"If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having non-free programs on your computer. That much is clear."
- GNU Project founder Richard Stallman voices his concerns about the implications of putting Steam on the open Linux platform.
Just last week, Valve announced that it's looking to bring its popular Steam distribution service to Linux, noting that adding games to the operating system could boost its adoption in the long term.
But for Stallman, adoption is only one piece of the puzzle. He'd love to see more people use GNU/Linux, but he doesn't want to compromise the spirit of the platform.
"I suppose that availability of popular non-free 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."
It's not a debate we often see in the game industry, but does Stallman have a point? Is it wrong to bring a commercial platform to an operating system that encourages free and open source software?
I don't think Stallman wants freedom. He wants free. There's a huge difference.
If the purpose is freedom... then can't we argue that users should have the freedom to run any kind of software they want on their machine? Free software, or retail software? Couldn't we argue that developers should have the freedom to give their software away, or sell it, as they see fit?
Ultimately, people should have the freedom to step outside Stallmans limited vision of freedom.
Freedom to choose is there. Stallman is not being ironic and proposing that we somehow PREVENT non free software from running on Linux.
Frankly, you sound like you learned to argue by watching cable news. You start off by attributing a false value or belief to your opponent.
In reality, Mr. Stallman is viewing the issue from an entirely different angle than you. His warning comes from a perspective that takes into account the history of a commercial software industry that often strives to gain market share, kill competition, create dependancies and then exploit their dominance and user dependance.
Actually Michael, Dave Kay is exactly correct. There is a direct quote from RMS above that supports what Dave says.
The quote is this :-
"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."
You seem familiar with him, so I'm sure you know what his definition of freedom means as enshrined in the GPL. It's not for nothing even the OSI consider the GPL poison.
While his 'warning' has some technical merits, it is built out an engineering tradition that has virtually no consideration for users beyond an elite cluster of technical priests.
I agree with Dave, freedom is not selective, if users of Linux do indeed have freedom then steam creators as users have the freedom to run steam via Linux. Just as every Linux user has the right to install and use Steam or not.
If you create an operating system based on the concept of freedom, you can't then take issue when users exercise that freedom and like it or not, Valve is a user.
Well, it did. Freedom of the OS. I don't see where free everything has anything to do with it. Doesn't the humble indie bundles run on linux? Don't people have to pay at least .01 for that? not free, maybe they should attack that?
The full post is here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
The important part from his text is:
"However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do."
That is a trade-off (for now), and he see that as a good thing, the question for him is what will happen after this change.
You're confusing terms. I don't blame you, but I have to clarify. It's not about software being free of charge. It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
This is why the term "OpenSource" was coined, because it makes more sense to people not familiar with the entire ideology. Stallman doesn't use it, because he thinks it doesn't express the values well enough, but it's hard to argue that "Free Software" leads to confusion. Later, the term "FOSS", which stands for Free/OpenSource Software was coined to bring the two names together, but Richard is still stuck at the term he initiated.
So anyway, FOSS doesn't have to be free of charge, but obviously being free (as in freedom) often imposes a different business model for the software.
There is nothing new about commercial gaming on Linux: to promote OpenGL, Id Software ported the Quake series for Linux users a long time ago. Users had to buy those games, just like they would for a Windows version.
Anyone trying to play Blu-ray on a Linux desktop will know that certain things, like BR codecs, simply aren't available on the open channels.
Valve is concerned about the upcoming Windows 8 because of the online store Microsoft is setting up to compete directly with iOS and Android (and, to a negligible extent, Blackberry). It's worried that casual gamers will be so distracted by apps they buy directly from Microsoft, they will no longer log onto Valve's own Steam service and buy its downloads.
Valve's Linux strategy, to do business without dealing with Microsoft, is understandable, but I predict it will sooner stake its presence in the Metro-sphere of the Windows 8 ecosystem than to convince its Steam customers to install Linux onto their PCs. Linux is a means to an end here for the commercial game publisher, and the open-source principles held dear by Linux users are beside the point.
Just as a grounding point, we should all be clear that a great many Linux users don't have Stallman's hard-on for the distinction between free and "Free" and prependinding "GNU/". RMS is a known extremist and I'm honestly pretty surprised he didn't take an even more acidic stance.
Richard Stallman isn't against people making money off open source software, people need to pay bills that's just a fact of life. So I'm not really sure if it's the issue of retail vs free software as this story makes it sound. Having used linux for years now, I'm pretty sure it's an issue of open source vs closed source freedom that he is talking about. He does say that game art is a different issue. That is what people should be paying for when making a game with an open source game engine. I understand the concern but I have no room to talk since I am currently using closed-source Nvidia drivers and other closed source applications on my system. I am just happy with the freedom of choice in choosing my operating system.
...and if you want freedom, part of that includes the freedom to choose. So what is his problem again? Perhaps he is one of those guys who says he "plays games" but hasn't touched anything since the days of the early 80s. I'm sorry but native gaming on the Linux platform is sad and pathetic.
Well Danny, I assume you're being facetious but to seriously answer your question, a reasonable metric for quality of gaming on a platform might be say the top 10 rated PC games from metacritic. The list is as follows (I deleted from baseball game from 2007 because seriously wtf?) :
Half-Life 2, Half-Life, BioShock, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Portal 2, Command & Conquer, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Civilization II
Of those, 3 are Valve and so we can expect to see them on Linux soon-ish if they're not already there, but of the rest there are no other Linux available games. Now we may argue about the validity of metacritic scores in general, but I think we can agree that the list of games above is pretty strong. Unless you can quote a similar list to me of games available on Linux that we can't play on PC I think we can say that broadly gaming on Linux is not there yet.
The article dosn't bring this up but the part of his post that I disagree with most is "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.)" Why is it unethical to want to make a living producing software? He make a point to state that Art isn't the same thing so you shouldn't be allowed to change a picture but you should be able to change code? As a person who make's money from programming it is really screwed up that this guy is trying to say that I shouldn't be making money for my work, and that anybody should be able to go in there and change it to whatever they want. How the player moves and the encounters that you run into can be just as much art as a drawing can be, if you allow someone to go in and change everything about it you destroy the intended purpose and rob the creator of their vision being realized.
Please note that Stallman isn't talking about games being free of charge (as in, without a price tag). What he is talking about is games being free as in freedom, which means OpenSource and doesn't make software available without a price tag by design. OpenSource software can very well be commercial, it just requires slightly (or largely) different business model.
That said, Stallman is a philosopher, as Linus Torvalds calls him. He is a little bit detached from reality and he doesn't understand the difference between software such as an Operating System and software such as games.
The bottom line is that while some people on Linux think what Stallman things (which is a part of the Linux folklore in a way), most of us don't. And many of use see the difference between games and other kinds of software when it comes to software freedom and (non-)applicable business models.
I get where Stallman is coming from on the issue of keeping Linux free, but I think there's a bit of muddying as far as the terms "free" and "freedom" are concerned in this case. In this case, what I think Stallman is really saying is that Linux is primarily a non-commercial platform, with its advancement and innovation being dependent on the many programmers that all contribute to it. In that sense, most (if not all) software for Linux is open-source.
Steam, despite being very supportive of modding and indie games, is still not open-source. However, the Steam platform itself is free. Rather, it's the games that cost money, and Steam would first have to create some population of Linux-compatible games, which do not necessarily have to cost money (F2P). All that being said, I'm in support of Steam being available on Linux.
The real question is :- where do you draw the line to call a platform open?
For example, this is something the FSF nerds would never consider, but their beloved GNU/Linux runs on a closed ecosystem, namely the chips and circuits that make up a computer. While from our human point of view this makes sense, from an electrical signalling point of view it is not a given that they should be considered separately. So basically GNU takes it as read that hardware is closed, but software is open. But why should it be? Why not build platforms that provide levels of freedom both further up (applications like Steam Greenlight) and down the stack (that new open source console) even if that means the nominally closed aspect moves up as well? As long as freedom of choice is not restricted, why is this a problem?
When it comes down to it, it's supposedly a problem because a man with a beard who likes Emacs more than Vi (that alone is an indication of an unsound mind) says it should be so.
Whenever Richard Stallman uses the word "free" he means "freedom", not money. Being free of charge is irrelevant in this regard and there are numerous example of Free Software (which means "software that gives you freedom to understand and modify it") being commercial, which Stallman has no problem with. In fact, he proposed a number of business models applicable to Free Software when he was designing the GPL license. Whether these models are applicable to games is a different issue, but it's important that "free of charge" is NOT what RMS means.
Actually, that's changing to an extent. While the chips are still fairly closed, the rest of the computer has started to open up. You can get a Raspberry Pi board, or a Gumstix board where you can get the design files and build your own version of it, and the only pieces you have to use that are still mostly closed are the raw chips themselves. There exist lower end chips that can be dropped in that are of open design as well, though they still need a big proprietary fab to produce. You can implement processors that work with linux inside of FPGA chips where they would be mostly portable to other FPGAs as well, and you wouldn't be locked into one particular manufacturer.
