Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Motoko.

Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

148 posts in this topic

I don't have a problem with all FOSS proponents just those that constantly blather on about the evils of Microsoft and proprietary software. I support the ideas behind FOSS. It would probably pay to ask my opinion or read my posts properly before jumping to assumptions. I think Stallman is an idiot but I don't have a problem with FOSS

However Stallman is the FOSS. Or at least the backbone.

While it might seem extremist we need to remember that Stallman experienced firsthand the days where MS was a true monopoly forcing its way in the industry (Sometimes doing very nasty things, like the Compaq fiasco). I think it's good that we have a vocal thinker that will never allow us to forget that.

I admire how he rejects convenience by following his ideals: His working machine is CRAP. However he uses it because it allows him to use free software down to bios level. Proof that is doable and noble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? sooner or later people need to stop bitching about the past and get on with things. To me it just makes him sound bitter. I'm not saying Microsoft's actions were acceptable btw, quite the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An activist sans the rhetoric? Did you bother to read the thread fully?

Your other "point" has no relevance, I'm not debating the definition of rhetoric. So spare me the pseudo-intellectual bluster.

That article is rhetoric. It's just softer, and you feel it even softer because it agrees with your points.

Also, you first asked me to prove that activism is rhetoric. I just do that and then is pseudo-intellectual? Very well. Im done with you, Javik is the only one here worth having a debate with.

Why? sooner or later people need to stop bitching about the past and get on with things. To me it just makes him sound bitter.

In this case the past is the present for him. Closed software won the war.

For him that is wrong. Beyond any considerations of why he thinks that's wrong his reasoning and strategies are sound.

He might be the most eccentric FOSS proponent, but there's a reason why he is their leader. Again, I don't think we cant condemn his passion and dedication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand I do agree that their actions harmed Linux, but on the other Valve bringing their games to it could boost the profile of Linux and get more people interested in it. I suppose it's fair to say there are no truly easy answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is rhetoric. It's just softer, and you feel it even softer because it agrees with your points.

Also, you first asked me to prove that activism is rhetoric. I just do that and then is pseudo-intellectual? Very well. Im done with you, Javik is the only one here worth having a debate with.

"Softer" "Rhetoric" Hah! It reads very much like a reasoned analysis of why RMS's brand of fanaticism is harmful.

Unless I'm missing the segment where ESR claims RMS is satan-incarnate?

But of course it doesn't agree with your mindset so it's "soft rhetoric".

And yes, I asked you to prove that activism is rhetoric, and you regurgitated two words. That's not proof, that's a dictionary. Since we're in the dictionary though:

ac?tiv?ism

? ?[ak-tuh-viz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.

I'm not seeing what part of this says you have to call people evil to contribute to the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing what part of this says you have to call people evil to contribute to the cause.

Then you're not reading the doctrine part...

also, man, it's not a dictionary definition, it's social studies. We're arguing in function of your ignorance. And you know what they say about arguing with an ignorant.

So, honestly, lets just agree to disagree. I will reply to Javik from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to install it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're not reading the doctrine part...

I'm not seeing the connection between having a doctrine and harming your own cause by calling people the devil.

also, man, it's not a dictionary definition, it's social studies. We're arguing in function of your ignorance. And you know what they say about arguing with an ignorant.

Oh right, so it's one of those "I don't have any tangible proof but I'm still going claim I'm right anyway" things. Gotcha.

Yeah, you know what? You can keep your rhetoric and "studies", just don't pretend to be confused as to why you drive more people away from OSS than you "convert". It's not like I'm the one that will be losing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm talking about freedom for everyone. Stallman claims he seeks "freedom", when he only provides it to certain entities. Thus, it's not freedom.

BSD is free for everyone, because authorial freedom takes precedence due to the fact the end-user is free to make a choice regarding their own usage.

Stallman wants freedom for the code, BSD provides freedom for distributors.

You are still failing to realize that by giving more freedom to distributors you are inherently taking freedom away from the code.

Stallman wants freedom through slavery. That isn't freedom, merely the illusion of it.

Who's he enslaving exactly?

But I'm glad you finally agree the GPL is restrictive, now all you need to do is stop calling it free. Open? sure. Free? nope.

Finally agree? I've always said that the GPL is restrictive. All license are restrictive, that's the whole point of needing a license to begin with.

What keeps flying over your head is that distributors aren't the only subject that define the freedom of a license.

Yes, by inferring that freedom includes the ability for person A to impose themselves upon person B at B's expense to preserve A's so-called "freedom", when person A has other freedoms they can use that allow both parties to retain freedom.

You are still focusing on the freedom of distributors alone as the single metric to define if a license is free when the GPL is about the freedom of the code itself, which other licenses like the BSD restrict.

Person A isn't imposing himself over person B, he's just not allowing a restriction on the freedom of the code just to cater to person B interests. Person B remains completely free to decide if he agrees with that or not.

Person B doesn't have any inherent right over person A's code, as demonstrated by the fact that even what you consider to be free licenses still impose restrictions on what B can do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stallman's rhetoric fails because as much as he'd like to you cannot separate the process of developing software with the process of actually using it, the 2 need each other to work. And asking that all developers give up their time without reward is unfair.

He's actually indirectly asking for a paradigm shift in the software industry, which I don't see ever happening but it's still something far more realistic than devs working for free.

The idea would be that software (the code) would no longer be an end in itself but just a mean to build something else. Software companies that profit from throwing lines of code alone would become no longer profitable.

Since companies do obviusly still need software, developers would still get paid but not by software companies building software as retail products but by the companies that would otherwise be buying that software.

Take the Linux kernel as an example: most kernel contributors are paid by companies that are interested in the development of the OS, not because they'll be selling it but because it's a tool that enables their business.

When it comes to games, going by Stallman's vision, building engines wouldn't be a business in itself. Game companies would develop them in collaboration and then make profit when selling the whole package that is the game with all the assets (story, characters, gameplay, music...).

Developers would get paid since game studios still need the code and it wouldn't be writting itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stallman wants freedom for the code, BSD provides freedom for distributors.

You are still failing to realize that by giving more freedom to distributors you are inherently taking freedom away from the code.

I'm not failing to realise anything, because code is not a living being and does not have any concept of freedom.

Who's he enslaving exactly?

Users and developers with his deceitful claims of freedom.

Finally agree? I've always said that the GPL is restrictive. All license are restrictive, that's the whole point of needing a license to begin with.

What keeps flying over your head is that distributors aren't the only subject that define the freedom of a license.

Incorrect. At no point have I solely focused on distributors. I have clearly explained in previous posts how a freedom preserving license cannot be used to take freedom away. Because a user has the freedom to not use the derivative work.

You are still focusing on the freedom of distributors alone as the single metric to define if a license is free when the GPL is about the freedom of the code itself, which other licenses like the BSD restrict.

Person A isn't imposing himself over person B, he's just not allowing a restriction on the freedom of the code just to cater to person B interests. Person B remains completely free to decide if he agrees with that or not.

Person B doesn't have any inherent right over person A's code, as demonstrated by the fact that even what you consider to be free licenses still impose restrictions on what B can do with it.

Now you are lying, I have clearly touched on the concept of freedom for both users and distributors.

"He's just not allowing" Are you serious? That -is- an imposition, A has imposed their will on B by taking B's freedom of choice away.

Free licenses do not impose restrictions on what B chooses to do with the work, they only mandate that the original license notice be preserved - and do not require the user be enslaved to the same license or be forced to redistribute a copy of the original work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not failing to realise anything, because code is not a living being and does not have any concept of freedom.

Ok, so there's no such thing as free software now :rolleyes:

If you don't get the concept of software freedom there's no point in arguing because that's exactly what the GPL is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stallman is a nutjob. No one really gives a crap what he thinks except other nutjobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so there's no such thing as free software now :rolleyes:

If you don't get the concept of software freedom there's no point in arguing because that's exactly what the GPL is about.

Yes, there is such a thing as free software.

But it is not something that includes someone else is telling you what you can and can't do simply because they have an opinion.

Software is created to serve the user, not the other way around. What are you, the Software-PETA or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a prime example of why Linux on the desktop will never take off. Their attitude needs to change.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is such a thing as free software.

But it is not something that includes someone else is telling you what you can and can't do simply because they have an opinion.

Yes it does when it comes to derivative works of my own code. It's my choice to require those to stay free, and you are still free to choose between using my code under my conditions or not using it.

If they are working from scratch of from code under other licenses then of course they can do as they please or as they are allowed by those licenses.

And then if free software exists is precisely because there are means to require that the software remains always free, else we would be talking about open source.

