Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

lemmeee

@lemmeee@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

lemmeee OP ,

with the proprietary Steam client

You answered your own question.

lemmeee OP ,

nearly all

Exactly. They are using the work of Free Software volunteers to make a proprietary OS.

lemmeee OP ,

I guess Android, SailfishOS and the mainline Linux kernel are not proprietary then. Oh wait, they are.

lemmeee OP ,

You could say the same about Android or Google Chrome. They have some parts that are Free Software, but does that really matter?

lemmeee OP ,

Microsoft contributes to Free Software too.

lemmeee OP ,

Proprietary software is simply the opposite of Free Software. If you think it's not proprietary, then send me the source code for the Steam client.

lemmeee OP ,

They deserve to be praised for their contributions. It's great that they do that. But at the same time we should criticize them for bad behaviors. Microsoft contributes to Free Software too and I'm glad, but we can't let that distract us from the unethical things they do.

lemmeee OP ,

The goal of GPL (and Copyleft) was always to protect user's freedom by making sure that nobody can take it away from them. So I disagree that it should be a separate license. Linus Torvalds says this, because freedom is just not a priority for him - Linux contains proprietary blobs. Despite his huge contributions to Free Software, I don't think that he is against proprietary software at all.

lemmeee OP ,

It contains proprietary binary blobs without source code. That's why Linux-libre project was created, but some distros (like Debian) remove the blobs on their own.

lemmeee OP ,

In both cases you could pretty easily uninstall that app and replace it with something else.

And that makes it ethical? Users still don't know what the app does and they can't easily change it. It keeps secrets from them on their own devices. Its developers put themselves in a position of power over users. Making such software is wrong.

lemmeee OP ,

We’d all like Steam to be open source, but that’s not going to happen for a number of reasons

We should fight to make that happen or at least not pretend that it's fine.

We like Valve because they are actually contributing to open source projects, unlike Microsoft who say they love open source but don’t do anything to support it.

I don't deny their contributions. We should praise them for the good work that they are doing, but at the same time we should criticize their bad behavior. Microsoft makes Free Software too (VS Code kinda, TypeScript) and they give money to the Linux Foundation. But they also do a lot of unethical things.

lemmeee OP ,

AGPL is mostly only needed for server software. So for example GIMP or Blender don't have to be licensed under AGPL, because they aren't meant to be used over the network. So there would be no benefit from doing this.

There is also LGPL, which is meant for some libraries that are supposed to compete with proprietary libraries.

lemmeee OP ,

Steam comes with SteamOS. Steam is proprietary. Which part do you not understand?

lemmeee OP ,

If you can't know what some program does and you can't change it, then you don't control it. And if you don't control the software, then you don't control the device. You can remove Windows from your computer too, but that doesn't make it ethical. Microsoft could tell you: you don't have to use our OS if you don't like it. But people use it and they are abused by this company. Nobody should have that kind of power over users.

People deserve freedom and they deserve to be able to control their devices. For that you need the 4 essential freedoms. Trying to take that away from them is wrong. That's why proprietary software is always unethical.

lemmeee OP ,

And GPL V3 is only needed for hardware products that come with Linux.

True. So things like Android smartphones, smart TVs and other stuff. So if we want to protect the users of those devices, we need to switch Linux to GPLv3. I don't think there is any other way. Manufacturers would still be able to use the old version of Linux, but then they would miss out on new features and patches. It would make it harder for them to keep abusing their users.

So why should it be GPL and AGPL shouldn’t?