It's ironic (may be a paradox?) that Stallman fights for freedom (as in "we have the source code, therefore we're free to modify as we want, and we can rest assured there are no backdoors") but in the process denies users their freedom to chose non-free software. Having free (as in open source) programs is desirable. Necessary? It depends. But entertainment software is not the same as business or server SW.
No one's being forced to install Steam on Linux.
I find him to be a bit silly in this regard. The idea that having non-free software makes you lose your freedom comes from the idea that if they decide to remove access to that software, you wouldn't have an alternative on your free system. That's an important idea for essential software that keeps you from doing your job, but for a games delivery system? If you lose access to it, you're not losing your livelyhood. Game software also something that the free software market has only replicated with very limited success and it seems unlikely that there will be AAA titles coming out for free with full source code on day-1. Some developers have been releasing their source code though years after the game is released, which is a good thing.
Who's to say that Steam won't take on a broader range of applications in the future and become increasingly more like the App Store?
I'm just playing the advocate on this one because it seems to me there's a lot of blind pushback here with an unwillingness to understand where Mr Stallman is coming from.
What if Valve closes, or something like that. Where all your bought games goes?
Will they assure you the right to access you library after Valve is sold/closed/exploded?
This is a serious problem, and we already saw these things happening.. and this is why there is a push to a thing called SaaS..
You are right there. Valve has promised in the past if they ever go belly up, they will unlock every game they can. However, such promises are not worth their weight in mud. We have no guarantee that if such a fall will happen that they will be able to do it.
Michael: They haven't so far, and they've had every oppourtunity to. Stardock even used to keep their non-game apps on Impulse, and needed a new home for them after they sold Impulse, but Steam and Impulse are both trying to stay focused completely on games, so Stardock instead had to make their own downloader/updater for their non-game software. I doubt Steam will go general apps at this point, especially since Ubuntu has its own software store.
Danny: That's why I don't buy expensive games on Steam. It's somewhere that I buy $20 or less games for that I'm not going to be too terribly concerned about if they disappear. More expensive games I buy on consoles instead.
Steam is a closed, top-down self-contained ecosystem controlled by one profit driven company, and everyone who uses it is at the mercy of that company.
That is what Stallman means by "non-free". That's what he's always meant by that term. It has nothing to do with the cost of the software, or lack of it. If you think that, you need a bit of a history lesson.
When you use that kind of software you give up certain freedoms and options. Whether the tradeoff is worth it or not is a matter of opinion, and Stallman's has always been more or less consistent, take it or leave it.
Thank you. I think people are caught up in the whole free vs freedom thing and completely forget about Valve being in complete control of your gaming library.
Don't get me wrong. I love that Valve is coming to Linux with Steam, but the idea of being tethered to the servers of a third party for the rest of my gaming life is a bit scary. One of the reasons why I never started with Steam to begin with.
Not being up to scratch with the legalities (and spirit) of the open source movement can anyone tell me what their stance is on DRM and freedom [lack thereof] to make backups and move applications between computers?
DRM in general is not really in the spirit of OpenSource and Free Software in general, as one would expect, but there are different views and different approaches in terms of ideology. RMS (Richard Mathew Stallman) is surely not OK with DRM in any form. Linus Torvalds (the initial creator of the Linux kernel) on the other hand wouldn't use it himself, but he's more pragmatic than RMS and understands that some people might want to use it and he'd be fine with them doing so. At least IIRC that was his position some years ago. Obviously that doesn't change the fact that DRM is ineffective and sometimes counter-effecting as an anti-piracy solution, but that's a different issue.
Also, GPL'ed (published under the GNU Public License) software can't effectively be DRM'ed, because all source code and any modification to it must be publicly available under this license (note that there are many OpenSource licenses that aren't "viral" like this), rendering DRM even less effective. Still, given how fast crackers are to deal with all kinds of DRM, publishing the source code probably wouldn't make that much of a difference.
As far as making backups and using software on multiple machines. Well, the general position of Free Software is that you can even fork it, so backups, moving or even copying and sharing is also permitted.
Much of this can be prevented by using a different license for art work or even story. While the code is open source, the art work (gfx, sfx, music etc.) and story can be proprietary thus effectively preventing the forking of the whole game -- everyone would still be able to get the source code, but without the art and the right to use levels, puzzle design, dialogues, characters (if applicable) etc.
