Motoko. Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Richard M Stallman ? one of the founding fathers of the Free Software movement ? has expressed anxiety over games company Valve?s plan to bring their gaming wares to Linux. The bone of contention in Stallman?s eyes is Valve?s frequent use of Digital Rights Management (DRM) within its software. Rights-encumbered software is, Stallman writes on his blog, ?unethical?. ?They deny freedom to their users. If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having non-free programs on your computer.? DRM is intended to prevent unauthorised copying or distribution of game titles ? a mechanism vital the survival of many digital content distributers. Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, has already ?Ok?d? the notion of companies releasing copy-protected software - despite the fact that he does not personally like the idea. full story @ omgubuntu ?[This move] might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux. 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?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well if he doesn't like it he's free to not have it on his computer. It's not like if/when Steam ever gets made for Linux it will be hard coded or force installed into every single linux distribution out there. Seems to me he's worrying about some ethical issue that doesn't exist. Brandon H, Emil2k, Hurmoth and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teej Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Yes, because this is the first piece of DRM'd software to ever grace Linux oh wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Meh, I'm all for open rights and whatnot but people like this guy are WAY too anal about it. Great if something's open source and free to all but it's not a viable business model. oliver182 and Arkaic 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArialBlue Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Everyone who lunches on their own foot skin agrees with this man. Everyone else does not. The_Decimator 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 So the 7 people that are going to actually game on Linux will have to deal with some DRM. Woohoo... Nexus- and djdanster 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well, he's Stallman. He's all about FOSS and more often than not comes as an extremists, but it's still nice to have people like him so we can just stay in a comfortable middle ground. Anyway, even as an extremist he sees that "the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm". guru 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted August 4, 2012 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2012 Yes, because this is the first piece of DRM'd software to ever grace Linux oh wait And he's against it all. I think most of Neowin members just plainly dont understand Stallman's stand on this. Yes, he is highly questionable but not for the reasons many list. He is n ACTIVIST, and as one is his job to talk with hyperboles. His goal IS noble: To achieve a time where we can access the code and assets of our apps while developers still can earn money. +Majesticmerc 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 THis guy's neckbeard just crit me for over 9000. HighwayGlider 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-KJ Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Does anyone really take him seriously these days? martheen 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 If anything is unethical, it's calling the GPL free or open. Rhetoric-source would be a more apt term for it. I look forward to more projects using truly open licenses, rather than Stallman's own brand of hateful swill. garwin and MFH 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 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. If you want to promote freedom, please take care not to talk about the availability of these games on GNU/Linux as support for our cause. Soooooo restricting choice and borderline censorship equates to freedom? I'm all for open source when it's desirable by the project, but this is just "our way or no way." Putting a stranglehold on end-users and developers alike doesn't sound free at all. If people don't want to fork over the money for commercial software nobody's forcing them to.. if he has his way people won't even have that option at all. 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. Ah, so it's only "harmful" when it's on Windows. Gotcha. The Linux community really needs to start distancing themselves from this guy. Duffydemon and rpsgc 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 This is the man who launched a public attack on Steve Jobs within a week of his death. He's an attention seeking clown. a.mcdear 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descartes Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well I'd rather have DRM'ed software on Linux than not have it. Not to mention, that Steam is DRM done in a decent manner. Brandon H, f0rk_b0mb, blank and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Not all software will be open source, Rick needs to just accept this eventuality and move on. There's nothing unethical about using closed source software on an open platform. Duffydemon, Motoko., theyarecomingforyou and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teej Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well I'd rather have DRM'ed software on Linux than not have it. Not to mention, that Steam is DRM done in a decent manner. Exactly! Steam is one of the few DRM mechanisms in place I'm totally cool with - not to mention the massive benefits of Steam (versus CD-only installation with a serial key) far outweigh the small inconveniences. Lirodon 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Not all software will be open source, Rick needs to just accept this eventuality and move on. There's nothing unethical about using closed source software on an open platform. I don't understand his view in the regard of "what if you aren't a programmer to begin with?" Most people want to use programs not recreate them, I understand