Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve's Steam License Causes Linux Packaging Concerns

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    wrt to the license, I don't get the issue here; it seems to apply directly to the binaries within the .deb package, not the package itself, so unless the Arch devs modified the actual steam binaries what would the problem be?

    Distribution may be another thing altogether, but I don't see how simply repackaging the .deb would violate the license...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ninez View Post
      snip
      Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
      And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
        Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
        *sigh* ... can you not read?!? i already explained that i was told Steam was in the official repos, specifically - multilib (community only came up afterwords) ... and in 2 posts above this (where i covered that point) i also explained that i know what TUs and the community repo are. Why would you feel the need to explain something that was already understood - especially, when i had already covered this? (face palm).

        Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
        And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.
        I'm not a lawyer either, but regardless AUR seems far more appropriate for this type of software. ( which apparently we both can agree on )

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
          Community is not a official Arch repo. It's a repo of popular community packages maintained by trusted community members, much like ppa's in Ubuntu, just all in one place.
          And like sadako said a deb package is just an archive containing the steam binaries. Therefore repackaging the binaries for pacman should not be considered modifying the program(I'm not a lawyer though so this could actually be incorrect. Worst case scenario is imo Valve issuing a cease and desist if their legal team thinks it's an issue. I don't see them taking any serious legal measures as that would just hurt their (already fragile) image among the open source community. In any case i do think that the best place for Steam is in AUR as a PKGBUILD that gets the deb from Valve's servers, so as not to breach the redistribution clause.
          I believe Valve will play nice and provide a binary (preferably 64bit ) that anyone can package and use in any distro. And sort any legal stuff.


          The whole thing again proves how important is a common package format.

          Comment


          • #20
            Arch devs are probably just excited like the rest of us. They'll figure it out, one way or the other.

            Meanwhile I couldn't care less. I dont mind installing/upgrading from the AUR and Community/Multilib is certainly convenient, but either way is cool.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by fabioamd87 View Post
              can you PLEASE avoid to say in every Steam news that Gabe hates Windows 8?
              How else is he going to get Phoronix show up in web searches for Windows 8?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ElderSnake View Post
                Arch devs are probably just excited like the rest of us. They'll figure it out, one way or the other.

                Meanwhile I couldn't care less. I dont mind installing/upgrading from the AUR and Community/Multilib is certainly convenient, but either way is cool.
                Right, especially with cool tools like yaourt I'm very interested to see where this goes (Steam on Linux, that is).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  Can you point me to any other software package in Archlinux's repos that meets the same criteria as Valve Steam;
                  Can you point out to me the official documentation from ArchLinux that outlines all those points as being hard requirements?

                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  1. Proprietary software / non-free
                  2. ...is in beta-testing (and thus #3)
                  3. not an official/stable release
                  multilib/skype
                  multilib/lib32-nvidia-utils
                  extra/nvidia
                  extra/flashplugin

                  NVIDIA's blobs are in extra and multilib and Flash is in extra. There's no hard requirement for free and open source. And when did x86_64 ever make it as a officially supported platform for Flash? Now that Adobe has dropped it except for security patches, it's essentially permabeta. Also there's plenty of software to be found with leading 0s in their version numbers (0.x.x is not rare).

                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  4. ...that is designed/targeted for Ubuntu (not linux in general)
                  This is somewhat valid but if you RTFA, it would seem to be likely that this will not always be the case. Fear that it will always be the case is the strong point of your argument here. (FUD?)

                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  5. is pretty much useless to a very substantial number of Arch users (being as it is restrictive due to being pay to play, proprietary software)
                  Wine practically only exists to use proprietary software that you pay for. So I suppose you should make the same argument against Wine, since you know for a fact that most Arch users only want to use free (in both contexts) software.

                  Also, there are free-to-play games on Steam. They even let you search for games in that category.

