How Will Steam on GNU/Linux Affect Software Freedom? 580
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?
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Not free? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pseudo-pedantic flame bait (Score:5, Informative)
The article was written by rms.. you know the guy who created GNU and the FSF. I think maybe he knows the goals...
The FSF definitely has goals going beyond the core system as they run many campaigns (https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/)
Are you actually that ignorant? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [gnu.org] ) or Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [gnu.org] )
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.
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:3, Informative)
And I have given Gates a bunch of money in the past, and don't have a problem with that. With Windows 8, next time I do buy a new system, I hate to admit it but I'll be forced to buy Apple.
No one is forcing you. And there are other alternatives.
As much as Linux fanboys like to claim Linux is more stable, well it might just be as a server, but no way for a desktop. This is coming as a former ardent Linux fanboy who got his first Slackware distro in the 90s. Right around now in my life, I just want the fucking thing to work and not have to fuck around with it all the fucking time to keep it that way.
You've never tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop or Workstation then, I take it. Stable as a rock, and a ten year(!) support and maintenance cycle. And of course you can move your license over to newer hardware when it becomes available, or upgrade to newer versions when you want to with your existing license.
Most Linux desktop users probably don't mind "messing around" a bit to get the latest and greatest and buggiest and least user friendly for free.
But if you want "just works", Red Hat delivers just that -- for a price.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Who gives a shit? (Score:2, Informative)
The apparent contradiction goes away when you distinguish between short term and long term freedom. There is a general pattern of users getting quite a lot of freedom from smaller software makers initially, but that freedom being taken away as market share grows, and disappearing almost completely when a monopoly or oligopoly has been achieved. What I see people arguing for is to give up some short term freedom to avoid losing much more freedom in the long term.
In the case of games, the small game developers of the 1980's and early 1990's used to give users (players) the right to share the first couple of levels of their proprietary games with their friends. Games had no copy protection, or if they did it consisted of you having to type in a few random characters from the manual. You could play on your own machine in the privacy of your home, or on your own local network with friends. When you were done playing, you could resell the game (and the manual). Gamers liked this freedom, used it, and had lots of fun playing proprietary games.
A lot of mergers, acquisitions and bankruptcies later, and we have a market that is controlled by a few huge entities, who sell locked consoles (and take away features after you've bought it), who deliver their games with DRM systems that border on malware, who require an Internet connection even for single-player games, who collect data on your game-playing habits, and who take away your right to resell the games you bought.
Perhaps, if gamers back then had decided that they were only going to play Free games, that would have become the dominant paradigm, and these excesses wouldn't have occurred, or at least would have been exceptions rather than the rule. We'll never know, but I do think that sometimes giving up a little immediate freedom can help in the long term.