Software is created to serve the user, not the other way around. What are you, the Software-PETA or something?

The idea is that software serves the user better if it's free.

When it comes to the actual user (understanding as "user" the individual that just runs the software on his computer) that indeniably true as that means he will always have unrestricted rights to run the software, but it obviously doesn't stay true for distributors, which is why having several different licenses available that fit different scenarios is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does when it comes to derivative works of my own code. It's my choice to require those to stay free, and you are still free to choose between using my code under my conditions or not using it.

If they are working from scratch of from code under other licenses then of course they can do as they please or as they are allowed by those licenses.

Yes, it's your choice to enslave derivatives to the GPL. You are perfectly in your rights to do so, but you cannot claim that you have released your work with "freedom".

And then if free software exists is precisely because there are means to require that the software remains always free, else we would be talking about open source.

Stallmanist misconception. The GPL is a tool of slavery, it may grant the illusion of freedom - but it's actually sacrificing freedom for that illusion.

Yes, the GPL is open-source, but it is by very definition not free software.

The idea is that software serves the user better if it's free.

When it comes to the actual user (understanding as "user" the individual that just runs the software on his computer) that indeniably true as that means he will always have unrestricted rights to run the software, but it obviously doesn't stay true for distributors, which is why having several different licenses available that fit different scenarios is a good thing.

Hah! You've caught yourself in a paradox.

If the software serves the user better because it is free, then the GPL does harm to the user as the value in having the software be free is the ability to do as you wish with not only the compiled application - but the source code too. So since the GPL sacrifices a distributor's real freedom for the illusion of freedom, the GPL is both non-free AND harmful because the user is both the user and distributor.

Unless you think software being free does not benefit the user that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's your choice to enslave derivatives to the GPL. You are perfectly in your rights to do so, but you cannot claim that you have released your work with "freedom".

If the code cannot be re-closed, then it is truly free by the definition of freedom. To anagolise, it's the equivalent of a man being completely immune to imprisonment from birth to death. He is a man truly free and unbound to do what he wants to do. Your definition of 'slavery' considers the imprisoners to be slaves because they cannot imprison the free man.

That's what the GPL has always aimed to do, make the code, and all its derivatives, freely available to be modified and improved. The aim is that developers of GPL code are forced to make their improvements to the code available for wider use. Like I said before, it's the 'Free Software Foundation', not the 'Free Programmer Foundation'. The programmer has plenty of freedom already. If a developer wants to make his work free for another developer to use how he wishes, he can make it public domain, THAT is the free-est license from the perspective of the developer.

I think the ambiguity stems from how people see 'the code' as an object. The GPL considers 'the code' to be a single object of intellectual property and freedom of the single object means keeping it free in everything that derives from it. BSD is considered more free if you take the code to be a new piece of intellectual property every time it is copied.

Stallmanist misconception. The GPL is a tool of slavery, it may grant the illusion of freedom - but it's actually sacrificing freedom for that illusion.

Yes, the GPL is open-source, but it is by very definition not free software.

False, by very definition, 'the software' as a piece of intellectual property is ONLY free with the GPL and compatible licenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! You've caught yourself in a paradox.

If the software serves the user better because it is free, then the GPL does harm to the user as the value in having the software be free is the ability to do as you wish with not only the compiled application - but the source code too. So since the GPL sacrifices a distributor's real freedom for the illusion of freedom, the GPL is both non-free AND harmful because the user is both the user and distributor.

Unless you think software being free does not benefit the user that is.

Users use the software, that is, they run programs. They get the benefit of always being able to run both the original software and all the derivative works without restrictions (and also being able to review the source code of both if they were interested in that) which is something they don't get with any other license.

To keep that benefit you must restrict distributors from relicensing the original or the derivative works under a license that takes that benefit away from users.

It's pretty simple, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the code cannot be re-closed, then it is truly free by the definition of freedom. To anagolise, it's the equivalent of a man being completely immune to imprisonment from birth to death. He is a man truly free and unbound to do what he wants to do. Your definition of 'slavery' considers the imprisoners to be slaves because they cannot imprison the free man.

That's what the GPL has always aimed to do, make the code, and all its derivatives, freely available to be modified and improved. The aim is that developers of GPL code are forced to make their improvements to the code available for wider use. Like I said before, it's the 'Free Software Foundation', not the 'Free Programmer Foundation'. The programmer has plenty of freedom already. If a developer wants to make his work free for another developer to use how he wishes, he can make it public domain, THAT is the free-est license from the perspective of the developer.

