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?
Cue the trolls... (Score:5, Insightful)
...who intentionally confuse the freedoms of the user with the freedoms of the proprietary software developer.
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how do App stores pose any danger to Linux? Linux is GPL, and will always be GPL. There is no way anyone will be forced to use an App store ONLY enabled distro in the near or distant future.
If you or RMS even think Steam on Linux will magically turn Linux into a proprietary locked down operating system, or even has the capability to do so, you have no idea at all how the system works. There is nothing short of outlawing Linux that will do that, and even then it'll be an underground OS, so that really won't work.
Don't like what Steam is doing to Linux? Don't install it, and guess what? You're running the same damn thing I am, just without Steam installed. Or run a distro that doesn't support Steam, or build your own from scratch [linuxfromscratch.org]. THAT is the power of Linux. CHOICE.
It's not a zero sum system (Score:5, Insightful)
If a developer chooses to restrict the choices of his/her users, the user is more than welcome to find another solution to his/her problem, leaving the user in the exact same position as if the software was never developed. The users have had nothing taken from them. (We'll leave software patents out of it, which are separate from copyright; you'll get no argument from me that software patents are a good idea. Most developers of proprietary software hate them just as much as RMS.)
I have no issues whatsoever with the GPL itself. I have no issues with the obligations it puts on distributors and re developers of the software. I DO have issues with the idea that developers should feel morally obligated to use it, or something like it. The developers should be free to choose whatever license he/she wishes, as long as the terms are disclosed to the user prior to purchase.
Why should I feel obligated to give my stuff away? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how you, user, can claim any sort of moral authority to do whatever you like with my hard-earned time and effort. (Assuming, of course, my time and effort isn't based on Free software.) You want to write your own software and give it away for free to all and sundry, be my guest. But do not presume that I am under an obligation of any sort to give my product away. If that's a problem for you, you are certainly Free to not use anything I (or other developer of non-Free software) have created.
You can not trust proprietary software all you like and refuse to use it; that's fine by me. Nobody's forcing software on you. Now certainly interop and standards are a big deal, but if a standard requires interop with non-Free products... well, develop your own standard. Linus wanted a UNIX kernel that was Free, so instead of whining about how mean AT&T was, he wrote one.
There are indeed many pragmatic reasons to use the GPL, and as I stated earlier, I have absolutely no issues with it. None. I can see why a developer would choose it, and I think that it's a great tool. I applaud the efforts of those who want to make sure there are viable Linux distributions free of proprietary encumbrances.
Linux "stands for" a Free OS. Nothing more. I don't recall Linus ever stating he didn't want proprietary software to run on top of it.
Re:It's not a zero sum system (Score:4, Insightful)
You are free not to use Windows - right? No, actually, for many purposes, you are not.
Yes, actually you are always free not to use windows now thanks to Wine. It might be a million times harder to get a piece of software working under the Wine than under Windows but in most cases it can be done.
I do not believe in copyright, selling of software, or control of data by third parties. That makes me a zealot by neo-slashdot reasoning, but that doesn't make me wrong.
You are aware that without copyright Valve would be free to sell their own distribution of Linux and do exactly what you object to? The GPL is based on copyright. Without copyright you could take a GPL package and use it to build a proprietary piece of software, making a few changes so that it became incompatible with the original package so people had to buy your software. In the case of Valve they could make a few changes to the ELF format so their system ran all ELF binaries but only their system could run their binaries.
Free software advocates are neither zealots nor hippies. We simply see the pattern that proprietary software is always eventually a power grab.
No. Many of us write closed source software simply because we need money to feed our families and the particular niche we serve is one where the supported model is not likely to be successful. In the case of writing games they are so damn easy to use in most cases that you have to be able to charge people to access them in some way, either by having everything online and under your control or by restricting distribution of the software itself.
There is simply no other way to support the games that the market now demands. Other methods of distribution like freeware or shareware have been tried, but in the end every game company that has enjoyed a modicum of success has come back to the proprietary model in order to pay for the huge investment needed to produce the level of polished product that games have become.
The ridiculous amount of artwork, story and actors needed for most modern games makes GPL distribution very tricky. The people who do all this need paying and the people who play games like to see this crap. I bet that actually programming does not even make up a majority of the effort put in to modern game production.
If you can name a single decent game that is open source I bet I can name a better, similar one that is proprietary. Open source has its uses, but games are not ever going to work due to their target market and amount of supporting artwork needed.
Producing decent quality games is not a power grab, it is simply the only model that works to support something so damn easy to use.