Are you asking why the FSF doesn't propose to license Linux under AGPLv3? I've never really thought about that. Maybe they don't think it would add anything?

lemmeee OP ,

If you are asking what it means that a program is proprietary - it's a program that doesn't give the user the 4 essential freedoms: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

But if you are asking what parts of those projects are proprietary, then:

  • in Linux it's the binary blobs that it contains - that's why distros like Debian have to remove them and why Linux-libre was created
  • in Android at the very least it's Google Play + the Linux kernel with blobs
  • in SteamOS at the very least it's the Steam client + the Linux kernel with blobs and according to gnu.org proprietary drivers - but I saw some people say that that last bit isn't true and I don't know how to verify that

Arch uses the same kernel with blobs, but it's clear to see that SteamOS is more prorietary than Arch.

lemmeee OP ,

Then it should be very easy for you to point out which part is idiotic. You are using the name of the kernel to describe the operating system and you accuse me of being clueless? You must be joking.

lemmeee OP ,

Realistically, what are you expecting?

Just for people to acknowledge that Steam is unethical and that we can do better. That's it.

If Valve suddenly decided tomorrow to release all of their source code on Github, all you’d get is a big blob of source code that is purpose built for Valve themselves and not really modular. They’d have so much technical debt and auditing requirements that it’d probably be easier to start from scratch, which I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to do.

You could make the same excuse for any company. Releasing the code under a Free Software license is all that's needed. Even if it's hard to compile (but it has to be doable) and even if the code is a mess. It's their responsibility as developers to not take away people's freedom and to not put themselves in a position of power over users. They can use a Copyleft license if they don't want they code to be used by proprietary competition.

And honestly, nothing closed source that Steam does is really novel enough to warrant being open source. The value of Steam comes from its ecosystem and playerbase, as well as the backing of Valve themselves. That’s not something that an open source Steam server or client would allow people to compete with.

It's not about innovation, it's about people being able to control the software that runs on their computers. The rest doesn't matter.

I would like them to release an open source command line tool for downloading, launching and DRM-validating-ing games though. That seems reasonable for people who don’t want to run the full client and want something like Heroic or Lutris to be able to hook into.

They could release the code to a lot of things. For example their proprietary Steam SDK library. Currently games that are libre software have to use this proprietary library to use Steam's features. DRM is unethical too and if Steam was Free Software, people would probably just remove it (kinda like crackers already do) or at least make it less annoying. This would only affect Valve's DRM and modern games often have multiple forms of DRM, but it would be an improvement still.

lemmeee OP ,

Yep. You can't control what those games do on your system.

lemmeee OP ,

Arch's kernel contains proprietary blobs, so it's not exactly Free Software. SteamOS just makes it more proprietary.

lemmeee OP ,

You’d need to get literally every Linux copyright holder to agree to it, including the major corpos like Intel.

Yes, it's hard, but it was probably way easier in 2007 when GPLv3 came out. Linus Torvalds never wanted to do it anyway, though.

There’s always socialism, and I think there’s a better chance for that to come to be than for Intel to limit itself over some FOSS ideals.

I don't see how socialism would get rid of proprietary software. I don't think it says anything about copyright unlike the Free Software movement. Does Intel make devices that come with the Linux kernel?

No I’m asking why do you think V3 shouldn’t be a separate license, but AGPL should. GPL V3 expands what GPL affects by a lot. V2 is only relevant for derivatives and showing your code, V3 is relevant for anything that might restrict your usage of that code. Meanwhile AGPL only changes when you need to show your code, right?

To me it makes no difference if GPL and AGPL are a separate license or not. I use both, but I could just license everything under AGPL. Here is the FSF's explanation: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero . I think the FSF considers Tivoization to be a bug of GPLv2. When they wrote it in the 90s, they probably just didn't predict that someone will find a workaround. They made AGPL, but also LGPL. I think they just want people to use the one that makes the most sense for the project that they are working on. At the same time they probably consider GPLv2 to be obsolete - I don't think they want people to use it anymore.

IANAL, but I’d love to know how v3 interacts with other reasons for locking down devices. They’ve limited it to exclude obvious examples like modifying medical devices and voting machines, but do parental controls cause the device to be operated in a manner that restricts the user’s GPL freedoms?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure it just means that you should be able to install another operating system. Parental controls can be turned off by the user, so I see no issue there.

