Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Richard Stallman, the president of the Free Software Foundation, voices his concerns on Valve's plans for Steam on Linux. Your thoughts? Thanks to TheWeazmeister for the link.

A well known company, Valve, that distributes nonfree computer games with Digital Restrictions Management, recently announced it would distribute these games for GNU/Linux. What good and bad effects can this have? I suppose that availability of popular nonfree programs on GNU/Linux can boost adoption of the system. However, our goal goes beyond making this system a “success”; its purpose is to bring freedom to the users. Thus, the question is how this development affects users' freedom.
Click to expand...
 
clearly good except to the most militant free-dom proponents
 
What is this guy smoking?

Any attention you can get to Linux is a good thing so it doesn't become an obscure O/S strictly for power users and fall behind. More interest means more development, and everyone from the consumers, developers, and merchants will benefit.
 
If you want freedom, one requisite for it is that a people be able to form and stand up to their own government; whereas if you want a first world convenience that the technically literate enjoy, one requisite for it is not having nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear.
Click to expand...
Fixed a glaring typo. (I'm all for Linux and free/open source everything, but come on now...)
 
"You want to make software for Linux so it's somewhat useful? Go fuck yourself, we want to be free to have the choice between no software and shitty free software."
 
Stallman is, has, and always will be a crackpot. Sure, he's made some important contributions over the years, but his edict that software should always be 100% completely free is unrealistic and complete nonsense to boot.
 
Ion Silverbolt said:
Stallman is, has, and always will be a crackpot. Sure, he's made some important contributions over the years, but his edict that software should always be 100% completely free is unrealistic and complete nonsense to boot.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. All you need to do is see a picture, and you know it.
 
This could be very good, more incentive to get some better drivers out of Nvidia and AMD, and maybe an alternative to DirectX for Linux

CaptNumbNutz said:
What is this guy smoking?
Click to expand...
I think you're being a bit harsh there, he does acknowledge positive effects:
...I suppose that availability of popular nonfree programs on GNU/Linux can boost adoption of the system. However, our goal goes beyond making this system a “success”; its purpose is to bring freedom to the users...

...My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm...
Click to expand...
I think the concern is how the non-free software and DRM could be used to impose unreasonable terms and demands on Linux systems and users. I guess the hypothetical worst case scenario Linux becomes unusable unless you agree to freedom denying EULAs that all paid software sellers impose, but in reality I think Linux will remain as free as ever with everyone able to choose not to install Steam, DRM or any other non-free packages.
 
I've heard that this post by him isn't, "Give it to us for free" but more so, "Linux is built on the idea of freedom to do what we wish, having closed software harms that."

I think he's making the point that valve making games for linux without the users able to modify with source code like nearly everything on linux would change expectations. I think he's saying that he wishes to keep Linus the place of modders and coders.

Though, I'm sure it's easier to yell out that he wants free shit.
 
Then again, I don't use Linus so I don't have a really good handle on the community of Linux.
 
To me, not being open source or not being free is not the problem. It is the DRM. In this day and age I do not see how any platform would be able to be considered a success without at least some proprietary software from well known companies. Do I think there are better ways, yes, but I do not think that those are the only ways.
 
Sorry, but hippies don't count.
:D

Stallman is just mad that Linus came up with a better working Kernel than he did so to him, the OS must be called GNU/Linux. What Stallman doesn't get is that Linux is easier to remember and should go along with it. Probably would have a few less grey hairs.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Because freedom requires you to give shit away for free.

I don't get it either.
Click to expand...

While Richard Stallman didn't do a good job of pointing out exactly what he is for/against here, the definition of "free" that you are using is definitely not the definition he is using. He means free as in free choice, not free beer.

He is against DRM, and I 100% agree that DRM does nothing good for legal consumer and should not exist.

However, he goes on to try to separate game art from the game software itself. Presumably one is an artistic expression while the other is not. I do not agree with this at all. I think the whole game (art, sound, software, display layout) is all combined to create the artistic expression. Mechanics in a game work best when they compliment the theme of the story.

Richard isn't known for relaxing on points of freedom. The fact that he is kind of sitting on the fence indicates to me that he is trying to illicit feedback to help understand where the line needs to be drawn.
 
Richard Stallman, how about the freedom to do whatever the hell I want with my system? GPL doesn't promote freedom, it is a virus. An ironic virus, at that.
 
Stallman. The guy only believes in the very specific kind of freedom he feels serves the best interest of the GNU and open source. The very idea that he would have to question how the presence of a completely optional, completely opt-in piece of software being made available for Linux affects users' "freedom" shows pretty plainly how completely warped the guy's mind is.
 
DocFaustus, correct. However the GPL license that Mr. Stallman promotes actually restricts the freedoms of the people who receive GPL-licensed software.

BSD license = freedom
GPL license = restrictions

Even some of the Linux kernel developers have taken on some of the radical "freedom" ideals of Richard.. by preventing/blocking the interoperability of specific hardware drivers.
 
athlon1.2 said:
DocFaustus, correct. However the GPL license that Mr. Stallman promotes actually restricts the freedoms of the people who receive GPL-licensed software.

BSD license = freedom
GPL license = restrictions

Even some of the Linux kernel developers have taken on some of the radical "freedom" ideals of Richard.. by preventing/blocking the interoperability of specific hardware drivers.
Click to expand...

BSD is more free because you have the freedom to remove other freedoms. (correct me if I am wrong on this one, I haven't read too much about it)
GPL license is a virus, by design. I understand the restrictions you are referring to, but those restrictions are to protect both the original author and the downstream contributors. To make sure nobody can take away any freedom along the line. Specifically, it tries to prevent Microsoft from doing the 3 Es: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

As with most other aspects in life, I think the middle road is the best road to take. Richard isn't that road. I like to think of him like the ACLU, often I see the specific fights they engage in and I laugh at their stupidity. But when step back and look at what they do as a whole, I feel better knowing they are around.
 
DocFaustus said:
BSD is more free because you have the freedom to remove other freedoms.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The permissions granted are outlined in the license: there exist no other defined freedoms. You cannot 'take away' (negative connotation) a freedom never granted in the first place.

DocFaustus said:
To make sure nobody can take away any freedom along the line.
Click to expand...
Trading one 'freedom' for another, in effect.
 
I'm still gathering my thoughts on this for GNiE.

The quickshot reaction to Richard Stallman's post is that it was expected. He very much focus's on ethics and morality in relation to software. As such he and other FSF members begrudgingly have to support the User's freedom to chose to use proprietary software.

Whether or not RMS or the FSF like the idea, it is up to the Users to chose to use Steam.
 
I enjoy Richard's bluntness of writing -- succinct and to-the-point. I also disagree with Stallman on several points, but the most egregious are within these two sentences:
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.
Click to expand...

1. Developers still need money. Clout and code commits won't put food on a table or a roof over their head.
2. Freedom apparently requires a user to only use non-paid software. That restriction is not freedom.

The most interesting point in the above quote raises an implicit analogy: How is the "Mona Lisa" considered ethical to have a dollar value, but software doesn't?

/thought
 
wonderfield said:
Not quite. The permissions granted are outlined in the license: there exist no other defined freedoms. You cannot 'take away' (negative connotation) a freedom never granted in the first place.


Trading one 'freedom' for another, in effect.
Click to expand...
More permissive or less restrictive...the end result is the same and more in line with how DocFaustus is describing it--someone has more latitude to do what one wants with the code including making it proprietary or non-free under the BSD license.

Even though GPL is more restrictive in this manner it results in the final product remaining more open/free to the end-users.
 
This is really more of a matter of ideology than it is any kind of practicality or matters of adoption. "Free software" means "you are free to modify the source code", and "you are free to copy in any way that you like with nothing more than giving some written credit".

This is ideology. Which is nice in the fantasy world of ideologues. But pure adherence to ideology really has no place in certain industries. It doesn't work in politics (gridlock) and it doesn't work in gaming (I've yet to find a "free" game that was worth looking at the title of).

To Valve, Linux is a platform. Not an ideology. A part of the problem of making it a viable platform has been because of the ideology- you can't make a game for "linux", only for a certain "distro".

There really is no good or bad here, only your ideological perspective. Personally, I just wish for a KMS driver or binary blob from nVidia so that KMS and multiple monitors work properly for my development machine, and so I can have a nice, fancy graphical boot animation. That's literally as far as I care for it.

Valve is in the business to make money. It does that by creating amazing games and coming up with clever, ingenious ways of selling them (Steam, Hats). I'd have a very hard time finding anybody that thins Half Life 2 or TF2 wasn't worth paying the money for. I mean, look at all the games on Steam. A lot of them are simply brilliant. Now, the idealogues will go say "free doesn't mean free like in 'you do not have to pay'", but that's the actual, practical effect.

There are plenty of experiences that are best left to the story teller to decide how to tell you. The software here is more like that than it is something for a person to modify. You don't really want somebody to take Half-Life 2 or Bastion and completely change the plot or the purpose of the game: that would mean it wasn't Half-Life 2 or Bastion anymore. The software is as much a part of the author's story as order of the chapters in a book. Maybe I'm struggling for an analogy, but I'd think that making games "open source" or "Free software" would be very much like giving a distraught fan the keys to whatever factory the Harry Potter books are printed in, and keeping Sirius Black alive, and still calling it "Harry Potter" by J.K. Rowling. It wouldn't be any more. There can be fanfics if people want to write them, and people can certainly learn to make their own games. But they shouldn't be able to take a story, make the modifications they want to somebody else's story, and then submit it as the real deal. The software is a means and a medium- you can't change it without altering it's purpose.

Moreover, you shouldn't.
 
This is my Linux. I'll install whatever I want, free or not (in which case I would purchase it with my well earned money).

/thread
 
mope54 said:
Even though GPL is more restrictive in this manner it results in the final product remaining more open/free to the end-users.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't. Source code availability and the BSD aren't mutually exclusive. There's nothing which prohibits users of BSD-licensed software from making their own software's source code available under an identical or similar license. Under the terms of the license, they're under no obligation to, but they most certainly can. Hell, users can even take BSD-licensed code and do a straight-up re-release under the terms of the GPL if they wanted to.

The GPL enforces source code availability by imposing restrictions. The BSD allows source code availability by granting users the ability to make that decision for themselves. In this respect, it is the users who make the decision as to whether the final product remains more open and free to users, not Richard Stallman's.
 
GPL = protects freedom of the code
BSD = protects freedom of choice of developers

whether the responsibility the GPL holds of ensuring code freedom being "restrictive" is entirely subjective. The BSD license allows for third parties to take advantage of ones work without compensation, or essentially screwing them over, so take that into account. The opportunity is there, while with the GPL, it isn't. Some devs mind that, some don't. It depends on the individual.

Neither license is "freer" than the other.
 
I always wanted to have Linux on my PC. I'm now building a new one and Steam coming to Linux made me realize its time to dual boot my new rig.(waiting for parts atm) So to me this is a good thing.

I'm more curious if all PC/Steam software will run on Linux.
 
Got damnit!!! >.<

I mean *is a fucking nut.


Anyways, it's not like people are being forced to use steam on Linux anyways. That's what matters - if you don't like it, then don't use the fucking thing. People have that choice. This is capitalism baby, deal with it.

Stallman, go shave the chin forest, and cut that damn neanderthal hairdo.
 
The only way Linux will take off and be more acceptable for use is if popular games and software, which often require paying for it be ported to it. You cannot think that no money and time was put into porting that game to linux and expect it to be free. The dude in this article is stupid. Like Valve just waved their magic crowbar and it's done.

Nope, takes money and time to fix bugs and test it. I agree that the Linux OS needs to stay free, but software can have a payment and a free model in Linux. It is your freedom to choose to pay for it or not, no freedoms or restrictions are put on you. Consider Steam puts these Linux games on sale, can't tell me you wouldn't buy it for $5.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
What is this guy smoking?

Any attention you can get to Linux is a good thing so it doesn't become an obscure O/S strictly for power users and fall behind. More interest means more development, and everyone from the consumers, developers, and merchants will benefit.
Click to expand...

email him and ask, he actually replies
[email protected]
 
nOrVow said:
whether the responsibility the GPL holds of ensuring code freedom being "restrictive" is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...
No, I believe it's a simple fact that the GPL is more restrictive (to users) than BSD/MIT/etc. You have fewer permissions = you have more restrictions. I don't see how this can be evaluated in any other way.

nOrVow said:
The BSD license allows for third parties to take advantage of ones work without compensation
Click to expand...
Yes. Suffice it to say that if a person is looking to be compensated for a work and applies the BSD license to that work's codebase, that person is an idiot. It isn't a valid criticism of the license.

nOrVow said:
...or essentially screwing them over
Click to expand...
No. For a person to claim that they've been "screwed over" as a result of using the BSD license is a bit like handing someone an apple, telling them they can do whatever they want with it (including, but not limited to, eating it) and saying that they've been screwed over when the person they gave it to threw it in the trash. It doesn't hold water.
 
I love this guy, he is such a nut case.

A quote from page one that I like.

"You want to make software for Linux so it's somewhat useful? Go fuck yourself, we want to be free to have the choice between no software and shitty free software."
 
I think he may have a longer term fear, when ever a power with money gets involved in anything they can basically force their way. For instance imagine if valve steps in and does some analysis and says they are going to build steam and reccommend a certain distro such as ubuntu. They test everything here and valve begins more or less forcing users against their natural choice to use ubuntu because various bugs and issues pop up on other distros. As with most software by valve updates and fixes come on vavle time which could be years.

I think even google exerts it's force on linux. If you read carefully about google and linux you get the gut feeling now days linux is about staying compatible with google and not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top