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:5, Interesting)
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. After Jobs, Bill Gates looks like a sweetheart to me... but Ballmer has fucked MS right up and W8 is a monkey's abortion. It looks like a stable Unity. But stable shit or unstable shit, they're still shit.
I program on Linux, specifically on a Linux VM guest on a Windows 7 host. Everything else I use Windows. I have had Windows 7 since it came out. Yes I've had to re-install it twice. But I've had to nuke half a dozen or more instances of Linux in the same time. Sure I could have kept them if I wanted to spend hours fucking around when things stopped working, but even with the amount of time it takes, it is easier and faster to blow it away and rebuild.
After the past week rebuilding my dev environment (this time moving it from a physical box where the video kept locking up the interface) I have vowed never use anything but a VM for Linux ever again as it is easier to clone that once it is installed to save the headache of rebuilding.
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.
Re: (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
Re:Cue the trolls... (Score:4, Interesting)
$400? Where do you get that number from?
$300 per year is the most expensive offering directly from Red Hat. It's cheaper if you buy from an OEM with 3 or 5 years support.
Also, in this includes an unlimited number of support calls and tickets.
Microsoft charges $195 per web ticket and $245 per phone call, but will usually waive the fee if it turns out to be a genuine bug. If it's just support, they won't.
Apple? For an unlimited amount of incidents, their OS support plan costs - wait for it - $19,995
OK, that's an Enterprise support contract, so it's not a fair comparison, but Apple doesn't offer a real support option for the OS. You can buy AppleCare protection plans for your hardware (which means re-buy if you change hardware) which gives you limited software support, but it doesn't cover opening cases, just basic assistance. And if you need help with, say, how to add a routing exception, it's $695 per incidence.
If you can live with basic Red Hat self-support, comparable to Microsoft's or Apple's AppleCare, you're down to $180 per 1-year RP for Workstation (or $50 if you go for the Desktop Edition, comparable to Windows Home Edition).
No one said that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is free (as in beer), but a rock solid "It just works" desktop OS which the GP claimed wasn't available in Linux? Yeah, it is that.
More so than Windows and MacOS.
And you are why... (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux has failed on the desktop for the past decades and will continue to fail on the desktop in the future decades.
Face it the ONLY thing bringing Linux to the desktop currently is GAMING.
Would you prefer Origins on Linux or Steam? Frankly I would prefer neither as both are VERY ANTI COMPETITIVE but Linux needs something and this could be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's all remember the driving force behind the VCR...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you are why... (Score:4, Insightful)
the point is that "respectable" industries rely on unrespectable markets
if you care too much about who your customers are, you won't have any customers to worry about
Re:And you are why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why has it automatically "failed" simply because it's not on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desktop? GNU/Linux (aside from the GNU arguments for saying GNU/Linux, the presence of Dalvik/Linux (Android) makes it necessary to distinguish between the variants) has been my primary desktop for ten years and my only desktop for six years, for me it has been very successful.
I think Steam on Linux could be a good thing, but it's certainly worth taking rms's warnings to heart: GNU/Linux being popular is certainly a good thing, but not at the price of destroying the Free Software movement.
What GNU/Linux has "failed" to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Why has it automatically "failed" simply because it's not on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desktop?
So far, GNU/Linux on the desktop has "failed" to become widespread enough that users expect to have local support options of the "carry in your PC and we'll fix it" sort. And until Valve's recent announcement, it has "failed" to attract developers of major killer apps.
Re: (Score:3)
Why has it automatically "failed" simply because it's not on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desktop?
Because it's not on any.
Re:And you are why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Has Linux really failed on the desktop?
It's really only been a grass roots movement, without serious backing from a company like Microsoft or Apple (or Google). Expecting a linux-based desktop to just explode without a huge marketing push is ridiculous.
For example, there have been other Linux-based phone operating systems. Non of them got very far until Google started pimping Android and it took over the market in short order.
Lets see Google or some other large company push a nice Linux desktop, say Ubuntu (or Valve ;) ), and see if it fails.
Re:And you are why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Canonical is very likely to push it farther than other companies - they actually take care to work with OEMs and make new projects, not just rebrand Gnome or KDE. This actually gives them a face and sets them apart from a crowd. Add to the fact that they are working with Dell in India and China and possibly, again on the Western market soon. There actually are machines distributed with Ubuntu and they are pushing it further.
If there's one thing that's needed, it's marketing now. Advertising the machines, having them suggested to customers in stores (as well as having them in stores), that's the kind of thing that could push Ubuntu to a neccessarily high market share. 10% would be enough to matter to big companies. It won't bring us Office (yes, it's needed by some buisness), but it will make others turn - probably the ones that distribute for Mac as well right now.
