Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

[Ishayu]

The height of tolerance is tolerating intolerance.
The height of freedom is the freedom to choose not being free.

Now we can view software freedom as 5 essential freedoms:

Freedom -1: The freedom to run any software you wish.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run that software as you wish.
Freedom 1: The freedom to modify that software as you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute that software as you wish.
Freedom 3: The freedom to redistribute your modifications as you wish.

Without "Freedom -1" all the other freedoms are void, and this is why I can't take him seriously if he says that commercial closed-source games shouldn't come to Linux. He's free to choose not to use that software, and we're free to enjoy the heck out of them while he sits in his wheelchair playing GTK+ Minesweeper. I mean, whatever. That's his freedom.

It's good that Steam is coming to Linux - because most of us don't actually care terribly much when it comes to freedom with games. I mean, they're games. If a game gives you freedom to modify the rules then the game breaks down as an international sport. You know, you can't start a football club and then refuse to play anything but a modified version of football. So when RMS goes about advocating free software games, I just don't really care terribly much. For getting work done? For applications? Sure, he's got a great point. For games? Meh.

Where it begins to cross over into problems for me with gaming is DRM. I mean it's one thing we can't modify the executable. That's fine. But when the executable denies me freedom 0, I get a little bit mad, and so do many others. However, Steam doesn't often tend to deny us Freedom 0, but it does sometimes because it had to start adoption with the industry. I think that Steam will slowly try to phase its own DRM out as the industry lets it.

You know... RMS, even if we don't take your freedom all the way to top-level software, we still appreciate running on a foundation of free software so that we understand and control what our computers do - because we can look at the data the free software structure can give us and make it tell us exactly what the non-free software is doing and... in a game, that's all I really want to be able to do. (Beyond just voting with my wallet)

[Hamish Wilson]

All of the cases above believe that they are doing what is best for the majority, if not everyone. So no, I don't think we should put RMS on a pedestal just because he practices what he preaches or believes he's looking out for everyone's best interests. There's got to be more to it than that to differentiate him from the KKK in that regard. So what is it about him that is actually worthy of admiration?

I would say it is the fact that he builds up rational arguments behind his positions and that is why he sticks behind them. He is not just intolerantly following some prescribed dogma but is always actively questioning his views as well as the views as others. This article is proof of this - he was actively considering an issue (in this case Valve porting their games and distribution platform over to Linux) and concedes that on many levels it is good for Linux. But because it does not answer many of his concerns he still feels that it would be best for those who prescribed to his ideas not to promote it. That is is the difference. He is not just promoting dogma - he is advancing a position and is doing it in an honest way, unlike most people (such as many people on this forum).

Without "Freedom -1" all the other freedoms are void, and this is why I can't take him seriously if he says that commercial closed-source games shouldn't come to Linux. He's free to choose not to use that software, and we're free to enjoy the heck out of them while he sits in his wheelchair playing GTK+ Minesweeper. I mean, whatever. That's his freedom ... It's good that Steam is coming to Linux - because most of us don't actually care terribly much when it comes to freedom with games. I mean, they're games. If a game gives you freedom to modify the rules then the game breaks down as an international sport. You know, you can't start a football club and then refuse to play anything but a modified version of football. So when RMS goes about advocating free software games, I just don't really care terribly much. For getting work done? For applications? Sure, he's got a great point. For games? Meh.

There have already been many arguments posted here for why releasing the source code to a commercial game can be good for the user as well as the developers themselves. Such issues as games becoming abandoned because of the adoption of new platforms or becoming increasingly hard to support and play are real issues, and are in fact probably more of an issue for entertainment products than for application software. I also think you are looking at this from a very narrow scope - nowhere is anyone here advocating that all games should be developed like the Linux kernel is or Apache is. Releasing source code of game applications would not fundamentally change how games are made - but it would makes games a lot more accessible and available to everyone.

Where it begins to cross over into problems for me with gaming is DRM. I mean it's one thing we can't modify the executable. That's fine. But when the executable denies me freedom 0, I get a little bit mad, and so do many others. However, Steam doesn't often tend to deny us Freedom 0, but it does sometimes because it had to start adoption with the industry. I think that Steam will slowly try to phase its own DRM out as the industry lets it.

On that notion I am personally not at all confident... And I think I will always loath Steamworks with a passion for it.

[yogi_berra]

Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

He's just upset that he won't be able to play Portal 2 on his Leemote Yeeloong.

[TobiSGD]

IReleasing source code of game applications would not fundamentally change how games are made - but it would makes games a lot more accessible and available to everyone.

Of course it would. Most AAA games have licensed code in them, be it the Unreal, Unity, id-Tech or the Unigine engine, or some other middle-ware, like SpeedTree or something similar.
You can't just release the code for those games. You may be able to release your own code, but what would it be worth without the needed other software?

[WorBlux]

I agree isn't Freedom realistically about choice.

Yes, but that doesn't imply bad choices exist that can make you, and everyone else less free.

I am free to spend my money and utilize my credit, but if I use all on my available credit on short-term consumption, I'll be much less free in how I spend my money when the account comes due.

I'm free to go shoot the next person I see, however the consequence is a high chance of spending most of the rest of my life in a state-run motel.

