Stallman: Valve's Linux games "unethical" but might boost OS usage

to all you blinding asnwering without learning, find out more about free software. Quick google&wikipedia will be enough. Stallman is not saying software should be free as in without cost, but free as in respecting people's freedoms. stupid douches. There's lots of commercial games that are free.

Every time Stallman opens his ***** yap he makes Linux less appealing to the masses.

Sooo valve decides to expand its services to the linux community even though its just a tiny fraction of the os market, and because of this linux users start bashing them for not giving them the games and their source code for free too? Sounds fair.

Judging the ethics of others when you don't share their need to earn a living is unethical.

Gabe is right. Games need to land on Linux. I don't get the part about only open source on Linux since it also takes that freedom away from users.

RS: "My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm."

Forget the rest; this is what matters.

It's amazing how forums like this are usually full of people who think they know about Linux, yet as soon as one of the actual authorities on it (arguably more responsible for its existance than Torvalds is) then people are shocked and fail to understand as if this is something new.

This is what the whole GNU/Linux philosophy is about, of course you should think closed source is unethical if you buy into that philosophy (I don't agree with it, for the record). But most of the Linux zealots you find on the Internet who were raving about how great Steam coming to Linux was a few days ago are usually just people who've dual booted Ubuntu for a few years and are actually completely clueless.

Also, he means "free" as in the source code should be free (not sure if he'd extend that to the game's assets as well, e.g. audio files, textures, models, etc.) not as in you have to give the game away for nothing. Stallman wouldn't have a problem with you continuing to sell games for Linux for $60 or whatever as long as you included the source code. Of course, it's still totally impractical in reality, but for all you rambling on about not understanding why he thinks games should be "free", you're totally missing the point.

*sigh*

You guys obviously dont follow Linux enough. Linux want free as in "freedom" to do what you want not free as in "have this for free, no money needed". DRM and closed source, as well as licensing that increasingly gives companies more and more control over the end user is not free, Linux is against that.

...and if those people could run their games on Ubuntu, I bet that they wouldn't have to keep Windows as a dual boot.

Not true. "Linux" is *not* against it. "Linux" does not "want freedom". Some people who use Linux do. The community is fragmented. You do not represent Linux nor do the people who subscribe to your view. You are part of a larger community.

@Darth Shiv

True, but presumably he means the traditional core principles upon which the GNU/Linux project was founded, in which Stallman was one of - if not the - most influential individual. Personally, I think the level of obsessiveness around "freedom" is silly, but you have to acknowledge the fact that this philosophy has played a big part in Linux development and activism, and still does.

"...and if those people could run their games on Ubuntu, I bet that they wouldn't have to keep Windows as a dual boot."

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure some of them would find some other tie to Windows. My point is there's a lot of posturing from supposed Linux users who want to have their cake and eat it (complaining about Windows and advocating Linux while Windows is actually meeting their needs better than Linux is). A lot of it stems from childish anti-Microsoft sentiment, and wanting to be contrary. It's just humorous how they've bought into this idea of what they think Linux is about, when in fact they basically know nothing, have never contributed code, and have only used maybe a couple at most very user-friendly (in Linux terms) distros, and probably only over the last ten years at most.

I'm not being a snob about it, I don't care how little someone knows about Linux. It's just that these seem people that know so little seem to be by far the most vocal proponents on forums and such, whilst actual long-term or Linux-only users are just minding their own business and using their computers happily. Then it's quite funny when someone with far more experience and knowledge than them, that is basically responsible for Linux existing in the first place goes ahead and casually says something that's completely at odds with that they thought Linux was about (like trying to crack the mainstream consumer market, or get commercial games released for Linux) and get all upset over it.

Anyone, ever, thinking that DRM and closed source is cool and good and okay with them. Never ever, and never will, nor COULD! write code themselves. I think freedom for computers is something only programmers really 'get'.

By the way, Books came with NO DRM at all for thousands of years, yet they still seem to sell well year after year.. well, they used to. Now they added DRM, and somehow the books did not get better..

Let me guess, you happen to be a programmer.

yes lets just stay with windows

I also don't get it, although I get the reason - vanity...
the more brilliant programmer, the more "my way or highway" or "I know best" attitude...
I have seen this more than enough with fellows programmers (if I have to be honest, as SW developer often I catch my self thinking that I know better, while in practice it is all the same...)

"Anyone, ever, thinking that DRM and closed source is cool and good and okay with them. Never ever, and never will, nor COULD! write code themselves. I think freedom for computers is something only programmers really 'get'."

Wow, the FOSStard is strong in this one. Plenty programmers are fine with both closed source, you know like all the millions of programmers that work exclusively on closed source projects? Not just for employers, but plenty programmers write their own software and prefer to keep it closed source for a variety of legitimate reasons.

They have, it's called Ubuntu. That's because Shuttleworth took it upon himself to try and do exactly what you suggested and had the money to make it happen. Other than that there's no incentive in the Linux community at large to try and do what you suggested. Again, people - including a lot of people that think they know about Linux when they don't - seem to think there's some big drive to crack the mainstream or compete with Windows or attract more users, when there's just not. The programmers for most Linux distributions couldn't care less about those things, they just enjoy contributing to a particular operating system that suits its own particular aims.

That's pretty good info, thanks!

Ubuntu is the distro that I tried the most, along with Mint, and while it is pretty accessible, its still Linux.

And I have to agree with you, I don't think that the people responsible for coding Linux want the masses to use it, so I guess it irks me when fanboys get all defensive when you point out the market share is low, and start insulting everyone for not "getting" Linux or understanding what its about.