Valve might help this - if they do push it and Source engine games end up on Ubuntu, and if they do work with other devs and convince them it is worth it, then we could see the 200 million users by 2014 as Mark Shuttleworth promised.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really want Cononical making new projects. They have a history of doing things in ways that are very hard for the rest of the eco-system to adopt. How many Ubuntu projects are available in Gentoo/Arch/Mandriva/Debian?
Re: (Score:3)
It might get in the way of computer geeks like you, but won't get the way of most regular computer users.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm genuinely curious if you're being sincere or you're seriously just completely out of touch with reality with regards to how Windows functions.
Ideology in Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
frankly, i don't see the point why some of us should be ideologues in the community. it's divisive and it may not allow for greater efficiency. I'd go with what Linus said "whatever works best"
Re:Ideology in Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
No one can, will, or should stop Steam from coming to Linux. It will never be put in the repos of mainstream distros, and should not be, but that has little relevance to anything. But even if they can't do much about it, that doesn't mean the people who say there might be downsides are insane zealots. It means they might very well understand why Linux has stuck around for as long as it has better than you do.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I want to defend GP, since he had gotten into the "idealogues and zealots" argument, but it's worth clarifying how repos work.
A distro comes with its own repos preinstalled, but you are in no way restricted to just using those. Adding additional ones is trivial, effectively the same as installing something on Windows - you have to download and double click a package, and it requires an admin's password - and from that point on it is seamlessly integrated into the system updater. Google does i
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
I use open source software. I like open source. I even believe in using it.
But I do those things because open-source, generally, produces better results. I don't think it's ethically better - I have no problem using proprietary software, or even releasing my own work under non-"free" licenses.
Games are one of the most common exceptions, and I believe that is because that are an art, not a science. Making the best web browser, or text processor? That's a science - you can define concrete rules to det
It's ok (Score:4)
The engine being free would make supporting the games in the future easier, but with the underlying architecture of the platform being open and well documented, it isn't impossible.
Re:It's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
You could also consider, that basic software features like an OS, a web browser etc are something that everyone requires these days and should very much be free.
On the other hand games are purely for entertainment, noone *needs* games. Them being non free isn't significantly harming anyone.
And instead of games being free and open up front, perhaps the ID approach would be acceptable for all concerned. Let them make their money from the game up front (its hard to argue that ID games haven't been successful), and then release the source later so that everyone can benefit from it. This was also the original spirit of copyright, give the author time to make money from his work and then release it so everyone can benefit later.
I love quake as a game, i bought a copy when it came out and thanks to the source being open i can still play it today without resorting to emulation. As an added bonus, the graphics look much better than they did originally.
Who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this as a free software developer: At some point, you just want software and don't care about the politics. Not everything has to be political -- just look at Chick-Fil-A as an example of how this way of thinking can backfire.
I play games for entertainment, not to make a political statement. Let's keep the two worlds separate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree.
Games are at the far fringes of a software stack. As you get further from the core (kernel / critical userland) free/open source software becomes less important.
Games are also different from most open source software, as they aren't a tool to do something. They're an artistic expression as well as a software program.
Re: (Score:3)
I play games for entertainment, not to make a political statement. Let's keep the two worlds separate.
You can't do that. Everything is a political statement and in a capitalist system (let alone a mercantilist one) where you spend your money is your truest vote. If you give money to Valve for closed-source software in a closed-source ecosystem (Steam) then you're voting for more of the same.
With that said, where there's no Open or Free alternative, you're also voting for more games like the ones you buy. So, carry on, just understand what you're doing when you spend money. I'd rather give money to Valve tha
Re: (Score:3)
Blowing mod points here....
1) paid, non free, games that people actually enjoy is far preferable to the current swath of trash games available on Linux. Every time I say this, some fanatic links me to the same horded list of the same crappy linux games and says they are good. No. Not to people who *really* game.
2) there are tons of peopl like me who have been dying for serious good games to come to linux so we can spend less time supporting microsoft and more on an OS we find valuable (linux).
3) I don
is it possible to be pragmatic??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Free software is most certainly an admirable goal.
But if market forces and existing conditions mean that proprietary software is the most expedient way to get the software delivered to the customer, then that's what will happen.
Valve gets Linux bugs fixed, and they can make legitimate and credible arguments for things that should be changed about Linux. There is no doubt that they are contributing to the long term health and stability of linux.
