Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

[Motoko.]

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??

[trag3dy]

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.

[The Teej]

Yes, because this is the first piece of DRM'd software to ever grace Linux

oh wait

[n_K]

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.

[ArialBlue]

Everyone who lunches on their own foot skin agrees with this man. Everyone else does not.

[spenser.d]

So the 7 people that are going to actually game on Linux will have to deal with some DRM. Woohoo...

[ichi]

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".

[sanctified Veteran]

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.

[spacer]

THis guy's neckbeard just crit me for over 9000.

[-KJ]

Does anyone really take him seriously these days?

[Athernar]

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.

[Max Norris]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

This is the man who launched a public attack on Steve Jobs within a week of his death. He's an attention seeking clown.

[Descartes]

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.

[Noir Angel]

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.

[The Teej]

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.

[Motoko.]

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.

[Noir Angel]

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.

[SirEvan]

Everyone who lunches on their own foot skin agrees with this man. Everyone else does not.

da hell did you just say?

[The Laughing Man]

da hell did you just say?

Watch that, then you'll understand.

[Max Norris]

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.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

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.

[Boz]

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..

[Karl L.]

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.)

[Athernar]

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.