There is an end point to which a philosophical argument can go no further, the end point for whether a Linux operating systems should be free across the board is hardware. The computer hardware is not free and he seems not to care about that at all. Can you have it both ways? Software takes time, effort, and skill to make just as hardware does, so sometimes it should cost money...or be the result of some exchange.
Funny you should mention that. I imagine the perp who stole his Lemote Yeeloong while he was speaking in Argentina was very confused when they tried to use it. Doubly so if they tried to install Windows on it.
(It's a Longsoon MIPS laptop with a mostly open spec)
excuse me if I don't trust Valves motives. There customer service is not what I would call ahead of the game. I personally don't trust any company that has no obligations to it's users, and the larger a company gets the more out of the realm of accountability it becomes. I don't care how innocent they are. All powerful corrupts all always.
i think stallman is being a dumbass by being so ideological and inflexible and in that regard is no better than political radicals who insist "my way or the high way".
linux will always be linux. steam will not, cannot kill that.
his inflexbility and insecurity is unnecessary, disappointing, and quite frankly idiotic.
People are confusing the terms. When Stallman says "non-free" software, it doesn't mean paid software. It means that the software isn't OpenSource (the code is hidden from the user).
If the purpose is freedom... then can't we argue that users should have the freedom to run any kind of software they want on their machine? Free software, or retail software? Couldn't we argue that developers should have the freedom to give their software away, or sell it, as they see fit?
Ultimately, people should have the freedom to step outside Stallmans limited vision of freedom.
Frankly, you sound like you learned to argue by watching cable news. You start off by attributing a false value or belief to your opponent.
In reality, Mr. Stallman is viewing the issue from an entirely different angle than you. His warning comes from a perspective that takes into account the history of a commercial software industry that often strives to gain market share, kill competition, create dependancies and then exploit their dominance and user dependance.
The quote is this :-
"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."
You seem familiar with him, so I'm sure you know what his definition of freedom means as enshrined in the GPL. It's not for nothing even the OSI consider the GPL poison.
While his 'warning' has some technical merits, it is built out an engineering tradition that has virtually no consideration for users beyond an elite cluster of technical priests.
If you create an operating system based on the concept of freedom, you can't then take issue when users exercise that freedom and like it or not, Valve is a user.
Well, it did. Freedom of the OS. I don't see where free everything has anything to do with it. Doesn't the humble indie bundles run on linux? Don't people have to pay at least .01 for that? not free, maybe they should attack that?
The important part from his text is:
"However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do."
That is a trade-off (for now), and he see that as a good thing, the question for him is what will happen after this change.
This is why the term "OpenSource" was coined, because it makes more sense to people not familiar with the entire ideology. Stallman doesn't use it, because he thinks it doesn't express the values well enough, but it's hard to argue that "Free Software" leads to confusion. Later, the term "FOSS", which stands for Free/OpenSource Software was coined to bring the two names together, but Richard is still stuck at the term he initiated.
So anyway, FOSS doesn't have to be free of charge, but obviously being free (as in freedom) often imposes a different business model for the software.
Anyone trying to play Blu-ray on a Linux desktop will know that certain things, like BR codecs, simply aren't available on the open channels.
Valve is concerned about the upcoming Windows 8 because of the online store Microsoft is setting up to compete directly with iOS and Android (and, to a negligible extent, Blackberry). It's worried that casual gamers will be so distracted by apps they buy directly from Microsoft, they will no longer log onto Valve's own Steam service and buy its downloads.
Valve's Linux strategy, to do business without dealing with Microsoft, is understandable, but I predict it will sooner stake its presence in the Metro-sphere of the Windows 8 ecosystem than to convince its Steam customers to install Linux onto their PCs. Linux is a means to an end here for the commercial game publisher, and the open-source principles held dear by Linux users are beside the point.
What is your reasoning for this????? This is just lame.. or simply put: "haters gonna hate".
Half-Life 2, Half-Life, BioShock, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Portal 2, Command & Conquer, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Civilization II
Of those, 3 are Valve and so we can expect to see them on Linux soon-ish if they're not already there, but of the rest there are no other Linux available games. Now we may argue about the validity of metacritic scores in general, but I think we can agree that the list of games above is pretty strong. Unless you can quote a similar list to me of games available on Linux that we can't play on PC I think we can say that broadly gaming on Linux is not there yet.
That said, Stallman is a philosopher, as Linus Torvalds calls him. He is a little bit detached from reality and he doesn't understand the difference between software such as an Operating System and software such as games.