If the vendor has proprietary software and the customer finds it to be the best solution, the job of the operating system is to get out of the way and allow the customer to do what he wants.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to RMS.. not really.
This is actually a surprisingly rational opinion from him (he at least acknoledges that there is some good to this..), but at the end of the day he is still an extremist.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually a big backtrack for him
When he sat down to write emacs, he sat in front of an HPUX system and used the HP C compiler and the HP linker to build his free software.
At the time he had no problems with this apparent contradiction.
Now that free software is self hosting, he can adjust his attitude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you also believe the ACLU, EFF, and the like are extremists?
Yes.
Is everyone who holds people to higher standards than you do an "extremist?"
When those standards are extreme, yes. Thus extremist.
I never said this was a bad thing. The world needs extremists tugging on both ends. My point was that one doesn't look to an extremist for a pragmatic opinion. Doing so is contradictory.
Lets have a word list!
Pragmatic: Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
Extremist: A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advoc
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a zealot, it's never possible to be pragmatic on the topic of your zealotry (that's pretty much the definition of "zealot"). Thus, to a Free Software zealot it is clearly impossible to be pragmatic on this topic: they feel that if it isn't Free, it's Wrong and so should be resisted with all possible effort. (I don't know if RMS is quite this zealous, but some of his adherents certainly are.)
Thankfully, such people are a small (but vocal) minority. For everyone else, pragmatism is indeed the best a
Pseudo-pedantic flame bait (Score:3, Insightful)
The goal of GNU and the FSF was never to lock out commercial providers, but to provide a free core system. Nothing is being broken, stolen, taken away, or rescinded.
The whole article is nothing but pseudo-pedantic flame bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Seco-"fukken"-ned
Christ! The "you cant use propiatary software In GPL/Lunix!!!1" FUD wasn't this much touted back in the day as it is now.
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.
A paradox? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't follow the politics of Linux so please bear with me. Couldn't this be a paradox because Steam coming to Linux could be a game changer, pardon the pun, for mainstream adoption but could it not open up patent claims against it? While Microsoft, for instance, is currently having a benign attitude towards Linux with their Hyper-V support in the Kernel, couldn't they go into attack mode and wheel out patent claims if they feel their MS Windows Gaming/XBox platforms threatened by Steam on Linux?
perhaps RMS is forgetting (Score:4, Funny)
that emacs and gcc were written on HPUX systems
what's the "lesson" to be learned from these programs?
Begging the question (Score:2)
Re:Begging the question (Score:5, Interesting)
Did Google Earth for linux affect software freedom?
How about VMWare Workstation?
Do these products take away our choices?
Do they take away choices from people who don't even use them?
Not free? (Score:2)
Valve has opened up all of their games to the modders, accusing them of not being free is ignorant.
Re:Not free? (Score:4, Informative)
The last straw (Score:5, Insightful)
I see this as a great thing because games is pretty much the last reason I have for a dual boot system. Anything serious I do under Linux as its a far better tool, but some of my favorite games are windows-only so I still need a windows partition around. Assuming they start to port most windows games to Linux too, I can finally dump my windows partition.
I know gaming won't change any minds in corporate IT depts, but at least it may encourage non-technical users to try Linux at home. It seems that a large reason corporates have for justifying continuing to force their employees onto Windows is that "everyone is more familiar with Windows than Linux". Lets hope steam on Linux can help to change that too.
Are games still "Software" at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not much (Score:5, Insightful)
In terms of software freedom, Steam won't affect much itself. The client is proprietary and as far as I know, every single game featured on Steam is proprietary (although stuff like the iD games can be run using replacement open source engines), but basically it's all one big closed-source pot. It will bring more attention to Linux and maybe some more commercial games, but that's about all.
Now, the only problem I can see is that bringing Steam into Linux will mean another selection of users will becomes used to the idea of DRM (Steam) and having games tied to a single point of failure (Steam), whereas before they were used to having installers that you could backup and install without requiring verification from a third-party. But anyone who's read my posts know I'm beating a dead horse here - I've said it all before about the dangers of keeping all your eggs in one basket, but from what I can tell, games are a special class of software in which this isn't really a concern. It's not crucial or necessary software, so a hypothetical scenario in which you can't play anything due to issues with Steam verification in a longer term scenario don't phase people much.
TL;DR : Steam on Linux will increase Linux's perception in the gaming world, increase its usage base for a bit (at least until some people go back to Windows because it runs some particular tool they didn't realize they needed before throwing away Windows after being swept away in the hype), but it won't do shit for software freedom.