Just imagine this insanity: stop your child from installing apps on their phone - get sued by someone who doesn’t understand why children can’t consent to sex with adults.

If you are talking about Richard Stallman, then he doesn't believe that anymore. The organization that sues people for GPL violations is probably The Software Freedom Conservancy.

lemmeee ,

Anything you write should be proprietary by default. So I don't think you have to add this license to your comments just to achieve your goal. But it makes sense if you also want to give some extra rights to people.

If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn't that the same as a human reading something? I'm curious what the courts will decide, though.

I don't want to help Microsoft, but some of the arguments made in that article are strange. If AI means the end of software licenses, that means the end of copyright, which is a good thing. When AI gets better, we might be able to feed it leaked or decompiled source code and get something that we can legally use. That's not the current situation, though. At the moment Microsoft uses libre, copylefted software to improve their proprietary program and that's bad. But I don't think we can do anything about it other than telling people to not use it.

lemmeee , (edited )

That SteamOS is unethical, similar to Windows.

lemmeee ,

You are right, laws can be pretty crazy sometimes. Especially the copyright law. Thanks for explaining.

lemmeee ,

You don't have to use SteamOS and you don't have to use Windows, but that doesn't change the fact that they are unethical operating systems designed to take away user's freedom. You can't easily know what it does on your device or change it. It keeps secrets from you. Steam also restricts you with DRM. So unless you are fine with Valve becoming another Microsoft, we need to criticize them for doing this.

lemmeee , (edited )

Steam OS is easy, you can install literally any other distro.

You can say the same about Windows. You can replace it with another OS, but that doesn't make it ethical.

With regards to steam itself sadly we don’t live in a fairytale land where everything can be FOSS, there aren’t enough people motivated to work for free.

If everyone had this attitude, there would be no Free Software at all. It took 40 years of hard work to get to where we are right now. I don't understand why you think that anyone has to work for free. Free Software is about freedom, not price. Itch.io is a store that has a Free Software client (and it's optional - you don't even have to use it). Valve could do the same, but they don't want to.

Steam drm is great it makes publisher executives happy, while being extremely easy to crack.

Yes, it's great that publishers can abuse us and that you need a proprietary app on your system and be logged in to an account to play singleplayer games. Thanks Valve.

lemmeee ,

And that makes it ethical? DRM-free stores exist: gog.com and itch.io for example.

lemmeee ,

Can you explain what parts of SteamOS are not controllable in a way that makes it more restricted than Arch, which it is based on?

Valve won't release the source code and I don't use it, so it's hard for me to tell which packages are proprietary and which are not. Steam client for sure is proprietary and it comes with the OS. Arch by default is Free Software (other than proprietary blobs in the kernel) and you can audit what each program does and modify it. With SteamOS you can't do that, because Valve keeps secrets from you on your own device.

[If the account owns the game - allow user to download and run the game] is a DRM sure… But it’s kind of fair, no?

To play any game you have to install and run the proprietary Steam client and be logged in to an account. Even to play singleplayer games. Even if you bought a physical disc. There are stores that don't do this: gog.com and itch.io. They provide an optional client for convenience, but you can just download a game's installer from the website and install it on any PC any time you want. In case of Itch the client is Free Software so anyone can see what it does and modify it.

lemmeee ,

Then you don't care about freedom and having control over your computer. That's a shame. I think you should.

You have to recognize that having an open source almost everything except a single program (steam) is better than what windows is doing by miles, right?

But is that actually true? There is no source code for SteamOS 3. How do you know how many packages are proprietary? Even one nonfree package is unethical. People deserve to have control over their computers, I don't care if it's currently a little better than Windows.

You can’t win everything, steam is never going to stop being proprietary

This is irrelevant. We should still try to make the world better and fight the injustice. If gamers realized this 10 years ago, maybe we would have this problem solved by now.

The issue is not as black and white as you’re making it seem.