The bottom line is that while some people on Linux think what Stallman things (which is a part of the Linux folklore in a way), most of us don't. And many of use see the difference between games and other kinds of software when it comes to software freedom and (non-)applicable business models.
Steam, despite being very supportive of modding and indie games, is still not open-source. However, the Steam platform itself is free. Rather, it's the games that cost money, and Steam would first have to create some population of Linux-compatible games, which do not necessarily have to cost money (F2P). All that being said, I'm in support of Steam being available on Linux.
Not true. Linux is very commercial and profitable for a lot of business out there (IBM, Oracle, Nvidia (hollywood), RedHat, etc.).
The question is to give freedom to the user. Freedom to own the software (and not a right to use software).
For example, this is something the FSF nerds would never consider, but their beloved GNU/Linux runs on a closed ecosystem, namely the chips and circuits that make up a computer. While from our human point of view this makes sense, from an electrical signalling point of view it is not a given that they should be considered separately. So basically GNU takes it as read that hardware is closed, but software is open. But why should it be? Why not build platforms that provide levels of freedom both further up (applications like Steam Greenlight) and down the stack (that new open source console) even if that means the nominally closed aspect moves up as well? As long as freedom of choice is not restricted, why is this a problem?
When it comes down to it, it's supposedly a problem because a man with a beard who likes Emacs more than Vi (that alone is an indication of an unsound mind) says it should be so.
Actually, that's changing to an extent. While the chips are still fairly closed, the rest of the computer has started to open up. You can get a Raspberry Pi board, or a Gumstix board where you can get the design files and build your own version of it, and the only pieces you have to use that are still mostly closed are the raw chips themselves. There exist lower end chips that can be dropped in that are of open design as well, though they still need a big proprietary fab to produce. You can implement processors that work with linux inside of FPGA chips where they would be mostly portable to other FPGAs as well, and you wouldn't be locked into one particular manufacturer.
No one's being forced to install Steam on Linux.
I'm just playing the advocate on this one because it seems to me there's a lot of blind pushback here with an unwillingness to understand where Mr Stallman is coming from.
What if Valve closes, or something like that. Where all your bought games goes?
Will they assure you the right to access you library after Valve is sold/closed/exploded?
This is a serious problem, and we already saw these things happening.. and this is why there is a push to a thing called SaaS..
/agree
You are right there. Valve has promised in the past if they ever go belly up, they will unlock every game they can. However, such promises are not worth their weight in mud. We have no guarantee that if such a fall will happen that they will be able to do it.
Danny: That's why I don't buy expensive games on Steam. It's somewhere that I buy $20 or less games for that I'm not going to be too terribly concerned about if they disappear. More expensive games I buy on consoles instead.
Just ignore Stallman, his politics and his fanboys.
That is what Stallman means by "non-free". That's what he's always meant by that term. It has nothing to do with the cost of the software, or lack of it. If you think that, you need a bit of a history lesson.
When you use that kind of software you give up certain freedoms and options. Whether the tradeoff is worth it or not is a matter of opinion, and Stallman's has always been more or less consistent, take it or leave it.
Don't get me wrong. I love that Valve is coming to Linux with Steam, but the idea of being tethered to the servers of a third party for the rest of my gaming life is a bit scary. One of the reasons why I never started with Steam to begin with.
Also, GPL'ed (published under the GNU Public License) software can't effectively be DRM'ed, because all source code and any modification to it must be publicly available under this license (note that there are many OpenSource licenses that aren't "viral" like this), rendering DRM even less effective. Still, given how fast crackers are to deal with all kinds of DRM, publishing the source code probably wouldn't make that much of a difference.
As far as making backups and using software on multiple machines. Well, the general position of Free Software is that you can even fork it, so backups, moving or even copying and sharing is also permitted.
Much of this can be prevented by using a different license for art work or even story. While the code is open source, the art work (gfx, sfx, music etc.) and story can be proprietary thus effectively preventing the forking of the whole game -- everyone would still be able to get the source code, but without the art and the right to use levels, puzzle design, dialogues, characters (if applicable) etc.
(It's a Longsoon MIPS laptop with a mostly open spec)
linux will always be linux. steam will not, cannot kill that.
his inflexbility and insecurity is unnecessary, disappointing, and quite frankly idiotic.
People are confusing the terms. When Stallman says "non-free" software, it doesn't mean paid software. It means that the software isn't OpenSource (the code is hidden from the user).