Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux


Recommended Posts

stallman.jpg

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
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1095981-stallman-calls-valve-games-on-linux/
Share on other sites

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.

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".

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.

  • Like 1
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.

  • Like 2

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.

  • Like 4

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

  • Like 2

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Opinion. All you did was blame Democrats for everything. You offered nothing but a hit piece to support your pro Trump, anti union right wing ideology.
    • Excuse me for having an opinion, fella'... (Why am I not surprised?...) Congrats on your very informative post however...
    • By the sounds of that wall of Fox News propaganda gibberish attacking the Democratic Party you've already had plenty of "juices" flowing this morning. You've ruined what could have been a productive comment thread.
    • (Topic to get the juices flowing this Sunday morning!...) Actually, the situation has almost nothing to do with "lack of skills", especially since assembly-line skills can be taught to anyone, including Americans, certainly. Rather, the inadequacy-to-impossibility of large-scale tech manufacturing in America today, and the reasons why America finds tech manufacturing completely onerous in the 21st century, has to do with politically driven laws amid a plethora of non-scientific, utterly politicized "science-fact" that is patently false, punitive business taxation at every turn, an array of judicial fines of unimaginable scope and complexity, and, last but not least, American unionization strictures that serve to actually slay job creation and hobble all such manufacturing endeavors in America before they can get off the ground. Globalism emerged, they tell us, as the needed answer to American hubris and an unholy American drive to excel. Unless one is buried under mounds of political propaganda, it's easy to see the absurdity of labeling the employees of SpaceX, for instance, as "unskilled labor"... Etc. ad infinitum. At one time in the recent past, American manufacturing prowess was the envy of the world in a wide variety of technical fields! The current federal and state government roadblocks against America becoming competitive globally in tech manufacturing are considerable, it's true, as anyone with a working brain knows. But remarkably, that is only half the story! The other half of the story is, of course, the corporations themselves... Chinese tech manufacturing is simply unassailable in terms of profits, because the Chinese government wants to see its tech manufacturing second-to-none globally so that no companies/nations can compete in terms of ROI, and China has completely succeeded in that goal. Let's tic-off a few things: *Chinese tariff policies are set according to what is considered best for Chinese business, Chinese employees, and the Chinese people. Huge difference with how things are done with tariffs in the US--as the US government (SCOTUS in this case, Congress in others) plainly feels that tariffs are "unfair" for the limited number of citizens who may pay them, whereas nothing is "unfair" when Congress considers the Personal Income Tax rates to be infinitely hike-able, along with infinitely enlarging annual budget deficits. *The Chinese government boldly subsidizes Chinese companies to artificially amplify their profits. *The Chinese government deliberately refuses to avidly demonize Chinese businesses and does not consider Chinese businesses "the enemy", so very unlike American (D)s these days. *Chinese labor laws and businesses are allowed to set their own labor policies according to what Chinese companies consider is best for companies and their employees... Simply put, American workers in tech manufacturing are not allowed to set their own labor policies! * One additional problem corporations have that I also do not sympathize with is they don't want to pay to train their American employees. They could easily do so, but would rather not have to pay for it. I find that pathetic, actually. It is the height of hypocrisy for Americans to decry working conditions in China while simultaneously ensuring that American products are manufactured in China, not in the US, simply to maximize profits. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, of course, absolutely nothing. But there is plenty wrong with attempts to normalize hypocrisy of this kind! But rank hypocrisy and the (D) party in the US are longtime bedfellows... The current government in Washington is working overtime to see if it can toss out the horribly poor, failed economic policies of the past, while the (D)s still in Washington work very hard to bring back the stupidity whenever possible. With the right policies in place, America can be an infinitely competitive manufacturer.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      508
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      152
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!