his passion but it's an ideal. garwin 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I don't understand his view in the regard of "what if you aren't a programmer to begin with?" Most people want to use programs not recreate them, I understand his passion but it's an ideal. Precisely. I'm not a software developer so where a product comes from is of no consequence to me. If it fits my needs, I use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEvan Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Everyone who lunches on their own foot skin agrees with this man. Everyone else does not. da hell did you just say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Laughing Man Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 da hell did you just say? Watch that, then you'll understand. +Majesticmerc 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Watch that, then you'll understand. ... I knew I shouldn't have hit the play button on that, but noooo I go and push it anyway. Ew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Majesticmerc MVC Posted August 4, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 4, 2012 Every time someon criticises RMS for his views, the critic doesn't get it. RMS is fully aware that software freedom is a compromise between complete closed-ness and complete openness (contrary to popular belief, he's an immensely smart man), but he maintains his idealst views because he has to. Because if he doesn't, there's one less person to fight for our freedom to hack, and to promote free software. He represents the idea that all software should be free to be modified as the customer sees fit, and it's a noble ideal. Even if you're not a programmer, the idea that you could fiddle with the internals of all your software is one that everyone can agree would be positive (i.e. for the end user, there is zero downside), however profit-seeking companies and individuals prefer to keep their software closed in order to maintain an advantage over the competition, and that too is fine. If RMS was to say "Well, I'm normally against DRM restrictions, but in Valves case I'll let it slide because they make good games", the free software movement has lost. The free software movement maintains unreasonable ideals because at the end of the day, even if the majority of software only manages to be 50% free according to RMS' beliefs, it's a victory for free software and consumer rights. He's not the hero software developers deserve, but the one they need. The Teej, Nothing Here, Duffydemon and 2 others 5 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 This guy is nuts.. isn't this the guy who ate his own foot nails while getting interviewed.. disgusting EDIT.. nevermind.. I see someone already posted it.. awful.. The Laughing Man and n_K 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl L. Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Every time someon criticises RMS for his views, the critic doesn't get it. RMS is fully aware that software freedom is a compromise between complete closed-ness and complete openness (contrary to popular belief, he's an immensely smart man), but he maintains his idealst views because he has to. Because if he doesn't, there's one less person to fight for our freedom to hack, and to promote free software. He represents the idea that all software should be free to be modified as the customer sees fit, and it's a noble ideal. Even if you're not a programmer, the idea that you could fiddle with the internals of all your software is one that everyone can agree would be positive (i.e. for the end user, there is zero downside), however profit-seeking companies and individuals prefer to keep their software closed in order to maintain an advantage over the competition, and that too is fine. If RMS was to say "Well, I'm normally against DRM restrictions, but in Valves case I'll let it slide because they make good games", the free software movement has lost. The free software movement maintains unreasonable ideals because at the end of the day, even if the majority of software only manages to be 50% free according to RMS' beliefs, it's a victory for free software and consumer rights. He's not the hero software developers deserve, but the one they need. QFT! While I don't agree with RMS most of the time, I also understand why he does what he does. This is probably the best summary of his beliefs I have ever read. (Also, I really like the Dark Knight allusion.) Nothing Here and +Majesticmerc 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Every time someon criticises RMS for his views, the critic doesn't get it. RMS is fully aware that software freedom is a compromise between complete closed-ness and complete openness (contrary to popular belief, he's an immensely smart man), but he maintains his idealst views because he has to. Because if he doesn't, there's one less person to fight for our freedom to hack, and to promote free software. He represents the idea that all software should be free to be modified as the customer sees fit, and it's a noble ideal. Even if you're not a programmer, the idea that you could fiddle with the internals of all your software is one that everyone can agree would be positive (i.e. for the end user, there is zero downside), however profit-seeking companies and individuals prefer to keep their software closed in order to maintain an advantage over the competition, and that too is fine. If RMS was to say "Well, I'm normally against DRM restrictions, but in Valves case I'll let it slide because they make good games", the free software movement has lost. The free software movement maintains unreasonable ideals because at the end of the day, even if the majority of software only manages to be 50% free according to RMS' beliefs, it's a victory for free software and consumer rights. He's not the hero software developers deserve, but the one they need. That simply isn't true. If anything RMS's incessant moralising and absolutist rhetoric "scare off" far more people than it draws in. Eric S. Raymond wrote a brilliant blogpost about RMS here that sums the matter up nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts