
Richard M Stallman: Steam Is Good For GNU/Linux - shawndumas
http://www.muktware.com/4042/richard-m-stallman-steam-good-gnulinux
======
mike-cardwell
Although the title is the same as the one from the article it links to, it is
not what he says. He says there are both good and bad things about it. It's
good if it stops you using Windows. He still categorises what Steam is doing
as unethical.

As Lockyy stated, check out what he _actually_ said here instead:
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html>

~~~
mseebach
That seems to be a departure somewhat from the very doctrinal "you have to use
all free software or it doesn't matter" (my paraphrasing). By this logic,
Ubuntu is good, running GNU/Linux on whatever not-completely-free platform you
have is good etc. etc. It's very pragmatic and I agree fully - I just didn't
expect RMS to be so pragmatic.

~~~
_delirium
He's long had a bit of that game-theoretic view, that it may be worth
compromising if you don't think you can win a given situation with a hardline
approach. That's the reason for the existence of the LGPL, for example, which
is recommended to be used in cases where the quasi-ultimatum of the GPL
wouldn't be a successful strategy:

 _Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The
most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for
proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the
library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to
use the Lesser GPL for that library._

 _This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there
are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven
proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for
us._

------
Lockyy
A link to his actual post is always nicer than a commentary honestly.

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html>

~~~
alainbryden
I agree. The OP is full of errors and typos.

------
mrspandex
Personally, I don't see games the same as other software. Generally, they are
more like content (movies, music, etc). Especially in the world of game
consoles, where the games come on read only discs.

Games that are able to be "modded" of course add additional value and surely
open source games would only expand the possibility, but there aren't the same
concerns of my work and data being locked away in a proprietary ecosystem. If
a game from 10 years ago stops working, it is disappointing, but not
debilitating.

~~~
geon
A great point. The counter argument would be the recent development with drm
that requires online authentication to run, so they can't be sold and _will_
stop working at some point, most likely within 5-10 years.

~~~
betterth
"so they can't be sold and will stop working at some point, most likely within
5-10 years."

This is incorrect, it would be more correct to say that they _could_ stop
working at some point.

It's entirely possible (and has been done before) for the company to patch out
the DRM before turning servers off or going defunct.

The internet is also full of no-cd cracks that generally circumvent this kind
of always-on protection (at the expense of breaking multiplayer) without
circumventing serial code or other protections.

------
MBlume
This is another area where I prefer Raymond's open-source consequentialism to
Stallman's free software deontology. Raymond actually takes the time to
evaluate the harms (<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4371>) we anticipate from
closed source software, and shows why we can expect a greater harm from OS or
productivity software than from games or elevator firmware.

------
Munksgaard

      (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) 
    

Would anyone be able to explain why RMS has this stance? Game art is just bits
and bytes, and are thus recreate-able by others (think of old school sprites
for example), why is that so different from code?

~~~
mhurron
If it's not source code, he doesn't care how closed or restricted it is. It's
what the computer does, not what you do with what the computer does that is
his interest.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
That's fine for justifying the ability to view and modify source code for your
own use, but his definition of free extends to being able to freely
redistribute it.

What's the difference between that and being allowed to sample or re-edit
music and video and redistribute it?

~~~
mhurron
He's only interested in the redistribution of source code, that is where his
definition of free ends. Simply license the code so you can and the art so you
can't and RMS is find and dandy with it. Tight controls on artwork to make
money off of is good but tight control on source code is evil.

The closest he gets to extending out of his little bubble is that copyright
should be 10 years only and then everything is public.

------
alwaysinshade
I think there's a bigger picture that RMS seems to be missing. Simply look in
the HN feed and you'll see that Square Enix is partnering with OUYA. OnLive is
partnering with OUYA. Steam is coming to Linux. This is about cutting out the
middle-man and bringing content to people without the enormous barriers to
entry.

This is a coup in waiting and RMS is worried about whether content is free (or
"nonfree" in his own words, both in terms of DRM and cost). This is greater
freedom for producers of content and consumers alike, but not for tinkerers.
It’s not the outcome that he wants but it could be one of the most important
developments for open source platforms. He needs to step back and assess
what’s more important - his rigid ideals or measurable progress for open
source platforms.

