Steam on Linux is “unethical”, says GNU founder Richard Stallman
By Tim Colwill on August 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and all-round Linux wizard, has labelled Steam’s decision to branch into Linux as “unethical”, but cautiously welcomed it as a way to bring new users to the platform.
“Valve, that distributes nonfree computer games with Digital Restrictions Management, recently announced it would distribute these games for GNU/Linux,” said Stallman. “What good and bad effects can this have? I suppose that availability of popular nonfree programs on GNU/Linux can boost adoption of the system. However, our goal goes beyond making this system a “success”; its purpose is to bring freedom to the users. Thus, the question is how this development affects users’ freedom. Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users.”
Source: GNU Project (via Blue’s News)
Steam Trading Cards are real, and you can join the beta now
More things to trade! Oh joy.
‘Steam Trading Cards’ revealed in Steam database entry
Aaaaand that's all we know.
Valve experimenting with biofeedback, including sweat levels and eye-tracking
Builds of Portal 2 and L4D created that use biofeedback.
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
What a hippie.
wow, I love Linux, for many things it’s a great alternative with so many ways to do things for free but this guy is going a bit too far, I’m guessing he hasn’t seen some of the stuff Valve have for free (TF2) and some of the other F2P games available on Steam. There’s no way you’re going to get AAA titles for free, this is about the only way you’ll get that sort of stuff on Linux.
haha was just going to say what a fricken hippie. beaten. :P
I wish we could all live for free too, but we need to make a living so we have to sell our games, unfair I know.
As they say, capitalism ho! I guess that means he wouldn’t like a Linux version of Recettear then?
He’s got a very good and important point actually. Steam isn’t really something GNU/Linux wants or needs. Its a fantastic platform, but one built on different ideals. The slow journey down a path of commercialisation of GNU/Linux would be a tragedy IMO. Open Source is important.
^note: when I say fantastic platform I’m obviously talking about GNU/Linux not Steam… lol
Linux/Unix has already been commercialized several times. Criticising Valve for providing more choice (for free) is bizarre. I’m not even sure how ethics come into it?
Lost the plot IMO.
His concern is not commercialisation, nor is it one of cost; the entire idea is to preserve peoples freedom with the software they use. Too many comments consistently conflate gratis (zero cost) with libre (freedom).
the user has freedom to choose whether or not they have access to buttloads more games. Saying Steam shouldn’t be present on Linux comes across as an attempt to limit the freedoms of those people that do want it. I can’t see his point of view at all.
Folks,
Educate yourselves a little please. Stallman’s message is muddled by failings in the English language, not by some crazy hippy ideal. He refers to free as in libre as in “free speech”, not “free beer”. He is not advocating no profit or fee for software.
Libre, the French, has better connotations. We have no English equivalent. Think that the server this website is based on, the ISP that routes your traffic, and most of the games servers you play on, are based on libre software. That someone has paid for.
For the record, I’m in favour of Valve’s decision, and I like their take on DRM. But criticising Stallman out of ignorance is a disservice to the internet backbone that enables you to make that very criticism.
sgtmoo,
That isn’t what Stallman means by free. It is free as in freedom, to modify the code and do what you want with the source.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Hmm, all Linux and Apps should be free eh? Does he know about the price of Redhat… (per Annum!)
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/
He reminds me of Kevin Flynn from TRON.
he probably does, and probably doesn’t like Redhat either.
Yeah, this guy stands firm with his belief in free software. I really commend him for this, and it’s good to see that he didn’t turn into a windsock.
“Free” as in Freedom. Not free beer.
Doom would count as Free software, although it still cost money (legitimately) as Doom’s source code is available to the general public.
Richard Stallman’s definition of “Free Software” is software where the users have the freedom to Read the source code + Modify it as you see fit + share your changes with others. A prime example is OpenGL, which is open source, while DirectX is propitiatory and most Graphics programmers don’t have any access to it’s source code.
But yes Richard Stallman is a bit of a hippie. (but without him we may not have had Linux + many other open-source programs). I’m surprised he didn’t mention that Steam is DRM. (Another of his pet peeves)
I would say the positive far out ways any un-ethicalness of non-free software.
Some situations like Video Game source code + Level scripting it is reasonable to have it non-free.
Exactly how can he say that it is unethical? Certainly Steam are allowed to earn money for the service they provide and not making their software free in the way the GNU defines it by not allowing customers to modify and distribute their software is simply Steam protecting their interests. That is to say, having free software as defined by GNU seems great, but how can he say that it is unethical that someone else not meet this standard of ‘free’?
I suppose bringing commercial products to Linux goes against the whole open source thing, but it’s a bit harsh to say it’s unethical. It’s equally unethical to take freedom away from creators to protect their work as they see fit. As a writer, do I want people plagiarising my ‘source code’ for the text of their uni assignments? No.
I think the point is ethics is not binary. He’s voiced an opinion, others will disagree. The great shame in Stallman is that he speaks in absolutes. He plays his part, at least it gets people thinking about these issues rather than just assuming creative effort should always be locked up in monopolies.
<3 Steam.
@Marius – Stallman would be dead against plagiarism. He supports copyright (although he rewires it as copyleft) and artist rights. It is a grey area, and Stallman is a polemic on one extreme. At the other end you see the likes of EA.
I’d like to think Gabe is somewhere in the middle. :)
Marius,
open source isn’t about that at all. It’s about viewing and modifying/extending. Ripping stuff off is just as frowned upon as it is everywhere else.
My comment was more that creators have the right to protect their work against modification if they wish. How is exercising that right unethical? To restrict it is to infringe their freedom to do what they want.
Well he’s not suggesting that either. No one is forcing Valve to bring Steam to Linux, or to make anything open source, but if they don’t want to do that then its not really in the spirit of what Linux is all about.
@Marius – Stallman is principally all about software. I think his approach is unsustainable for one very simple reason. Games. :)
But as far as your plagiarism argument is concerned, are you suggesting students shouldn’t be entitled to utilise your work and change it providing they credit you? Copyright is a state sanctioned monopoly. Its aim is to encourage people to innovate, not to make a profit or tie up knowledge. Society should benefit from lots of individual’s thoughts, which is kind of where the FSF is coming from.
But yeah…I can’t see the big budget games going open source, and while I’m a fan of the many indy games on linux I like the odd big studio opus. :)