You can't have freedom when someone is actively trying to take it away from you. We have to get rid of proprietary software. If we accept the abuse from those companies, nothing will change. We've been fighting this battle for 40 years now. Those companies want to give you an illusion of freedom, so that they can pretend that they are good. They are using the work of Free Software volunteers to build a prison for you.

Plus if steam wins, getting people to switch to fully open source operating systems will be a lot easier.

No, there is no Free Software alternative to Steam and there is no reason to believe that Valve will release its source code.

You are making an assumption that Valve won't make their system even more proprietary. But why wouldn't they if their fans are ok with this? They're already abusing their power with Steam. Giving them more power will only make the abuse worse.

lemmeee ,

This path has lead us to where we are today, which is why companies want to blur the line between free and nonfree software, because it's the only way they can slow down the progress of our movement. Microsoft also contributes to "Open Source" and that's great, but they also abuse their users, which wrong. It's similar with Valve. The Steam client is proprietary. Sure, you can remove it, just like you can remove Windows from a computer too, but that doesn't make Windows ethical. Linux is already proprietary by default - it contains binary blobs without source code. So Arch is already a nonfree OS, Valve is just making it even more proprietary. I see a lot of people falling for the same traps over and over again and I'm worried that the majority of us will never learn to avoid them.

lemmeee ,

They are DRM-free. I can send you a copy of those games and you can run them on your computer. Without you having to log in anywhere or install an additional proprietary application. Without anyone verifying anything. Isn't that amazing?

lemmeee ,

Valve is an enemy of freedom. It doesn't matter if they abuse us less than other companies. They are still an unethical company.

As much as we wish for everything to be DRM free it would never happen.

If you don't fight for it, then of course it won't happen. Also I'm pretty sure you could say this about any difficult problem: Free Software, privacy, global warming, wars. You could say that we will never solve those issues, so why bother doing anything?

Also, the average person doesn’t care about DRM. They don’t understand the implications of what makes an ethical market. They just want to install a game and hit start.

An average person doesn't mind running Windows either. But we still try to build a better world for ourselves and we try to convince others to join us.

lemmeee ,

That doesn’t mean you can’t control how it works. Most people don’t need sources of their Linux distros to use them as they want.

You can't easily make changes to a program without the source code or even check what it does. Most people are not programmers, so others study the code and make the necessary changes for them.

It would be cool to have the source, but you wouldn’t expect them to have an official maintained repo since they spend much more resources on actual hardware that needs this distro.

This is not an excuse. What they are doing is unethical. They put themselves in a position of power over their users. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple.

Yeah it seems to also be the only thing that is proprietary in SteamOS too.

I don't know if that's true. But the Linux kernel is proprietary as well (just like the one in Arch) - it contains binary blobs without the source code.

Are you clueless or what? There are too many ways to do what you want with SteamOS. You can use offline mode, desktop mode, play pirated games in any mode, install any controller software you like.

I was explaining to you how DRM works and why it's wrong, since apparently you have no idea. I don't know why you are listing features that any popular desktop operating system has (even Windows). SteamOS is still proprietary, which makes it unethical.

Finally, install another Linux distro on it, or Windows. But people buy Deck because of SteamOS mostly since it creates the intended (and expected) experience.

If you buy a Windows laptop, you can install any operating system on it too. That doesn't make Windows ethical.

lemmeee ,

Since the OS comes with Steam, clearly having some GPL licensed packages doesn't prevent them from adding proprietary packages and not all software is GPL licensed. Also Android and SailfishOS exist and both are proprietary.

Valve puts one piece of commercial software on a completely FOSS operating system, this is nothing like windows, and i’m sorry but you sound delusional.

There is nothing wrong with commercial software. The issue is with proprietary software, because it takes away user's freedom. Free Software can be commercial too. It doesn't matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary. Google Chrome is not Free Software just because it's based on Chromium, which is a Free Software project. Android is based on Free Software and it's also proprietary. Their goal is to blur the line and it's clearly working. I'm not denying that SteamOS is more free than Windows, but it's still bad and since they can get away with this, I suspect it will keep getting worse just like other proprietary operating systems.

If they wanted to, why would they not use BSD?

This is irrelevant. They chose whatever was the most convenient and the cheapest. Companies use Free Software projects to make proprietary software all the time. Valve at least contributes to projects, but they abuse their users by denying them freedom and that's the main issue.

lemmeee ,

Some games on Steam are DRM-free and you can play them without running Steam. That is good, but you still need the proprietary Steam client to download them and Steam doesn't tell you which games have DRM before you buy them. gog.com and itch.io prove that this can be done better.

lemmeee ,

99% users won’t ever need that. For cases when they do, they can find guides, modify settings or install software that does what they want.

You could make the same excuse for Windows.

Any distro you download can do this exact thing and you wouldn’t know for a long period, unless you spend enough time to compile the whole thing yourself, compare and research.

You don't have to compile to know this. You can find the list of fully free distros here: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html . Debian removes those blobs too, but it's not on that list for other reasons.

I consider myself knowledgeable but you surely chose a wrong example to teach people about DRM. Try some denuvo or eac maybe.

That's DRM too and there are many more examples. Blu-ray also contains DRM. And so do most PC games thanks to Valve. Console games on the other hand usually don't have DRM when you buy a physical copy.

Whatever that means, users don’t care about it. Compared to others, Valve provides a lot more value in most of their solutions. They are hackable just enough to satisfy most enthusiasts.

I know that most people don't care about their freedom, privacy or security. Most people use Windows. But this doesn't stop us from trying to build a better world for ourselves and to try to convince others to care.

lemmeee ,

…again, why would they? They’ve thrown all these resources into helping foss, why would they perform a massive duplication of effort and create more than steam? What could the possible benefit be? I don’t see any incentive whatsoever to do that. If you don’t like steam you uninstall it and enjoy all the benefits that valve is giving us.

Why do companies make proprietary software and operating systems at all? Because they think it will make them the most money. Why is Steam proprietary? Why is Valve keeping secrets from their users? They could do the ethical thing and make it Free Software.

I’m aware of this, I’m just completely unaware of what malicious thing you’re implying valve will possibly do, other than make steam itself worse, which, again, if you don’t like steam, you’ll still be reaping massive benefits, they’re paying many full time developers to do literally nothing but make linux better.

Making proprietary software is already unethical by itself, because users can't control it. They already do other malicious things like restrict their users with DRM. I'm glad that Valve, Microsoft and other companies contribute to Free Software. They deserve to be praised for this, but it shouldn't distract us from the evil things they do, which we should criticize. Why can't we praise Valve for the good things and criticize them for the bad things?

Steamos is not worth taking issue with, STEAM ITSELF is where you should point your attention.

Steam is part of SteamOS, so I criticize both.

In the same way I wouldn’t worry if somebody made a version of debian with google chrome preinstalled, I’m not worried about steamos. It’s worse for freedom, if you use that version of debian, but pragmatically, how much does this matter? All you need steam for is to play video games, you uninstall steam and then steamos is literally just immutable arch linux.

For me personally it doesn't matter, because I will never use such system. But I want other people to have freedom, I want to live in a free society. For that to happen we must destroy proprietary software, not include it in our distros and pretend that nothing is wrong. I don't want to see people spied on, restricted by DRM and abused in other ways. That's wrong, so we have to talk about it and show people that it doesn't have to be like this.

lemmeee ,

My point is that Steam doesn't have to be proprietary. You can make money in an ethical way with Free Software. Itch.io does this by providing a Free Software client. There is no excuse for making nonfree software. I don't know why they didn't use BSD like Sony did, but it really doesn't matter.

If something contains proprietary software, then it's proprietary. I know that you can turn SteamOS into a Free Software system. At the very least you would have to remove Steam (this is easy), use a Linux kernel without proprietary blobs (might be harder, but Arch has the same issue) and maybe some other things (I don't know about the drivers). It's nice that this is possible, but it's still proprietary by default and that is wrong.

My priority is not for GNU/Linux (or any other particular OS) to get the most users. It's not the goal of the Free Software movement. The goal is for people to use Free Software and for proprietary software to be destroyed. Valve makes proprietary software, so they are working against us. If your goal is for people to have freedom and control over their devices, you should criticize those actions too. You can do that, while also praising Valve for the good things that they do. Maybe Valve can change and become better, but if not then at least people should be aware of the situation. If you are against proprietary software, then you should understand that Steam being proprietary is bad for us. But maybe you care about features more than freedom - then we probably won't agree on this.

If your goal is to get as many people using as much FOSS software as possible, steam is your ally.

I want people to eventually use fully free systems. It can be a gradual process, but this won't happen if we don't make our end goal clear to people. Companies that make nonfree software won't do this - they use the term Open Source to avoid talking about freedom and avoid mentioning that proprietary software is bad. So we have to do this ourselves. You can you Steam and SteamOS if you want and at the same time tell people that we can do better than that. That's all you have to do - just accept that they current situation isn't perfect and that we can work on improving it.

lemmeee ,

Also the Linux kernel and possibly some drivers according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html. But I don't know how to verify that last part.

lemmeee ,

My goal isn't to increase the number of GNU/Linux users at all cost. I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it, unless it's only a temporary solution for them. If people stop using one proprietary platform only to be trapped in another without realizing it, then something went wrong. Some people ditch Android only to use SailfishOS. Or they ditch Twitter only to use Threads. So I hope those new GNU/Linux users who know nothing about the Free Software movement don't get trapped again.

Steam is an unethical DRM platform, so I will always criticize it regardless if it makes people switch to GNU/Linux.

lemmeee ,

You do. But hey you end up with DRM free games you like so much.

But to get there I have to use unethical proprietary software that I hate so much.

By the way why so you even want games? Aren’t most of them unethical?

Who said I do?

Gog offline installers are also unethical, no?

Of course. This is why itch.io is better than gog.

lemmeee ,

The distros being removed from this list mostly by requests from maintainers means it’s not actively monitored or researched at all. So by not verifying it you put yourself on a mercy of other people. It will fail, if not already.

What are you talking about? It's a list made by the Free Software Foundation. What was removed? If some information is incorrect, you should be able to prove it.

That’s because you have to use consoles to even read them. They contain hardware DRM and are far from being ethical.

I don't know what hardware DRM means, but they use proprietary software, so you are right that they are unethical. I never said they were.

Am I missing something or you’re thinking that starting with least offenders is a good idea?

I don't know what you mean.

lemmeee ,

Check the Historical section.

Those distros are just not being developed anymore, so they are no longer recommended.

Why do you bash Valve but not any other company like Apple, Nvidia etc?

I do. I will never buy anything from those companies.

lemmeee ,

Games don’t come with the source code.

Most of them don't, but some do. Just like with programs and apps.

Do they provide ethical installers?

They don't provide any, you just download the game itself. Or you can use their Free Software client, which will download and update the games for you.

lemmeee ,

Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all.

You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn't make them ethical.

What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.

It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.

There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there’d be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.

But those people don't care about their freedom. That's the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can't let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.

Steam ain’t that. It’s video games. And nothing else.

Games are software. If you can't control what they do on your device, then you don't control the device.

Steam isn’t going to be what “traps” them or anything, especially when it’s sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all.

You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won't try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn't they? Their users don't even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can't see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.

lemmeee ,

Here is an article from the FSF explaining why we should avoid making such compromises: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html . They probably explain this a lot better than me, so if it doesn't convince you, then probably nothing will.

lemmeee ,

You are right about teenagers, but on the other hand not all people are the same. For some reason we've decided that they are competent to make those kinds of decisions and to do other things like driving a car. So even though they are not adults, we don't think of them as children either. There is probably no simple answer to this question, though.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •