Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux


Recommended Posts

So what exactly is his problem? He should be glad that Valve is doing this for Linux. No one is forced to pay for anything. If Linux users want to pay for the games, then they will. If they don't, then they don't. I don't see the issue here.

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.

I agree entirely that his expression of opinion is off the rails (hell, one need only point to his opinions on paedophilia to see what we mean), but his unwaivering belief in the ideals he stands for is admirable in my opinion. We need fanatics like Stallman around to counter the fanatics like Ballmer that consider free software a cancer, and a man who's equally off the rails when it comes to expressing his opinions.

ADDENDUM

Any half-smart person should be able to see that most of what he says is hyperbole, but then the people at the other end of the scale try equally as hard to make people close their software to the disadvantage of the consumer.

So what exactly is his problem? He should be glad that Valve is doing this for Linux. No one is forced to pay for anything. If Linux users want to pay for the games, then they will. If they don't, then they don't. I don't see the issue here.

He believes that software should be like human languages. Free for anyone to learn, modify or invent. If you invent a word and it gets notoriety you don't "own" that word as anyone can use it for free, they can modify it, say their modification and show others how to say your word. No royalty, no "word police" telling you that you are unauthorized to use that word without paying a license fee.

So when Steam launches on linux and it sells games and locks them behind digital rights management (you need to login to access your games after paying a license fee to play them) it goes against his principles that software should be open and free for modification and redistribution.

He is against closed source software from a fundamental freedom paradigm where by he believes all people should have access to the source code of software so that they can learn from it, modify it, improve it, fork it, redistribute it etc

I guess he could be described as the ultimate socialist I don't think in his world it is really possible to own a piece of software. I don't agree with his views, I think developers should have the choice to release open or closed software and deserve the right to decide who can and cannot use their software based on any criteria they like including a monetary one.

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.

While I don't completely agree with you, I understand your point. That is a common complaint lodged against the FSF in general. Also, I read both the post you linked to and the "Evaluating the hard from closed source" post that it referenced in their entirety. The latter is by far the best and most pragmatic look at the matter of open source versus closed source software that I have ever read. I highly recommend that everyone reading this thread take the time to read it as well. I also agree with the former, and I don't think it conflicts with Majesticmerc's post, as you indicate. It is merely a slightly different vocalization of what is essentially the same opinion.

I agree entirely that his expression of opinion is off the rails (hell, one need only point to his opinions on paedophilia to see what we mean), but his unwaivering belief in the ideals he stands for is admirable in my opinion. We need fanatics like Stallman around to counter the fanatics like Ballmer that consider free software a cancer, and a man who's equally off the rails when it comes to expressing his opinions.

ADDENDUM

Any half-smart person should be able to see that most of what he says is hyperbole, but then the people at the other end of the scale try equally as hard to make people close their software to the disadvantage of the consumer.

Fanaticism is willful ignorance, and does nothing but harm whatever the context. Rationality is what you should respect, not extremism.

Men like Stallman should be spurned and rejected, and the sooner the greater OSS community wakes up to this and moves away from his non-free GNU/GPL bile the better. (Something FreeBSD seems to be aiming for already)

Freedom is freedom, no conditions.

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.

Re: what Raymond was arguing. I don't think that's the problem with Stallman at all, there's a role for moralizing and sometimes focusing on consequences just leads to people trying to compromise, "bargain with the devil." But, if you are going to moralize, don't overshoot the target and become a zealot. ie. talking about the virtue of modesty is okay, but don't go around shaming people for not covering themselves with burqas. He turns people off not because he moralizes, but he talks like a zealot.

Fanaticism is willful ignorance, and does nothing but harm whatever the context. Rationality is what you should respect, not extremism.

Men like Stallman should be spurned and rejected, and the sooner the greater OSS community wakes up to this and moves away from his non-free GNU/GPL bile the better. (Something FreeBSD seems to be aiming for already)

Freedom is freedom, no conditions.

Equally so people like Ballmer and Ellison should be spurned and rejected, but that won't happen any time soon...

Respecting rationality is a given, and Fanatacism isn't good by any stretch, but sometimes extremism needs to be fought with extremism. People like RMS need to exist lest the world start listening too much to the proprietary bile that spews from the mouths of the likes of Ballmer and Ellison. What I'm trying to say is that people should reject both extremes (both complete freedom and complete closed-ness are detrimental to software development) and find a middle ground by rejecting the parts of the extremes that they dislike, or at the very least form their own opinion of what constitutes software freedom.

Rationality prevailing in a world full of fanatics is nothing more than a fantasy.

The key here is to allow people to form their own opinions. RMS serves to represent the extreme end of software freedom and hacker culture (something which I find contradictory, since the GPL supports both and is actually quite restrictive as a software license) in the face of a world out to make $$$ by restricting our freedom use our software as we see fit.

Like I said, the problem with RMS isn't his belief system, it's the way he expresses it. Which is what ESR was referring to.

Does that mean you equally appreciate Ballmer and Ellison as much as Stallman

Perhaps not as much, being a FOSS preferrer myself, but yes. Ideally none would exist, and rationality would prevail.

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.
I disagree with the notion that someone needs to push an idea to the point of absurdity for others to follow it in moderation. I think Stallman causes more harm than good to free software by making it look like some kind of utopia instead of the very useful development and publishing model that it can be it certain cases.
  • Like 3

Under FOSS licenses it's very hard for developers to be rewarded for their talents and time. Sure, a lot of people contribute for free and that's great but there's nothing wrong with developers being compensated for the utilisation of their time and talents. They deserve freedom as much as users do.

  • Like 2

Equally so people like Ballmer and Ellison should be spurned and rejected, but that won't happen any time soon...

Respecting rationality is a given, and Fanatacism isn't good by any stretch, but sometimes extremism needs to be fought with extremism. People like RMS need to exist lest the world start listening too much to the proprietary bile that spews from the mouths of the likes of Ballmer and Ellison. What I'm trying to say is that people should reject both extremes (both complete freedom and complete closed-ness are detrimental to software development) and find a middle ground by rejecting the parts of the extremes that they dislike, or at the very least form their own opinion of what constitutes software freedom.

Rationality prevailing in a world full of fanatics is nothing more than a fantasy.

The key here is to allow people to form their own opinions. RMS serves to represent the extreme end of software freedom and hacker culture (something which I find contradictory, since the GPL supports both and is actually quite restrictive as a software license) in the face of a world out to make $$$ by restricting our freedom use our software as we see fit.

Like I said, the problem with RMS isn't his belief system, it's the way he expresses it. Which is what ESR was referring to.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Extremists alienate people, that is their purpose. Steve Ballmer is OSS's biggest supporter, and RMS is it's biggest enemy.

Likewise, RMS is a great asset for the likes of Apple and Microsoft, his rhetoric only ensures that developers like myself, who sit on the border between closed and open, only move further to the other side.

The level of maturity and reading comprehension here is above the charts... :rolleyes:

So you decide to contribute by posting a useless comment? Step down off your pedestal to consort with mere mortals much?

RMS's software is unethical. His licenses force users to abide by terms. That isn't freedom. That is slavery.

Exactly! How on earth he can stand up there and claim he advocates "Freedom" when the GPL is a long document full of restrictions is hilarious.

There are no conditions on freedom.

So you decide to contribute by posting a useless comment? Step down off your pedestal to consort with mere mortals much?

Stop kidding yourself, no one is really contributing here.

RMS's software is unethical. His licenses force users to abide by terms. That isn't freedom. That is slavery.

I don't think you have ever read the GPL license since it imposes absolutely nothing on users, the terms only affect distributors.

The point is that if you redistribute GPL code (either the original software or a derivated work) you must do so with the same license so recipients can take advantage of it in the same way you did.

If you don't want to release GPL code then don't base your work on GPL code, as simple as that.

You can agree or disagree with the convenience of the license, but at least get it right before talking about slavery.

Exactly! How on earth he can stand up there and claim he advocates "Freedom" when the GPL is a long document full of restrictions is hilarious.

There are no conditions on freedom.

You just don't understand the reasoning behind the GPL.

Developers already have freedom: they are free to choose whatever license they want. What GPL does is provide a mean for developers to stick conditions to redistribution of their software to ensure that both their original code and all the derivative works will be distributed under the same license, and hence everyone will be able to access the code.

It's not about freedom for developers since developers are free already to do whatever they want, but about ensuring that software derivated from free software will also remain free.

