it should be kept there.
    Can you point me to any other software package in Archlinux's repos that meets the same criteria as Valve Steam;

    1. Proprietary software / non-free
    2. ...is in beta-testing (and thus #3)
    3. not an official/stable release
    4. ...that is designed/targeted for Ubuntu (not linux in general)
    5. is pretty much useless to a very substantial number of Arch users (being as it is restrictive due to being pay to play, proprietary software)
    6. has significant DRM
    7. that says right in it's license (regardless of what valve employees may have said) that what they (archers) are doing (re-packaging/modifying it) violates Valve's license. (but hey, if Valve wants to re-write their license to allow this - then sure... but an email or two saying it is okay, imho does not invalidate the language used by Valve, in their license.)

    if you can find me any other software in the Arch repos that falls into ALL of these categories, then i will retract my statements.

    regardless, imho this is setting a new precedence as to what can be put in the Archlinux repos. ie: any alpha/beta-quality, heavy DRM, pay/non-free software should all be available in the official repos, without exception - regardless of legality.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    Can you point me to any other software package in Archlinux's repos that meets the same criteria as Valve Steam;

    1. Proprietary software / non-free
    2. ...is in beta-testing (and thus #3)
    3. not an official/stable release
    4. ...that is designed/targeted for Ubuntu (not linux in general)
    5. is pretty much useless to a very substantial number of Arch users (being as it is restrictive due to being pay to play, proprietary software)
    6. has significant DRM
    7. that says right in it's license (regardless of what valve employees may have said) that what they (archers) are doing (re-packaging/modifying it) violates Valve's license. (but hey, if Valve wants to re-write their license to allow this - then sure... but an email or two saying it is okay, imho does not invalidate the language used by Valve, in their license.)

    if you can find me any other software in the Arch repos that falls into ALL of these categories, then i will retract my statements.

    regardless, imho this is setting a new precedence as to what can be put in the Archlinux repos. ie: any alpha/beta-quality, heavy DRM, pay/non-free software should all be available in the official repos, without exception - regardless of legality.
    Adobe Flash Player 64bit met most of those criteria. It probably shouldn't go in [core] or [extra] but [community] is explicitly for popular aur apps with good packagers (who become 'trusted users'): https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ommunity.5D.3F

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Before anyone gets too bent out of shape thinking that Valve might be trying to cause some Ubuntu-lock-in for Linux gamers
    seeing how the whole thing is full of ubuntu12_32 references, from the scripts to binaries to the directory structure, excuse me for being sceptical about that statement.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    149

    Default

    I don't get the problem.
    Steam was very popular in the AUR and received many votes in only a few days. A maintainer decided that he would willingly maintain it and so he did as he is allowed to.
    It's proprietary, true, but it's not the only proprietary package in the repo.
    The Beta thing is maybe something I most agree on though.
    Why aren't you just happy that Steam released a linux version of their client? Linux users often see problems where none are present, seems to me. C'mon JUST CHILL OUT bro!!


    One Love

    EDIT: Seems it was just removed from the repos
    Last edited by Nuc!eoN; 11-15-2012 at 02:07 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCycoONE View Post
    Adobe Flash Player 64bit met most of those criteria. It probably shouldn't go in [core] or [extra] but [community] is explicitly for popular aur apps with good packagers (who become 'trusted users'): https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ommunity.5D.3F
    Really? You think that Adobe Flash falls into nearly all of those seven points? (afaik, it doesn't). it does fall into a couple but not 'nearly all'. Flash doesn't cost money/pay to play and isn't *crippled* by DRM. Adobe flash IS redistributable. Adobe provides a 'generic/linux agnostic' package and as far as i know, adobe flash 11.2.202.251 (aka: what is available in the official repos) is not a closed-beta.

    I am aware of what the community repos are used for and what TU are, thanks (but note, i was told it was in Multilib, not community) but as i said before - please point me to another app that is actually in the same boat as Steam for Linux. I know of a few that will fall into a few of the laid out categories, but beyond that i am not seeing any that are as restrictive/DRM/crippled, beta-quality, pay to play, etc. I would tend to think that once Valve has an official release out, maybe then it may be suitable to have it in one of the repos (if Valve either A - puts it in writing 'officially' (ie: not some random email) that distributions can ignore their license requirements or B). do the proper thing, which is change your license to allow such things with ZERO grey-area... and while they are at it, make a generic-installer (which i am sure they will at some point).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    I don't get the problem.
    Steam was very popular in the AUR and received many votes in only a few days. A maintainer decided that he would willingly maintain it and so he did as he is allowed to. It's proprietary, true, but it's not the only proprietary package in the repo.
    The Beta thing is maybe something I most agree on though.
    That's the problem though, your not supposed just put software of this quality into the official repos (especially, when you consider all of the points i mentioned, and not just cherry-pick one or two - you have to look at the whole situation). I have no problem with Steam being proprietary - nor was that the crux of my argument. But we are talking about beta-quality, heavy-DRM, pay to play, etc.... it shouldn't be in the official repos ~ especially, since it is a beta for Ubuntu and isn't even 'officially supported' by Valve for Archlinux.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    Why aren't you just happy that Steam released a linux version of their client? Linux users often see problems where none are present, seems to me. C'mon JUST CHILL OUT bro!!
    Who said i wasn't happy about Valve for linux? Who said i was upset? (where did you even get that idea? ie: wtf are talking about?) please use your brain before making such idiotic comments. I think it is great that Steam is coming to linux (in a variety of ways) and even though i am not a heavy-gamer, i'll probably buy a few games, as i do play games every now and agin - i like to support companies that are willing to bring their apps to linux, as well... That being said, my comments had NOTHING to do with whether or not i was happy with Valve or not... they have to do with (generally speaking) how Archlinux' repos generally operate, legalities based on licensing/re-distribution, etc.

    This isn't a case of seeing problems where they don't exist, they do exist.

    and by the way - i just tried to install Steam and either none of my mirrors have been updated, nor has Archlinux' website been updated or Steam is not actually available in the repos and has been pulled (but is available in AUR still). I did read a few of the mailing list posts about Steam, but missed a couple / deleted them...

    ...maybe it was decided Steam should stay in the AUR? (i don't know)
    Last edited by ninez; 11-15-2012 at 02:30 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    wrt to the license, I don't get the issue here; it seems to apply directly to the binaries within the .deb package, not the package itself, so unless the Arch devs modified the actual steam binaries what would the problem be?

    Distribution may be another thing altogether, but I don't see how simply repackaging the .deb would violate the license...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    snip
    Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
    And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven3x7 View Post
    Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
    *sigh* ... can you not read?!? i already explained that i was told Steam was in the official repos, specifically - multilib (community only came up afterwords) ... and in 2 posts above this (where i covered that point) i also explained that i know what TUs and the community repo are. Why would you feel the need to explain something that was already understood - especially, when i had already covered this? (face palm).

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven3x7 View Post
    And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.
    I'm not a lawyer either, but regardless AUR seems far more appropriate for this type of software. ( which apparently we both can agree on )

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven3x7 View Post
    Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
    And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.
    I believe Valve will play nice and provide a binary (preferably 64bit ) that anyone can package and use in any distro. And sort any legal stuff.


    The whole thing again proves how important is a common package format.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Arch devs are probably just excited like the rest of us. They'll figure it out, one way or the other.

    Meanwhile I couldn't care less. I dont mind installing/upgrading from the AUR and Community/Multilib is certainly convenient, but either way is cool.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •