Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Valve's Steam License Causes Linux Packaging Concerns

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fabioamd87 View Post
    can you PLEASE avoid to say in every Steam news that Gabe hates Windows 8?
    How else is he going to get Phoronix show up in web searches for Windows 8?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    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.
    Right, especially with cool tools like yaourt I'm very interested to see where this goes (Steam on Linux, that is).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    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;
    Can you point out to me the official documentation from ArchLinux that outlines all those points as being hard requirements?

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    1. Proprietary software / non-free
    2. ...is in beta-testing (and thus #3)
    3. not an official/stable release
    multilib/skype
    multilib/lib32-nvidia-utils
    extra/nvidia
    extra/flashplugin

    NVIDIA's blobs are in extra and multilib and Flash is in extra. There's no hard requirement for free and open source. And when did x86_64 ever make it as a officially supported platform for Flash? Now that Adobe has dropped it except for security patches, it's essentially permabeta. Also there's plenty of software to be found with leading 0s in their version numbers (0.x.x is not rare).

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    4. ...that is designed/targeted for Ubuntu (not linux in general)
    This is somewhat valid but if you RTFA, it would seem to be likely that this will not always be the case. Fear that it will always be the case is the strong point of your argument here. (FUD?)

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    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)
    Wine practically only exists to use proprietary software that you pay for. So I suppose you should make the same argument against Wine, since you know for a fact that most Arch users only want to use free (in both contexts) software.

    Also, there are free-to-play games on Steam. They even let you search for games in that category.

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    6. has significant DRM
    Like Flash's DRM which is required to watch Hulu and the likes? Yes, DRM is horrible. Its absence is not a hard requirement for inclusion in Arch repositories and ultimately it's the user's choice to install it. No one is forcing you to install every last package in the repos. It's up to the user to decide if it's a good idea or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    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.)
    Finally! You make a worthwhile point.

    The real criteria (from my observation) for including packages is closer to:
    1. Can be done legally.
    2. Maintained both in upstream and in packaging.
    3. Some demand by Arch users. (That doesn't mean a majority or even a set percentage. This is a relatively soft requirement.)

    It is surprising that Steam was even briefly in the repositories given its questionable legality. Not that it seems like Valve cares, it's just you have to CYA.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xilanaz View Post
    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.
    Steam works on suse
    Souce Topic
    Installing Steam Linux Beta open suse forum

    download media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb
    open the .deb with ark
    open the data.tar.gz with ark
    extract the /lib/steam/bootstraplinux_ubuntu12_32.tar.xz file to any directory where you want, lets say Steam for now
    execute ./steam.sh from that directory and let it update
    enter your login

    Some people had problems, because the did not have the needed32 bit libraries.
    How to get these is discussed in that topic too.

    If it is this simple to get it running on suse it cant be hard to get it working on other distros.

    A friend of mine, had it installed on mint.
    Last edited by Gps4l; 11-15-2012 at 07:05 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I just watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone from 1964, short but as great as in my memory !
    Good night kids !

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Can you point out to me the official documentation from ArchLinux that outlines all those points as being hard requirements?
    I never said they were 'hard requirements', so i don't know where you get the idea that i did. In fact, i asked another forum member to show me an app that was in the official repos that met those requirements (which neither him, you nor anyone has done - including throughout this post...) - 'requirements' being observations that i had of Steam compared to things that tend to be and/or belong in the AUR and not the official repos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    multilib/skype
    multilib/lib32-nvidia-utils
    extra/nvidia
    extra/flashplugin

    NVIDIA's blobs are in extra and multilib and Flash is in extra. There's no hard requirement for free and open source. And when did x86_64 ever make it as a officially supported platform for Flash? Now that Adobe has dropped it except for security patches, it's essentially permabeta. Also there's plenty of software to be found with leading 0s in their version numbers (0.x.x is not rare).
    You really need to read through forum posts before you reply to people. I NEVER said there was a requirement of FOSS and as i said before to another user (which apparently you didn't bother to read was that wasn't even the crux of my argument. moron. *face palm*). We both know adobe flash is in a unique situation where essentially, we have been screwed and have to do what we can to have a proper web-experience ~ is this really the best example you can come up with? (the same example we already kicked like a dead-horse)... And regardless, it isn't about it just being beta or having other apps having 0.x.x versions ... Steam isn't officially supported outside of ubuntu, is a closed-beta (which none of your examples are), is pay to play, locked down with DRM (more so than ANY of the examples you have given to boot).

    as far as Nvidia goes, i tend to think Archlinux IS most likely violating the GPL by shipping nvidia ~ because as far as i know, the reason nvidia ships their installer the way they do, is to avoid violating the GPL (since it concerns distribution, not what the user is doing locally - ie: running the installer compiling and linking against his/her kernel - as opposed to what Archlinux does which is distribute the actual kernel module). but i'm not 100% positive on the legalities, since i am not a lawyer. but again, i never made the claim that Archlinux has to be 100% OSS (that is just something you are making up).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    This is somewhat valid but if you RTFA, it would seem to be likely that this will not always be the case. Fear that it will always be the case is the strong point of your argument here. (FUD?)
    again, learn to fucking read - this was already discussed. I never made the claim that it will always be the case, asshat. Therefore, i was not trying to spread FUD. seriously, SFTU... I don't know if you are actually familiar with how forums work, but typically as the discussions go on and if *you* are late in the conversation, it is usually good to go back and see what someone has already posted before making dumb comments... I fully acknowledged this probably wasn't going to be the case further down the road...But here is the thing, we're not there yet (and neither is Steam). So you think Steam should be included in the repos because of some future prospect, even considering the possible legal issues and the fact it is a closed-beta for ubuntu??? (man, it's cool to get excited - but give your head a shake, pal!).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Wine practically only exists to use proprietary software that you pay for. So I suppose you should make the same argument against Wine, since you know for a fact that most Arch users only want to use free (in both contexts) software.
    so basically, you are telling me that every application for windows costs money then? (nice! what a crock of bullshit) I use Wine for both free apps and commercial ones (but in reality, i use linux for more commercial apps than wine). And by the way - you shouldn't make such obviously fallacious obtuse remarks, i NEVER said anything about archers only wanting free software (nor would i ever say that). So you can shut up with that nonsense too, since it's a non-starter - and you're an idiot for trying to claim that was my position - what a disingenuous little twat you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Also, there are free-to-play games on Steam. They even let you search for games in that category.
    you mean like world of goo (which you don't need steam for). awesome So you think that closed-beta-testing DRM restricted software, unsupported / only supported in Ubuntu should be in the repos. sweet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Like Flash's DRM which is required to watch Hulu and the likes? Yes, DRM is horrible. Its absence is not a hard requirement for inclusion in Arch repositories and ultimately it's the user's choice to install it. No one is forcing you to install every last package in the repos. It's up to the user to decide if it's a good idea or not.
    Well, flash generally speaking once installed is completely usable, unlike Steam - you may not be able to use Hulu and the likes without it - but that is an ENTIRELY different issue (and you know it, if you have half a brain). The rest of your comment here is just idiotic. The AUR comes with a disclaimer like that - use at your own risk. The official repos in theory, is for more officially supported stuff - not for apps of legal-grey-area, closed-beta/restricted DRM, etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Finally! You make a worthwhile point.

    The real criteria (from my observation) for including packages is closer to:
    1. Can be done legally.
    2. Maintained both in upstream and in packaging.
    3. Some demand by Arch users. (That doesn't mean a majority or even a set percentage. This is a relatively soft requirement.)

    It is surprising that Steam was even briefly in the repositories given its questionable legality. Not that it seems like Valve cares, it's just you have to CYA.
    You have yet to make any worthwhile points beyond agreeing with this point of mine.

    Anyway, it doesn't appear to be in the repos anymore (but obviously is available in the AUR - so apparently i am not the only one who thought that it didn't belong in there) - so it looks like the decision has been made by Arch-devs, for the time being... (i would assume).
    Last edited by ninez; 11-15-2012 at 08:57 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    C'mon JUST CHILL OUT bro!!
    That is my opinion of the whole Steam situation in general. Seriously, are all your shoes on fire or something?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Meh, this just looks like a case of excited users and maintainers getting way ahead of the lawyers and legalese. Things should cooldown and fall into order in a few months once Valve gets their ducks in order. I'm still excited in any case

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    197

    Default LSB

    Why does Valve but also Intel etc. not only supply LSB packages alike Google earth!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    14

    Default

    This seems trivial to fix.

    Package a script that downloads the ubuntu .deb from valve, extracts the contents, and installs. This is already done for proprietary firmware, fonts, and other software that both forbids redistribution and is freely available from an official source.

Posting Permissions

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