Games & Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
RMS probably somewhat inadvertently made a very interesting remark.
He separates the Game Art from the Game Software...
And admits that Game Art could be "non free"...
One of my current activities is designing Gaming Maths, the way the maths are made has a strong impact on the enjoyment (or lack of) any game.
I would argue that the "artistic" as opposed to "software" component is just as great as the artistic component of the graphics.
I also think that there is a fundamental difference in Gaming apps versus Infrastructure or Activity Apps.
If I provide a text processing system or an OS or an Identity management app, all user data trapped into these applications are naturally "content" owned by the user, and it should be normal for the user to be able to share it just as s/he wants.
And it is immoral to force them to be promoter of their software if they want others to be able to read their presentation, or share files, etc...
But Gaming datas are for the most part relevant only in the game, and although some elements like "avatar design" might be usefully standardized, most parts should not been seen or manipulated outside of the game, because it would destroy the interest and artistic integrity of the game.
Having the "freedom" of adding 10000000 flogotz to my flogotz count is meaning less, and if I really want I could just lie about having found the amulet of yendor...
Reading the source code of a game is interesting, but I do believe that the social contract between a game designer and a tool designer is very different, and not just for the game graphics.
Therefore I think RMS can be assurer that at the end Valve opening to Gnu/Linux is not just neutral but a real gain.
And I think that instead avoiding to speak about it, it would be better to explain that:
There are interesting free games that you can use to play and to learn "how it is done"
There are interesting tools like Ogre3D to help you write games.
And there are non free games, it is somewhat frustrating because it might need something you do not have (if you processor is a MIPS it will probably not run), but it is very different from a non free Tool, and you are welcome to it.
And hopefully game designer will work with the various communities to make sure that the coverage is as global as possible, and not just as "economically optimal"....
Infiltrated? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked for both TI and the games industry all my professional life. With very limited exceptions I'd say Free Software and video games are not really compatible with each other. In fact, most of the time game companies are allergic to openness out of necessity.
The video game industry is tough and fierce. Much of the competitive advantages of any large studio come directly from the propietary technology they develop for their own games or the engines they license to other studios. Unreal Engine is a very good example of this.
Game companies, from the biggest manufacturer to the smallest studio, are plagued with trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code and tools that can't just be combined easily with their open counterparts. I don't see Valve's culture 'infiltrated' anytime soon because of this.
I think it's great for Linux users to be able to play games without having to boot Windows. But that comes with a compromise: not many advanced users install Ubuntu for their primary computer and I really doubt the software components and drivers needed to run Steam will be well supported in any other distro. Fedora, RHEL and Debian, for instance, have a policy of not including proprietary drivers or patent-encumbered software in the installation disc/image. It may be harder for the users of those distros to make it work.
In conclusion, it's a big win for the Linux user community but not so for the Free Software community.
I thought free software is supposed to be better (Score:3)
It's strange that free software, which is supposed to have all these advantages over proprietary, is so threatened by something as simple as the availability of some games on Linux.
Steam will be in some repos and not in others, valve will make a double click installer, and the only people who will care will be "freedom zealots" and a few people who chose the wrong distro and have to google how to install steam.
Re: (Score:3)
I sorta know what you mean. I appreciate the 'freedom' of OSS but when people make the politics more important than the platform it gets annoying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the point of the BSD licence? Why not just go straight to public domain (for new works)?
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:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so BSD protects software authors from lawyers while GPL protects software users from exploiters?
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so BSD protects software authors from lawyers while GPL protects software users from exploiters?
By 'exploiters' you just mean people who don't share your world view.
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:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it clearly is just people who have a different world view to yours.
That's an interesting way of saying "people who would take my work and disregard my goals while distributing it". I choose GPL for a reason...
Wrong, the ability to close it and make it unavailable is absolutely not a characteristic of permissive OSS licenses, that's just disingenuous fear-mongering,
BSD freedoms ARE lossy. There is BSD code in use by Microsoft and Apple that has been extended, closed and made unavailable to the community. That sort of makes BSD code long-term unsustainable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an interesting way of saying "people who would take my work and disregard my goals while distributing it".
No, it's quite clear, when i distribute code under a permissive license that is purely alturistic, do what you will, you don't have to conform to my world view if you don't want to, you're not an 'exploiter'. You only consider them 'exploiters' because they don't have the same world view as you do.
BSD freedoms ARE lossy. There is BSD code in use by Microsoft and Apple that has been extended, closed and made unavailable to the community.
Wrong again, that BSD code is not closed or unavailable.
That sort of makes BSD code long-term unsustainable.
Yes clearly Apache, Webkit, the BSD kernel, etc... aren't sustainable.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Insightful)
So it clearly is just people who have a different world view to yours.
That's an interesting way of saying "people who would take my work and disregard my goals while distributing it". I choose GPL for a reason...
Not that I question your choice of license, it's my preferred choice too, but it's important to realize, that when using GPL license, you're also denying use of your source code to those, who would gladly give back, but are unable to make their own code GPL.
Using GPL code of others is a bit of a hassle if everything you do is not GPL. Also the value of releasing GPL version of proprietary software is questionable, as you don't then automatically (without a copyright assignment mechanism, which is also a big hassle for everybody) get access to GPL improvements made by others for your proprietary version, ie. you gave them your software, but they might not be willing to give back to your proprietary version, which is what enables you to develop the GPL version in the first place.
This all makes BSD style license much more practical than GPL. It just avoids a lot of hassle for everybody, on the premise that defending against "exploiters" is not worth making extra trouble for anybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
There is BSD code in use by Microsoft and Apple that has been extended, closed and made unavailable to the community
There is. There is also a huge amount of BSD licensed code that Apple has released publicly. A lot in LLVM, and some in FreeBSD, both in the kernel and libc. Most Apple-originated code these days is Apache 2.0 licensed, but they've been willing in the past to relicense code that we (FreeBSD) want to adopt. In short, we've benefitted from their use of our code. We've also seen fairly significant contributions recently from companies like Juniper, who traditionally maintained their own fork of FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:3)
BSD freedoms ARE lossy. There is BSD code in use by Microsoft and Apple that has been extended, closed and made unavailable to the community. That sort of makes BSD code long-term unsustainable.
What a shame, too. The *BSDs would have been so much better off if they'd had a TCP/IP stack, but Microsoft had to go and rip it off and close it on them so they couldn't use it. Oh, wait...
Seriously, how do people who are so (ostensibly) skilled in critical thinking, problem-solving, and logic (you know, the core programming skills) keep repeating this old canard without seeing it for the steaming lump of bullshit that it is?
I guess looking like they're incapable of thinking straight is preferable to the
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Interesting)
The BSD license only protects software authors from lawyers, while the GPL also protects the software itself from the lawyers as well.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
As to which license is ultimately more beneficial, I think it depends on the software project (and the stakeholder one is talking about). Neither are one-size-fits-all. I'm glad the linux kernel is GPL. I'm glad things like Django are BSD licensed. I think it depends on the project and situation.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Interesting)
GPL is too restrictive.
I'll never understand this argument. You want people to write code that anyone can use and strip away the users rights (that is, take the code, change it, and make it proprietary, so people can't even see the new code, let alone make modifications to it, yet you don't want people to write code that people who modify it and redistribute it have to give back.
If it helps, why not use GPLed code the same way you'd use proprietary software. That is, download it, use it, and pretend that you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
My point is this: If you're okay with a license that's permissive enough to allow people to use it to make proprietary software, then you're probably also fine with proprietary software. If that's the case, what's your problem with a license that gives you more rights than proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is too restrictive.
I'll never understand this argument. You want people to write code that anyone can use and strip away the users rights (that is, take the code, change it, and make it proprietary, so people can't even see the new code, let alone make modifications to it, yet you don't want people to write code that people who modify it and redistribute it have to give back.
If it helps, why not use GPLed code the same way you'd use proprietary software. That is, download it, use it, and pretend that you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
My point is this: If you're okay with a license that's permissive enough to allow people to use it to make proprietary software, then you're probably also fine with proprietary software. If that's the case, what's your problem with a license that gives you more rights than proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't help, when people pretend they don't understand the issue. Let's say there's a piece of GPL code you'd want to use, instead of rolling your own. Now only way to use that piece is to make your entire software GPL, usually there's no other way to do it if the piece of GPL software has more than one copyright holder, and even if there's just one copyright holder, getting a permission to use it with different license would be hours and hours of hassle, especially if copyright holder lives in a different country. Generally this makes the GPL code unusable, unless you can make your own code GPL too, and that's it. Now it's of course 100% fine, if the developer of the GPL code really wants this, if he really wants to make his code unusable unless the user is willing and able to make their code GPL too. But saying this is not restrictive is just patently false.
BSD-style license avoids this restrictiveness of GPL. The price for original coder is, that their code can be just taken and closed away, with just a trace of BSD copyright notice left visible. The reward for the the original coder is, their code might gain users which would have rejected it if it was GPL, and some of those users will give back, even if all don't.
And then LGPL offers a nice middle ground, it's a license I personally like a lot, for library-type code.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never understand why people whine so much that they have the inability to sell work they didn't do themselves without at a nominal restriction.
They can sell it if they like. They just can't stop anyone else selling it (or getting it for free).
The complainers are just overly entitled, greedy and can't handle capitalism when it works the way it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the GPL also hurts the original dev as well.
In my case, for instance, I had built a thriving Linux/Mac program with an active userbase of +1 million users and 150,000 active forum participants. Then a few people forked the GPL'd application and started on an Internet-wide vicious character assault against me and my program while lauding their own fork.
They proceeded to copy all of my code for years while ceaselessly attacking my name everywhere, even non-programming comments. The end result was that al
Re: (Score:3)
They stripped my copyright from the headers and now you wouldn't even know that the vast majority of code they took was done by my hand.
Sections 4 and 5 of the GPL v3 (sections 1 and 2 on GPL v2) expressly prohibit that kind of activity. If they removed your copyright notices, they are in breach of the GPL and thus distributing your software illegally.
So yes, you do have recourse under the GPL in this instance, but only because they have been stupid and not adhered to the T's and C's.
Which software is it anyway? I don't want to be using any software where the original author has been treated as badly as you seem to have been.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty simple choice: Use the author's software under the author's license, or write it your own damn self.
This sounds dangerously close to those dbags who want to steal craigslist content because attracting their own advertisers is hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Interesting)
See I just have to LMAO at this one, as you DO realize you are using MPAA logic, yes?
No.
As I responded to the other troll over here [slashdot.org], GPL is called Copyleft for a reason, and that's because its explicit purpose is to encourage copying and sharing. It was made necessary by efforts from others, such as theMPAA/RIAA etc to lock up the creative commons and reduce the right of end-users to own and copy their own digital data and tools.
All of this effort to conflate the GPL with restriction is propaganda and doublespeak of the highest order. It's interesting to see you repeating it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem you're having is that you're looking at the whole thing from the perspective of a end user. There is nothing wrong with the GPL for an end user. They can use the software however they want and if they don't modify it, there is no hassle.
The problem with the GPL for us BSD folk is entirely on the development side of things. The GPL prevents me from using code in my other projects because it requires that I change the terms of my entire project if I wish to use it. From the developer p
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure you're just trolling, but there's no single definition of "software freedom".
When developing proprietary software for a client, I've often wished some software had BSD style license, so I could just take the code and use it in a proprietary solution, even if that kinda feels like stealing, just taking somebody's work, even when they explicitly grant permission to do so. BSD license is for just letting others use your code, with almost no restrictions, also allowing what some would call exploiting your code.
For my own code, I always choose either GPL for LGPL, simply because my gut feeling is, that the "price" GPL/LGPL puts on code is fair, and anybody who thinks it's not can damn well not use the code then. Just as I have not used GPL code of others as part of my work, when my client has felt the "price" is unacceptable (though often it would have been very much ok or even benefical for the use case of my client).
But GPL is very much about the whole GPL ecosystem. Pieces of BSD-style licensed software work pretty well as part of GPL ecosystem, as can be seen by the multitude of such software, but a fully BSD-based ecosystem would simply not work. If it did, then Linux would not have pushed *BSD operating systems to the side lines, where hardly anybody cares about them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you can't put things in the public domain. Works fall in the public domain once copyright expires, but you cannot force copyright to expire.
Re: (Score:3)
They actually took that clause out ..
The main point is liability. If you put something in public domain, and it ends up say, as part of the coffee maker temperature controller on an airplane, malfunctions, and leads to loss of life.. you could be liable. The BSD specifically spells out that the author is not liable.
Re: (Score:3)
If you put something in public domain, and it ends up say, as part of the coffee maker temperature controller on an airplane, malfunctions, and leads to loss of life.. you could be liable.
On what basis?
If you haven't received anything in return or given any sort of advice, commitment or guarantee, and someone chooses to use something that you happened to have released to the public domain in an inappropriate way, under what law(s) in what jurisdiction(s) can that affect you?
As an aside, in many places you can't effectively disclaim any liability you do have for things like causing loss of life anyway, and in some places you're likely to get a pretty rough time in court if you tried.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's mostly just repeating what the other guy already said. My question is under which specific laws that liability would arise.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Interesting)
IIRC BSD license basically says "do what you want, but credit us".
There's also a liability limitation clause and a prohibition on changing the license or removing the copyright notice. The variation in the BSD licenses (there's a few closely related ones) mostly stems from just how much attribution is required; some want rather more than others. The difference rarely gets BSD people very worked up.
The net effect of the BSD license is to disclaim economic rights while maintaining something as close to moral rights as is recognized by US copyright law. You'd word it differently in European copyright law, where moral rights are recognized as as separate concern completely to economic rights (and aren't normally traded).
There's nothing wrong with wanting credit for one's own work. If it's in public domain, however, people can just use it, and I believe it's not illegal to claim the work is yours, though they won't have licensing/ownership rights
If something is truly in the public domain, you can do anything with it. This includes adding text to it that looks like a copyright notice. (I think this wouldn't make your copy of the work be non-PD in itself, as copyright notices in themselves are not a substantive creative element of any work, but I can't be sure. But the placing of the text there, that can be done.) There are also jurisdictions (not in the US) where the only way a work can enter the PD is by having its copyright term expire. PD is way more complicated than BSD (or the GPL variations), even though it sounds like ought to be simpler at first.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take the other freedoms away. If you value other people's freedom as much as your own, the GPL takes nothing from you. If you on the other hand are someone who takes without giving, then the GPL is still the right license, to protect against you.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL has a requirement. All requirements remove freedom.
I suppose that's a possible interpretation of freedom, but in a more practical sense I think your confusing freedom with anarchy. Anarchy says "do what you want, no matter what harm it causes others." Freedom means "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." In a world of shared resources, freedom is a balance, not an extreme. GPL and BSD just take different stances on that balance. BSD gives those that extend the code more freedom to limit their users. GPL limits the extender's freedom and instead gives more freedom to users down the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, the problem is that 100% freedom for more than one person at a time is a paradox.
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL gives lots of freedom to the peole using it, it only remove the "freedom" to remove somebody else's freedom.
There are many reasons that can justify BSD type licences over GPL, but they all boil down to:
"I would like to use this software in something proprietary..."
And it would be much better to state this clearly rather than vaguely allude to the GPL "being not what I think others should want.."
Re:God I hate that use of "free"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both act as if copying is stealing, both come up with these giant FUD scenarios of doom
The FUD's on the other foot.
GPL is called Copyleft for a reason, and that's because its explicit purpose is to encourage copying and sharing. It was made necessary by efforts from others, such as the RIAA etc to lock up the creative commons and reduce the right of end-users to own and copy their own digital data and tools.
All of this effort to conflate the GPL with restriction is propaganda and doublespeak of the highest order.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"mostly"
Except for the ones that aren't.
"arguably"
hardly
Subsidy for accepting a locked phone (Score:2)
Android devices are mostly locked down in ways that are hard to circumvent.
Except for the ones that aren't.
Historically, the handsets that are more locked down have been cheaper to own than the ones that aren't. When smartphone service costs $200 plus $70 per month with a subsidized, locked phone or $550 plus $70 per month with an unlocked phone, people are going to choose the subsidized, locked phone. Only recently did the U.S. GSM carriers introduce affordable prepaid smartphone plans that clearly separate the price of the device from the price of the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OH REALLY??? WHERE OH WHERE ARE THE INTERPRETED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTS FOR IOS?? NOWHERE!!! They violate the TOS and are DISALLOWED.
SO MUCH FOR "EASY DEVELOPMENT"
This is the reason I disable capslock on computers that I install...
Re: (Score:2)
keep talking to straw men
many of us work with paid-for RHEL subscriptions, and our software drives sales of more RHEL licenses
many of us find linux bugs, both in the kernel and in supporting apps, and we report those bugs, providing great value.
do you have any data supporting your assertion that linux users are freeloaders?
windows users got their OS for free when they bought their computer. What makes them different?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that there are bad games on both sides doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of great commercial titles and only a handful of decent F/OSS ones. Really, aside from: SuperTux, Battle for Wesnoth, FreeCiv/FreeCol, and Open Arena there aren't a lot of other good open source titles. On the other hand, off the top of my head some great commercial games for the PC include: Portal, Team For
Re: (Score:3)
Hard to see where "no games" is a benefit to anyone
You will stay ideologically pure. To ideologues, this is a benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
No offense, but I think you are suffering from being used to one thing and missing it when you don't have it. I've worked 20 years as a programmer, about half in a Windows environment and half in an embedded/Unix environment. When programming in an embedded or Unix environment we always used the GNU tool chain because it's what all of the programmers preferred.
Anyway, I vastly prefer the available free software tools over any proprietary platform. For example, for source management, nothing beats Git (we