Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

[Noir Angel]

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.

[sanctified Veteran]

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.

[Noir Angel]

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.

[Athernar]

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.

[sanctified Veteran]

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.

[margrave]

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

[Athernar]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[Athernar]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[Xilo]

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

[Athernar]

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?

[.Neo]

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

[ichi]

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.

[Athernar]

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.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[Athernar]

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.

[ichi]

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?

[Athernar]

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.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[Athernar]

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.

[Lagg]

Let me tell a little story. I am an occasional reader of Neowin since I first came across it some years ago when announcements caught my eye, but this is a topic I came across that I am particularly passionate about and actually motivated me to register. Now, I am not going to reinforce Athernar's argument because I think he's absolutely right, and trying to say anything about the technical aspects of the license would just be redundant. It is restrictive (and therefore not free) by nature, and it is one of the reasons next to proprietary licenses that the term "permissive license" is in use now a days.

Now, back when rms (I affectionately referred to him as this until I stopped believing he was worthy of it) was pushing at full force and making some waves in the software community, I was one of the many people that saw him as a hero. And I still think he is in some ways, because the beautiful system we have here in our hacker communities wouldn't exist without the efforts of him and esr. Considering that, I was more than willing to look past some of his more... Dis-likable habits. He isn't a very sanitary and well kempt man, and despite the ridiculousness of it and the irony of this coming from someone that used to have long hair and a beard. People need not waste their time if the man delivering a message, regardless of its truth cannot summon the energy to trim and clean himself the first thing people will see is a lazy man and expect the message that is delivered to be lazy as well. So they move on, and this behavior is not an exception but the rule. I will not judge people harshly for this because the assumptions are natural.

Anyway, I strongly disagree with Majestic or whoever it was that said that a person who is alienated by one man did not bother to learn the message. The fact that I am writing this story and here disproves that, because if there is a message that Richard is putting across I (at the time) saw it and for years was (frequently still, depending on the project) involved with various GPL and LGPL licensed projects and free software was a dream for me, for lack of better words. I was tolerable of Stallman's tendency to reference and parody religious dogma and things like that (i.e. Saint Ignucious, editor virgins, etc.) because it was what it was, parody. I even tolerated his reference to terms that only a religious person would acknowledge in serious papers.

What alienated me was his persistence with this, after a while it turned into satire, and then annoying dogma in itself that Richard seemed to take seriously. It was no longer funny to me, and he has done this to people and companies I genuinely admire and respect. He ironically made me see the fundamental flaws in the GPL licenses by his preaching. If we make really high level abstractions like most people in this thread, save Athernar and a few others. We could even say that his attitude has turned the GPL itself into some kind of dogma. The attitudes and behavior of certain individuals in this thread seems to reinforce my thoughts here and possibly dangerous decision to call it a dogma.

I must again emphasize that I take my software and heroes of it such as esr, dmr, and so forth seriously. The realization was not a simple or easy one for me, I'm too manly to say I was hurt by it. But that's exactly how I was affected. Richard was no longer a good leader and even before people were making claims that he is now more of a harm to the free software communities than not I knew this. I will admit that I'm generally not a forgiving man, but this was one of my exceptions. But his weird and uncomfortable preaching disappointed me time and time again. So yes, it is definitely possible to be alienated by one man due to his attitude, appearance, and behavior. Regardless of the truth of the message in question. We're talking years here, I must remind you. Not months or days. I understand some of you are youngsters to the world of free software so the scale of time I'm talking about here might be hard to grasp, and it didn't help that during this time Richard's idea of freedom was hard to understand, and dare I say changing.

Additionally, it needs to be said but I know people aren't saying it because of the usual planned response of the initiator: Stop with the strawman arguments please. Freedom to remove freedom is a long used paradox, and a silly one because it just doesn't work that way, stop trying to force what constitutes hyperbole. It was already said hyperbole is hyperbole, stop using buzzwords where they either are obvious, unneeded, or just don't make sense. As hackers or potential hackers you should all know that forcing the wrong solution to a problem that will only exasperate it is futile and unrewarding.

Furthermore, as far as the nature of tools provided by companies to work with their system. Yes releasing the code to the engine itself and all the tools will always be the most optimal solution, but in the real world the usefulness and expansiveness of these tools cannot be discarded as "basic". Valve for example provides things such as a project manager for making mods or complete Source games, the Source filmmaker, the Hammer map editor, HLMV, and other things that I have used personally in the past but currently can't remember. Given the creativeness and success of some third party Source games, these are things that need to be acknowledged and not dismissed as "basic".

Richard does not investigate these things himself, and has his assistant(s) who have their own bias and interpretation of the message do the research for him and draft notes, and given my experience with this and first hand knowledge of things such as his .emacs, filled with macro table rows that he pastes in his mails. Those macros and other contents of his machine is both a different story and not my business to post. Since I still do respect his privacy and always will, regardless of my hurt or anger towards him. Though I'm deviating from the topic and I apologize for that. I have more to say, but chances are this isn't continued. I keep mostly quiet about my past experiences with Richard, the FSF, and GNU, but I occasionally have stories to tell. I will now post the obligatory note that I currently only use permissive licenses (ISC is my favorite at the moment) in my projects. But some old ones out there that may or may not be maintained still use the GPL and will not change based on the fact that the authors may not want it and I will not insult them by forcing my realizations on them.