1. Proprietary software / non-free
2. ...is in beta-testing (and thus #3)
3. not an official/stable release
4. ...that is designed/targeted for Ubuntu (not linux in general)
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)
6. has significant DRM
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.)
if you can find me any other software in the Arch repos that falls into ALL of these categories, then i will retract my statements.
regardless, imho this is setting a new precedence as to what can be put in the Archlinux repos. ie: any alpha/beta-quality, heavy DRM, pay/non-free software should all be available in the official repos, without exception - regardless of legality.
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.Before anyone gets too bent out of shape thinking that Valve might be trying to cause some Ubuntu-lock-in for Linux gamers
I don't get the problem.
Steam was very popular in the AUR and received many votes in only a few days. A maintainer decided that he would willingly maintain it and so he did as he is allowed to.
It's proprietary, true, but it's not the only proprietary package in the repo.
The Beta thing is maybe something I most agree on though.
Why aren't you just happy that Steam released a linux version of their client? Linux users often see problems where none are present, seems to me. C'mon JUST CHILL OUT bro!!
EDIT: Seems it was just removed from the repos
Last edited by Nuc!eoN; 11-15-2012 at 03:07 PM.
I am aware of what the community repos are used for and what TU are, thanks (but note, i was told it was in Multilib, not community) but as i said before - please point me to another app that is actually in the same boat as Steam for Linux. I know of a few that will fall into a few of the laid out categories, but beyond that i am not seeing any that are as restrictive/DRM/crippled, beta-quality, pay to play, etc. I would tend to think that once Valve has an official release out, maybe then it may be suitable to have it in one of the repos (if Valve either A - puts it in writing 'officially' (ie: not some random email) that distributions can ignore their license requirements or B). do the proper thing, which is change your license to allow such things with ZERO grey-area... and while they are at it, make a generic-installer (which i am sure they will at some point).
This isn't a case of seeing problems where they don't exist, they do exist.
and by the way - i just tried to install Steam and either none of my mirrors have been updated, nor has Archlinux' website been updated or Steam is not actually available in the repos and has been pulled (but is available in AUR still). I did read a few of the mailing list posts about Steam, but missed a couple / deleted them...
...maybe it was decided Steam should stay in the AUR? (i don't know)
Last edited by ninez; 11-15-2012 at 03:30 PM.
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...
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.
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.