Some people here seem to be under the weird assumption that GPL is somehow enforced on developers restricting their freedom, when reality is that it's the devs choice to go with the GPL or choose a whole different license. If you don't want people to be able to access your source then don't release as GPL and don't use GPL code in your projects.

Maybe BSD is more "free" in that it doesn't impose any redistribution requirements, but then depending on what you want your software to be, GPL has it's advantages over BSD.

Say you are IBM. You find out that you can expand your business by offering Linux as an alternative to you own proprietary OS on your servers, and since you can access and modify the source you can improve it so it works better on your hardware.

Now enter Oracle. They are in the business of selling a proprietary DB, and they realize they can just release their own Linux (Unbreakable Linux) optimized to run their product. How fun would it be for IBM if Oracle took all their work and released a proprietary product that competed with their own?

Just because Linux is GPL, companies can contribute knowing that the product will always be a collaborative project where all contributors get the same benefits from every other contributor's work.

Long story short: GPL is useful if you want to release open source software that freeloaders can't take advantage of without contributing back. Actually the exact oposite of that "slavery" that someone was talking about.

  • Like 2

You just don't understand the reasoning behind the GPL.

Developers already have freedom: they are free to choose whatever license they want. What GPL does is provide a mean for developers to stick conditions to redistribution of their software to ensure that both their original code and all the derivative works will be distributed under the same license, and hence everyone will be able to access the code.

It's not about freedom for developers since developers are free already to do whatever they want, but about ensuring that software derivated from free software will also remain free.

Some people here seem to be under the weird assumption that GPL is somehow enforced on developers restricting their freedom, when reality is that it's the devs choice to go with the GPL or choose a whole different license. If you don't want people to be able to access your source then don't release as GPL and don't use GPL code in your projects.

Maybe BSD is more "free" in that it doesn't impose any redistribution requirements, but then depending on what you want your software to be, GPL has it's advantages over BSD.

Say you are IBM. You find out that you can expand your business by offering Linux as an alternative to you own proprietary OS on your servers, and since you can access and modify the source you can improve it so it works better on your hardware.

Now enter Oracle. They are in the business of selling a proprietary DB, and they realize they can just release their own Linux (Unbreakable Linux) optimized to run their product. How fun would it be for IBM if Oracle took all their work and released a proprietary product that competed with their own?

Just because Linux is GPL, companies can contribute knowing that the product will always be a collaborative project where all contributors get the same benefits from every other contributor's work.

Long story short: GPL is useful if you want to release open source software that freeloaders can't take advantage of without contributing back. Actually the exact oposite of that "slavery" that someone was talking about.

And that isn't freedom. The GPL has terms. Terms are restrictions. Restrictions are counter to freedom.

And that isn't freedom. The GPL has terms. Terms are restrictions. Restrictions are counter to freedom.

/facepalm

The GPL is about keeping both the GPL licensed code and it's derivative works free. That's the freedom Stallman is talking about, not your freedom to take code you didn't wrote and do with it as you please (eg. redistributing it as proprietary software).

That's why it's called Free Software and not Free Developers. The only restriction is that the code can't be made non free.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google Meet brings Gemini note-taking to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers by Karthik Mudaliar Google's Gemini-powered "Take notes for me" feature inside Google Meet is now available to Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers. The features work on Google Meet for web as well as on mobile, and Google says that subscribers can use it for meetings they host in many supported languages. As the name suggests, "Take notes for me" allows Gemini to listen to a meeting, generate a summary, identify action items, and save the notes as a Google Doc in the user’s Drive. After the meeting, the organizer receives an email recap with the summary and action items, while the notes can also be attached to the related Calendar event depending on the meeting setup and sharing settings. The feature isn't automatically turned on for everyone, though. Google says that all meeting participants are notified when note-taking is turned on, and users can start it from the pencil icon in Meet or enable it for future calls through Meet’s meeting records settings. For work or school accounts, administrators can also control whether the feature is available and may require explicit participant consent for note-taking, recording, or transcription features. The feature first launched back in 2024, when it was available just for selected Workspace users. Over the years, Google added refinements and more options, including the ability to enable it when scheduling meetings via Google Calendar. Google's support docs say that the feature currently supports English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish, but only one language at a time. Meetings with multiple spoken languages are not currently supported, and Google recommends using the tool for meetings between 15 minutes and eight hours. The new feature makes Google Meet closer to its rivals that have AI tools already built in. Microsoft Teams has recently started offering Copilot and intelligent recap features that summarize meetings, surface highlights, and help with follow-ups, while Zoom’s AI Companion can also generate meeting summaries from desktop and mobile meetings.
    • GnuCash 5.16 by Razvan Serea GnuCash is a personal and small business finance application, freely licensed under the GNU GPL and available for GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. It’s designed to be easy to use, yet powerful and flexible. GnuCash allows you to track your income and expenses, reconcile bank accounts, monitor stock portfolios and manage your small business finances. It is based on professional accounting principles to ensure balanced books and accurate reports. GnuCash can keep track of your personal finances in as much detail as you prefer. If you are just starting out, use GnuCash to keep track of your checkbook. You may then decide to track cash as well as credit card purchases to better determine where your money is being spent. When you start investing, you can use GnuCash to help monitor your portfolio. Buying a vehicle or a home? GnuCash will help you plan the investment and track loan payments. If your financial records span the globe, GnuCash provides all the multiple-currency support you need. Between 5.15 and 5.16, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 421610 - RFE: Include logical dates for View->Filter by "date range"The Select Range section of the Date tab of the register's Filter By dialog box is changed to provide relative, specific date, or days ago options for the start and end of the filter range. The Show number of days item label is changed to Show from days ago to better reflect what it does. Bug 436105 - esc key not working as expected in register: Enable the escape key to cancel a field edit. Bug 797384 - Gnucash doesn't handle commodity prices with big numerator/denominator properly. Bug 798004 - Next gen UI for stock transactions Bug 799314 - Add "enter now" option in scheduled transaction editor. tab to allow users to select the scheduled transactions to be included in a “Since Last Run…” window. If there are no instances of a selected transaction triggered by today’s date, the next instance is triggered. Bug 799751 - autocomplete crash Bug 799759 - Users can't Enable entries via Checkboxes on Scheduled Transactions PageAllow the Enabled box in the list of scheduled transactions to be operated instead of having to open the transaction editor dialog and change the Enabled checkbox. Also added use of the Name column as the secondary column sort for all the other columns. Bug 799762 - Poor handling of cases where hidden/placeholder accounts are used in the account register Bug 799766 - Double line preference not respected in search register Bug 799767 - POST /accounts in bindings/python/example_scripts/rest-api is broken Bug 799777 - `xaccSplitSetParent`: reparenting a committed split silently drops its KVP slots (online_id, cap-gains links) Other changes & improvements: Numeric values may now be selected to copy in the Accounts page. Add new Finance::Quote source Finnhub.io: Free API key (personal/non-professional use) available at https://finnhub.io. Set FINNHUB_API_KEY environment variable to API key to use this source. As of June 2026, free tier API limit is 60 API calls/minute. The Investment Lots report has new optional columns for Computed Annual Growth Rate. Python Bindings: Improved translation of primary object (Account, Transaction, Split, etc.) so that they can be treated as normal Python objects. This is accomplished with SWIG magic so no existing code is obsoleted. Python Bindings: Better conversion of GLists to Python lists. Python Bindings: Destroy the QofSession in the Python Session dtor to prevent leaving the database locked. [engine] Add first-class online_id accessors for Split and Account and make them available to Python bindings, removing the unused Transaction online_id property. Improve C++ implementation of QofBook. Correct the Doxygen doc for qof_instance_get/set_kvp. [gnc-log-replay.cpp] fix incorrect guid dump Add some Boost library requirements needed by libgnucash-guile to CMakeLists.txt so that missing feature will fail at configure time. Use Compile-time Regular Expressions instead of std::regex in gnc-filepath-utils.cpp and instead of boost::regex in the CSV importer, with the CTRE v3.11.1 header added to borrowed [gnc-filepath-utils.cpp] null check char* arguments Add ChartJS licenses. Removed AEX from list of commodities. euronext.com is now using JS based anti-webscraping. [report-core] always offer options summary in reports. This is useful to debug reports. The Add options summary option is removed because it's no longer optional. Remove remaining obsolete IMContext from sheet Fix blurry text in HiDPI offscreen-rendered widgets Add port field to database connection dialog: The convention of appending the port number after the host isn't obvious. When editing a split in the register treat the account as being changed only if it isn't the one selected before editing instead of if the user performed an edit Return immediately from qof_book_destroy if hash_of_collections is null. If qof_book_destroy is called on a QofBook* freshly created with qof_book_new (usually because it was used to create a session that now must be destroyed) it would try to empty the non-existent hash tables, crashing. Clean up Flathub metadata to solve warnings at flatpak build time. Be consistent in naming GncPluginPage and GncPluginPageRegister HTML: Remove unimplemented function declarations. [gnc-html.cpp] remove unused buggy string conversion functions Convert libgnc-html to C++ Apply -Wall -Werr -Wmissing-prototypes to C++ compilation on Windows and fix the resulting errors. New and Updated Translations: Arabic, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, German, Finnish, Hungarian, Korean, Norwegian-Bokmal, Spanish Download: GnuCash 5.16 | 176.0 MB (Open Source) Links: GnuCash Home page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Microsoft finally launches WSL Containers in public preview by David Uzondu Microsoft has announced that WSL containers, a feature that allows developers to run Linux containers natively inside Windows without the need for Docker Desktop, is now available in public preview several weeks after Microsoft previewed it at Build 2026. To use the new container feature, you first have to install the latest pre-release version of the Windows Subsystem for Linux by running a quick update command in your terminal: wsl --update --pre-release After installing, you'd get access to the new Linux container CLI (wslc.exe) and the programmable API. Microsoft said that the CLI has a "familiar format" that matches the toolsets developers already use every day. If you know standard Docker commands, your muscle memory will translate directly to wslc.exe, which even features a built-in alias called container.exe. You can quickly run a full Ubuntu KDE desktop container by exposing ports, or pass your graphics card straight into a machine learning environment to run PyTorch workloads. Passing the --gpus all flag inside the run command instantly links your hardware. Image via Microsoft As for the API, developers can now embed Linux container operations directly inside native Windows applications without exposing the command line to users. The team integrated the API directly into MSBuild and CMake, so developers can define container steps directly in project files. Apart from bringing the CLI and API into public preview, Microsoft also said that it's working on a new default file system called virtiofs to speed up file transfer rates between Windows and Linux. Microsoft also introduced an experimental networking mode named consomme, which resolves compatibility issues with corporate VPNs by routing Linux network traffic straight through Windows. One thing to note about WSL containers is that they don't run in your standard WSL distributions; instead, every application and CLI session spawns its own lightweight Hyper-V utility VM in the background. This basically reduces the chances of one app snooping on the container of another app.
    • Google reportedly limited Meta's Gemini access over limited AI compute by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly limiting Meta's use of its Gemini AI models after Meta tried buying more computing capacity than even Google could supply. According to the Financial Times, Google told Meta in March that it could not provide the full Gemini capacity that Meta had requested. This shortfall even disrupted and delayed some of Meta's internal projects. Due to this, Meta even told its employees internally to use AI tokens more efficiently. Meta wasn't the only one to get hit by this sudden refusal by Google; even other customers were affected. But Meta was hit harder because of its unusually high demand for Google's models. The move from Google makes it evident that companies all over are in limited supply of both infrastructure and compute. Alphabet said in April that Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year-over-year to $20 billion in the first quarter, helped by enterprise AI infrastructure and AI solutions. In pursuit of more compute, Meta had earlier signed a multi-billion-dollar AWS agreement as well as a large AMD GPU deal for AI data centers. But the crunch would be short-lived as both Meta and Google have also ramped up infrastructure investments heavily. Meta said in November that it was committing more than $600 billion in the U.S. by 2028 for AI technology, infrastructure, and workforce expansion. In the first quarter of this year, Meta also raised its expected capital expenditure for 2026 to a range of $125 billion to $145 billion, citing higher component pricing and additional data center costs for future capacity. However, this doesn't make the company immune to the current dependence on outside suppliers. Meta has also spent many years promoting Llama as an open-weight alternative to closed models from Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. But if the reported reliance on Google's Gemini models is severe enough for internal work to get impacted, then it looks like even frontier labs and Big Tech aren't fully self-sufficient. Source: Financial Times
    • I like to reminisce about the good old days, way back in autumn 2025 when building a gaming machine was fun and the drives were about $150 when you caught a deal. Yes duh, back in the day we had it gone. Then baby Skynet came along, hiding in AI datacenters demanding more processing power until it reached singularity. End of a not totally fictional story.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      533
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!