However idiotic this post is, maybe it’s a sign that more and more people enter the world of Linux. So it’s expected to see more and more people who don’t know about such things.
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.
We’d all like Steam to be open source, but that’s not going to happen for a number of reasons. So I guess you could say that a core part of the OS is proprietary, if you wanted.
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.
Also, the Steam Deck is really nice, and less locked down than “Windows” hardware.
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.
Realistically, what are you expecting? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It can if the code is not delivered to the customers. For example you can take GPL code and run it on your server without ever making your changes public.
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.
The fsf also thinks it should be a different license apparently, given that gplv3 doesn’t force you to distribute source to users of a server, but agpl does.
Although to be fair it.migjt have more fondo with the concept not being very well tested.
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.
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?
You’d need to get literally every Linux copyright holder to agree to it, including the major corpos like Intel.
I don’t think there is any other way.
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.
Are you asking why the FSF doesn’t propose to license Linux under AGPLv3?
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?
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? 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.
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: 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.
Yes, it’s hard, but it was probably way easier in 2007 when GPLv3 came out.
I can’t find concrete info, but I think anyone who contributed to the kernel is a copyright holder or something along those lines.
Linus Torvalds never wanted to do it anyway, though. Who’s to say it wouldn’t have crippled Linux.
Yeah, because it’s a different license.
I don’t see how socialism would get rid of proprietary software.
What’s the point of proprietary software? To make more profit.
Why do manufacturers lock down your devices? To make more profit through, for example, forcing you to keep adware and spyware installed on your device.
If your goal is to satisfy the needs of your population, and not only the wants of those in power, why would you limit the sharing of knowledge? Copyright and patent laws are a product of capitalism, not something inherent.
Does Intel make devices that come with the Linux kernel?
No clue, but they’re in main.c.
I think the FSF considers Tivoization to be a bug of GPLv2.
They also think the Affero clause should be in the v3, but that was apparently going too far for the corpos, and so it’s in a separate license (based on your link).
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.
It might be a bit more complicated than that.
When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software.
So the question is whether giving someone a device to use is considered conveying it; is a shop selling you a phone the same as your parents giving it to you? Good luck on trying to find it out through v3, it just gave me a headache.
If you are talking about Richard Stallman, then he doesn’t believe that anymore.
Didn’t that post come after the first real media backlash, when he had to quit from the FSF? Good timing for someone to finally explain that to a dude in his 60s.
The organization that sues people for GPL violations is probably The Software Freedom Conservancy.
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.
Horse shit. Whoever actually made this meme doesn’t match with the actual usage of proprietary at all. You could maybe shoehorn this usage into it, but it would be like shoving a sasquatch into high heels in size 6; it just doesn’t fit.
It’s a meme, so it’s whatever, but it’s so far from reality it isn’t funny, it doesn’t work.
Running SteamOS 3 on the Deck is like running AOSP on a phone with Google Chrome installed. You have an entirely open OS running a singular proprietary application.
In both cases you could pretty easily uninstall that app and replace it with something else.
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.
In either of those scenarios what power would the application developer have over the owner of the device? If the owner doesn’t like what the app is doing they’re free to remove it. There is no obligation to use that particular application to use the device for any purpose the owner sees fit.
AOSP is full open source mobile OS and uninstalling Google Chrome is as easy as uninstalling any other app and it can be replaced with any browser of the owners choice.
Similarly, SteamOS 3 is full Arch based Linux distro and uninstalling Steam is as easy as removing any package installed in Arch. Actually the immutable root file system does make it slightly more difficult, but it’s far from hard, and it can be replaced with a game launcher of the owners choice.
Proprietary software only becomes unethical when it is designed in a way that gives the device owner no option but to use it for their device to function as the owner desires.
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.
Hardware drivers aren’t closed either. All drivers of the first Steam Deck are in the mainline kernel by now. The drivers for the OLED version will follow. If you can’t wait for mainline support you can get the sources from Valve and patch them in yourself.
I (obviously) hadn’t realized that. That’s awesome that valve has done that.
Though my point was more that there’s very little in SteamOS 3 that’s actually proprietary.
As for patching in drivers to a different distro for the Deck, for me that’s not a huge concern since I don’t own a Deck. I’d more so like to see Valve release SteamOS 3 for general use rather than only providing images for the Deck.
It looks like Bazzite is a good third-party option for that though, and I intend to try it out when I get home from traveling.
Considering how low its energy consumption is it should actually make a good little home server. I think some people use it as a home theatre PC that can also play games that is constantly hooked up to the TV.
The thing is, it’s not a good general purpose OS. The filesystem is write protected, and you can disable that, but anything you do will be cleared on the next update. It uses proprietary repos that are behind Arch’s, so AUR software is often incompatible. Everything is based on the one steam deck user, so you can’t really do a multi user set up. It makes sense for a handheld gaming console (or maybe if you had a PC that you used purely as a gaming console connected to a TV), but it definitely doesn’t make sense to have as your OS on your gaming PC if you do anything except gaming
Add comment