                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  6. has significant DRM
                  Like Flash's DRM which is required to watch Hulu and the likes? Yes, DRM is horrible. Its absence is not a hard requirement for inclusion in Arch repositories and ultimately it's the user's choice to install it. No one is forcing you to install every last package in the repos. It's up to the user to decide if it's a good idea or not.

                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  7. that says right in it's license (regardless of what valve employees may have said) that what they (archers) are doing (re-packaging/modifying it) violates Valve's license. (but hey, if Valve wants to re-write their license to allow this - then sure... but an email or two saying it is okay, imho does not invalidate the language used by Valve, in their license.)
                  Finally! You make a worthwhile point.

                  The real criteria (from my observation) for including packages is closer to:
                  1. Can be done legally.
                  2. Maintained both in upstream and in packaging.
                  3. Some demand by Arch users. (That doesn't mean a majority or even a set percentage. This is a relatively soft requirement.)
                  It is surprising that Steam was even briefly in the repositories given its questionable legality. Not that it seems like Valve cares, it's just you have to CYA.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Xilanaz View Post
                    seeing how the whole thing is full of ubuntu12_32 references, from the scripts to binaries to the directory structure, excuse me for being sceptical about that statement.
                    Steam works on suse
                    Souce Topic
                    Installing Steam Linux Beta open suse forum

                    download media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb
                    open the .deb with ark
                    open the data.tar.gz with ark
                    extract the /lib/steam/bootstraplinux_ubuntu12_32.tar.xz file to any directory where you want, lets say Steam for now
                    execute ./steam.sh from that directory and let it update
                    enter your login

                    Some people had problems, because the did not have the needed32 bit libraries.
                    How to get these is discussed in that topic too.

                    If it is this simple to get it running on suse it cant be hard to get it working on other distros.

                    A friend of mine, had it installed on mint.
                    Last edited by Gps4l; 11-15-2012, 06:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I just watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone from 1964, short but as great as in my memory !
                      Good night kids !

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        Can you point out to me the official documentation from ArchLinux that outlines all those points as being hard requirements?
                        I never said they were 'hard requirements', so i don't know where you get the idea that i did. In fact, i asked another forum member to show me an app that was in the official repos that met those requirements (which neither him, you nor anyone has done - including throughout this post...) - 'requirements' being observations that i had of Steam compared to things that tend to be and/or belong in the AUR and not the official repos.

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        multilib/skype
                        multilib/lib32-nvidia-utils
                        extra/nvidia
                        extra/flashplugin

                        NVIDIA's blobs are in extra and multilib and Flash is in extra. There's no hard requirement for free and open source. And when did x86_64 ever make it as a officially supported platform for Flash? Now that Adobe has dropped it except for security patches, it's essentially permabeta. Also there's plenty of software to be found with leading 0s in their version numbers (0.x.x is not rare).
                        You really need to read through forum posts before you reply to people. I NEVER said there was a requirement of FOSS and as i said before to another user (which apparently you didn't bother to read was that wasn't even the crux of my argument. moron. *face palm*). We both know adobe flash is in a unique situation where essentially, we have been screwed and have to do what we can to have a proper web-experience ~ is this really the best example you can come up with? (the same example we already kicked like a dead-horse)... And regardless, it isn't about it just being beta or having other apps having 0.x.x versions ... Steam isn't officially supported outside of ubuntu, is a closed-beta (which none of your examples are), is pay to play, locked down with DRM (more so than ANY of the examples you have given to boot).

                        as far as Nvidia goes, i tend to think Archlinux IS most likely violating the GPL by shipping nvidia ~ because as far as i know, the reason nvidia ships their installer the way they do, is to avoid violating the GPL (since it concerns distribution, not what the user is doing locally - ie: running the installer compiling and linking against his/her kernel - as opposed to what Archlinux does which is distribute the actual kernel module). but i'm not 100% positive on the legalities, since i am not a lawyer. but again, i never made the claim that Archlinux has to be 100% OSS (that is just something you are making up).