[Ishayu]

There have already been many arguments posted here for why releasing the source code to a commercial game can be good for the user as well as the developers themselves. Such issues as games becoming abandoned because of the adoption of new platforms or becoming increasingly hard to support and play are real issues, and are in fact probably more of an issue for entertainment products than for application software. I also think you are looking at this from a very narrow scope - nowhere is anyone here advocating that all games should be developed like the Linux kernel is or Apache is. Releasing source code of game applications would not fundamentally change how games are made - but it would makes games a lot more accessible and available to everyone.

If Blizzard were to actually release the source code for their games, it would actually ruin their business model, because at that point you pretty much don't even have to reverse engineer private servers anymore. It would be an absolute disaster - and indeed every free software game I can think of has been exactly that - an absolute disaster. They just aren't very popular.

I really don't see the big concerns as far as games and being able to adopt them to other platforms go. Not in this day and age when we have extremely capable emulation software and Wine. I sat down earlier today on my Linux box and played me some Devil May Cry 3 with my Logitech 2 RumblePad and I had a great time.

And the question is: What's actually more effort (not for the company but in the community)? Rewriting all Windows software to run natively on Linux or make something like Wine? I'd argue the latter.

I'm not quite sure what the point of free software gaming is. Emulation of old games is a nonissue and will be even less of an issue once we all use free software operating systems (it's getting close with Android and now desktop Linux taking over), and freedoms 1 and 3 are completely meaningless in the context of gaming, in some cases outright harmful to the game developer and especially the community. Freedom 2 might have some merits, but last I checked I didn't see any issues with that freedom being exercised, illegal though as it may be.

[Pseus]

I haven't read the whole thread, but why is it so outrageous to consider freeing the source code for games? You can still sell them, and you can still keep all other assets closed. In fact, the humble bundle has done this in the past, and it worked great. I'm not saying it's the right model for everybody, I just fail to see what's the problem for the game industry.

[jmcharron]

[Hamish Wilson]

Of course it would. Most AAA games have licensed code in them, be it the Unreal, Unity, id-Tech or the Unigine engine, or some other middle-ware, like SpeedTree or something similar. You can't just release the code for those games. You may be able to release your own code, but what would it be worth without the needed other software?

Well, that is a problem for the industry in general - for instance, it is that same reason that many games will not be released for Linux in the first place. That actually just goes to show why keeping game source code closed and being accepting of proprietary bits can be a problem though - as it can also limit the options that developers themselves can do with their own software.

It would be an absolute disaster - and indeed every free software game I can think of has been exactly that - an absolute disaster. They just aren't very popular.

Can you name one commercial game that has become financially nonviable because it has released it's source code? Not all free software games have to be hobbyist projects or developed like Neverball in an open source fashion. A program can be free software and still be developed in a traditional way - lots of them are. You just need to release the source code when you make the project publicly available in some fashion, in this case when you start selling the game.

I am not arguing whether or not this is going to happen, but I think it is difficult to find a cogent argument for why it should not happen.

I really don't see the big concerns as far as games and being able to adopt them to other platforms go. Not in this day and age when we have extremely capable emulation software and Wine. I sat down earlier today on my Linux box and played me some Devil May Cry 3 with my Logitech 2 RumblePad and I had a great time. And the question is: What's actually more effort (not for the company but in the community)? Rewriting all Windows software to run natively on Linux or make something like Wine? I'd argue the latter.

How long have you been gaming on this platform? Because if you have spent any time with it at all you would be more thankful to the developers that have released the source code to their games and as such allowed us to play them on our chosen platform. Having the source code prevents vendor lock in and benefits users of every operating system, not just Linux. For instance, I am sure that many of you have read about how the dhewm3 source port was recently ported to AROS. How else could someone expect to play such a game on an Amiga type system?

And one should never bet on emulation to save the day. WINE has a checkered record of running older titles (and it is something I think they should be focusing on more personally) and Dosbox may have a better history but one sometimes even needs at the very least a dual core processor to run a game that originally was released for the IBM 386. Compare that to playing Doom or Duke Nukem natively through a source port. Having the source code available will always be the best solution to ensuring a games longevity, and as someone with a deep interest in older titles that is something I feel very strongly about.

[Ishayu]

How long have you been gaming on this platform? Because if you have spent any time with it at all you would be more thankful to the developers that have released the source code to their games and as such allowed us to play them on our chosen platform. Having the source code prevents vendor lock in and benefits users of every operating system, not just Linux. For instance, I am sure that many of you have read about how the dhewm3 source port was recently ported to AROS. How else could someone expect to play such a game on an Amiga type system?

And one should never bet on emulation to save the day. WINE has a checkered record of running older titles (and it is something I think they should be focusing on more personally) and Dosbox may have a better history but one sometimes even needs at the very least a dual core processor to run a game that originally was released for the IBM 386. Compare that to playing Doom or Duke Nukem natively through a source port. Having the source code available will always be the best solution to ensuring a games longevity, and as someone with a deep interest in older titles that is something I feel very strongly about.

There isn't any inherent disadvantage to open sourcing abandonware, to be fair. But that's really a strawman, because we were talking about open sourcing new games.

Wine has an excellent track record of emulating games. While they don't all work well, a ton of them do. Every single Blizzard and Valve game since 2006 has worked on the release date in Wine.