I think the ambiguity stems from how people see 'the code' as an object. The GPL considers 'the code' to be a single object of intellectual property and freedom of the single object means keeping it free in everything that derives from it. BSD is considered more free if you take the code to be a new piece of intellectual property every time it is copied.

Except your analogy falls apart when you remember that code is not a sentient being and the focus is on the freedom of the people around it, not protecting the code as if you're going to hurt it's feelings.

So no, the GPL is non-free because it cares nothing for the freedom of the individual, only an invented, imaginary context where the code is some form of right-bearing entity.

Sort of like theism actually.

False, by very definition, 'the software' as a piece of intellectual property is ONLY free with the GPL and compatible licenses.

Your definition is incorrect.

Users use the software, that is, they run programs. They get the benefit of always being able to run both the original software and all the derivative works without restrictions (and also being able to review the source code of both if they were interested in that) which is something they don't get with any other license.

To keep that benefit you must restrict distributors from relicensing the original or the derivative works under a license that takes that benefit away from users.

It's pretty simple, really.

Hehehehehe.

You said you've never claimed the GPL is not restrictive, however you just said in the above quote that the user gets the additional benefit of the derivative works without restrictions.

Except since the GPL is restrictive as you have so stated, the user is not getting the derivative works without retrictions...

Thus proving the GPL is non-free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except your analogy falls apart when you remember that code is not a sentient being

Being sentient has nothing to do with freedom. GPL code is effectively free from closure and relicensing under non GPL-compatible licenses.

and the focus is on the freedom of the people around it

And there you have the exact reason why you are unable to understand the GPL.

Hehehehehe.

You said you've never claimed the GPL is not restrictive, however you just said in the above quote that the user gets the additional benefit of the derivative works without restrictions.

Except since the GPL is restrictive as you have so stated, the user is not getting the derivative works without retrictions...

Thus proving the GPL is non-free.

GPL is restrictive for distributors, non restrictive for users.

Do I have to break every little detail down for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPL is restrictive for distributors, non restrictive for users.

Do I have to break every little detail down for you?

The benefit of free software is that the user has the freedom to become the distributor (or in truly free software, the right not to), they are inseperable. The user / distributor divide is a result of the closed-source paradigm, you should know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except your analogy falls apart when you remember that code is not a sentient being and the focus is on the freedom of the people around it, not protecting the code as if you're going to hurt it's feelings.

So no, the GPL is non-free because it cares nothing for the freedom of the individual, only an invented, imaginary context where the code is some form of right-bearing entity.

Sort of like theism actually.

It doesn't matter whether or not the software has feelings. The GPL takes 'the software' to be a singular entity, and allowing the code to be re-closed makes the code as originally written less available when it's distributed (bear in mind that the GPL's derivatives clauses only apply when distributing).

Like I keep saying, the FSF and Stallman focus on the software, not the developer, and ensuring that the code continues to be freely distributed without restriction. It has little to do with the person that writes the code.

Look I'm not trying to annoy anyone so I'm just gonna let this go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit of free software is that the user has the freedom to become the distributor (or in truly free software, the right not to), they are inseperable. The user / distributor divide is a result of the closed-source paradigm, you should know this.

And with GPL the user not only has the freedom to become a distributor but also the guarantee that he will always be able to do so at every time he wants and in any stage of development of the piece of software he's using.

To achieve that, restrictions are applied to distribution so your right to distribute doesn't restrict other's. The direct effect of those restrictions is that the software is always free, hence Free Software.

As I explained before this has an obvious advantage in collaborative projects where the collaborating entities (eg. companies) don't need to bother about whether thay can trust each other or not: the license guarantees that all of them will benefit exactly the same from their common work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with GPL the user not only has the freedom to become a distributor but also the guarantee that he will always be able to do so at every time he wants and in any stage of development of the piece of software he's using.

To achieve that, restrictions are applied to distribution so your right to distribute doesn't restrict other's. The direct effect of those restrictions is that the software is always free, hence Free Software.

This has already been covered. You're just looping back over yourself now.

The restrictions make the GPL non-free, with an illusion of freedom that is created by the imposition of external interests over the individual's freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.