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        This is somewhat valid but if you RTFA, it would seem to be likely that this will not always be the case. Fear that it will always be the case is the strong point of your argument here. (FUD?)
                        again, learn to fucking read - this was already discussed. I never made the claim that it will always be the case, asshat. Therefore, i was not trying to spread FUD. seriously, SFTU... I don't know if you are actually familiar with how forums work, but typically as the discussions go on and if *you* are late in the conversation, it is usually good to go back and see what someone has already posted before making dumb comments... I fully acknowledged this probably wasn't going to be the case further down the road...But here is the thing, we're not there yet (and neither is Steam). So you think Steam should be included in the repos because of some future prospect, even considering the possible legal issues and the fact it is a closed-beta for ubuntu??? (man, it's cool to get excited - but give your head a shake, pal!).

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        Wine practically only exists to use proprietary software that you pay for. So I suppose you should make the same argument against Wine, since you know for a fact that most Arch users only want to use free (in both contexts) software.
                        so basically, you are telling me that every application for windows costs money then? (nice! what a crock of bullshit) I use Wine for both free apps and commercial ones (but in reality, i use linux for more commercial apps than wine). And by the way - you shouldn't make such obviously fallacious obtuse remarks, i NEVER said anything about archers only wanting free software (nor would i ever say that). So you can shut up with that nonsense too, since it's a non-starter - and you're an idiot for trying to claim that was my position - what a disingenuous little twat you are.

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        Also, there are free-to-play games on Steam. They even let you search for games in that category.
                        you mean like world of goo (which you don't need steam for). awesome So you think that closed-beta-testing DRM restricted software, unsupported / only supported in Ubuntu should be in the repos. sweet.

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        Like Flash's DRM which is required to watch Hulu and the likes? Yes, DRM is horrible. Its absence is not a hard requirement for inclusion in Arch repositories and ultimately it's the user's choice to install it. No one is forcing you to install every last package in the repos. It's up to the user to decide if it's a good idea or not.
                        Well, flash generally speaking once installed is completely usable, unlike Steam - you may not be able to use Hulu and the likes without it - but that is an ENTIRELY different issue (and you know it, if you have half a brain). The rest of your comment here is just idiotic. The AUR comes with a disclaimer like that - use at your own risk. The official repos in theory, is for more officially supported stuff - not for apps of legal-grey-area, closed-beta/restricted DRM, etc...

                        Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                        Finally! You make a worthwhile point.

                        The real criteria (from my observation) for including packages is closer to:
                        1. Can be done legally.
                        2. Maintained both in upstream and in packaging.
                        3. Some demand by Arch users. (That doesn't mean a majority or even a set percentage. This is a relatively soft requirement.)
                        It is surprising that Steam was even briefly in the repositories given its questionable legality. Not that it seems like Valve cares, it's just you have to CYA.
                        You have yet to make any worthwhile points beyond agreeing with this point of mine.

                        Anyway, it doesn't appear to be in the repos anymore (but obviously is available in the AUR - so apparently i am not the only one who thought that it didn't belong in there) - so it looks like the decision has been made by Arch-devs, for the time being... (i would assume).
                        Last edited by ninez; 11-15-2012, 07:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
                          C'mon JUST CHILL OUT bro!!
                          That is my opinion of the whole Steam situation in general. Seriously, are all your shoes on fire or something?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Meh, this just looks like a case of excited users and maintainers getting way ahead of the lawyers and legalese. Things should cooldown and fall into order in a few months once Valve gets their ducks in order. I'm still excited in any case

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              LSB

                              Why does Valve but also Intel etc. not only supply LSB packages alike Google earth!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                This seems trivial to fix.

                                Package a script that downloads the ubuntu .deb from valve, extracts the contents, and installs. This is already done for proprietary firmware, fonts, and other software that both forbids redistribution and is freely available from an official source.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X