Ceci est une ancienne révision du document !
We used Facebook and Google+ to let readers know about the emerging story of how Richard Stallman doesn't approve of Steam for Linux. An except from the BBC News article is below: “Non-free game programs (like other non-free programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users,” he wrote on his blog. “If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having non-free programs on your computer. “However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows.”
Nous avons utilisé Facebook et Google+ pour informer les lecteurs sur la nouvelle histoire selon laquelle Richard Stallman n'approuve pas Steam for Linux. Voici Une extrait de l'article de BBC News:
«Les programmes de jeux non-libres (comme les autres programmes non-libres) ne sont pas éthiques parce qu'ils refusent la liberté à leurs utilisateurs», écrit-il sur son blog.
«Si vous voulez la liberté, un pré-requis est de ne pas avoir de programmes non-libres sur votre ordinateur.»
«Toutefois, si vous vous apprêtez à utiliser ces jeux, vous feriez mieux de les utiliser sous GNU/Linux plutôt que sur Microsoft Windows.»
Mr. Stallman said that based on this, Valve's move was likely to do more good than harm, but he noted there was another factor. “Any GNU/Linux distro [distribution] that comes with software to offer these games will teach users that the point is not freedom. “Non-free software in GNU/Linux distros already works against the goal of freedom. Adding these games to a distro would augment that effect.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19065082
M. Stallman a dit que partant de là, le mouvement de Valve était susceptible de faire plus de bien que de mal, mais il a remarqué qu'il y avait un autre facteur.
«Toute distrib. [distribution] GNU/Linux qui vient avec un logiciel qui offre ces jeux va enseigner aux utilisateurs que le sujet n'est pas la liberté.»
«Les logiciels non-libres dans les distib. GNU/Linux travaillent déjà contre l'objectif de liberté. Ajouter ces jeux à une distrib. en accroîtrait cet effet.»
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19065082
YOUR COMMENTS Luis Carvalho: DRM is a cancer. Content with DRM isn't sold, only rented, it's never yours. Sooner or later, you'll lose access to it. Bringing it to Linux is an infection. David White: He had a point when it came to operating systems and file utilities. But not for this. Davo Batty: Bring it on, I use Steam to play civ5, and playing games stops me from migrating 100% to Linux. Joan Trabal: I'm pro F/OSS and against DRM, but everyone should be free to use whatever software suits their needs. People just need more education about these matters.
VOS COMMENTAIRES
Luis Carvalho: Le DRM est un cancer. Un contenu avec DRM n'est pas vendu, il est seulement loué, il n'est jamais le vôtre. Tôt ou tard, vous perdrez l'accès à celui-ci. Le porter sur Linux est une infection.
David White: Cela avait un sens quand il s'agissait de systèmes d'exploitation et d'utilitaires de fichiers. Mais pas pour cela.
Davo Batty: Mettez-le, j'utilise Steam pour jouer à civ5, et jouer à des jeux m'empêche de migrer à 100% vers Linux.
Joan Trabal: Je suis pro F/OSS et contre les DRM, mais chacun doit être libre d'utiliser n'importe quel logiciel convenant à ses besoins. Les gens ont besoin de plus d'éducation sur ces problèmes.
Rey Angeles: The creator of the Linux kernel pretty much gave it the green light, yes, sure DRM is bad, how do you expect them to make money if they just give away their source code. Guys, it’s not a Utopia and it will never be. So, let’s try to work with these companies to some degree. I agree FOSS is best but sometimes this model does not work for everything. Jeremy Davis: It's a personal choice, but I have to go along with anything that brings more users to Linux, and games will. Besides, I can stop dual booting then. Md. Rezaur Rahman: I second Ray Angeles. In the real world, we have to consider many things. Gaming in Linux is still pathetic. And GNU philosophy doesn't work very well in the game industry.
Robin James Banfield: Stallman is a dinosaur. Using Linux is a choice that everybody can make. Choosing to purchase games to play is also another. What difference does it make if the game you play is on an open-source platform or if it’s on one of the other 2. A lot more people will switch to Linux if they could play their favourite games on it. Kudos to Valve for trying to make this happen. Who [cares] about the choice to modify the games. Time for Stallman to crawl back in his fossil. Hassan Naderi: Definitely against letting non-free programs into GNU Linux. Companies might have difficulties making viable business models to release software on Linux with exclusively free code, but If you start allowing non-free programs, in a few years we end up having a majority of programs with non-free code.
Robin James Banfield: Have to disagree with Hassan (above), we already have open-source code being used on closed sourced operating systems and vice versa. I couldn't care less about having the choice to modify game code, I just want to play it. What does modifying code for a game really matter to the end user? It seems that the point of choosing an open-source OS has been lost in the noble, but impossible “crusade” to make all code free. As much as I dislike Redmond's OS, I still use it to play games because I have to use it to play games I like, and truth be told, it has gotten a lot better since the days of XP and before. With that said, I wouldn't buy it if games were created for use on Linux. It seems the crusade itself is what is actually holding the crusade back from actual progress. You want a successful OS? Have games that are well supported from software companies without the hassle. It's worked for Redmond and Cupertino. Why not Linux? While I applaud people who create, support, and maintain open-source games, they are not that good. It just isn't the same demographic that big game companies are aiming at. I have to agree with Andy for the most part, but the one thing I disagree on is that we owe Stallman anything. It's his crusade keeping Linux third in the market-share by fighting to keep gaming companies on the outside. Linux is more than just free code and open-source. It still is an operating system that more people would use if major companies were allowed to support their closed source (games) on it.
Magne Djupvik: Personally, I don't think allowing users the freedom to use Steam is wrong, and I might end up using it myself. But at the same time, I think people should support the Free Software games that exist. Shameless plug: SuperTuxKart (which I'm somewhat involved in) has its forums at the FreeGameDev.net forums, and we definitely would like any help we could get in making the game better, be it donations, artwork, code, or other things. Or just some constructive feedback. The FreeGameDev forums are really nice, and an important place to help out various developers who aren't raking in lots of cash making their games. And, unlike commercial games, those games will always be able to work and be improved on due to them being open source and DRM free. Andy Gait: As Linux users we owe Stallman a debt, but time and computing has moved on. Stallman is so blinkered in his beliefs that anyone who doesn't follow his way to the letter, is wrong. No debate. No reasoning. Just wrong. He's no longer an open source guru, he's a dictator. Brook Smith: Open source, closed source? Who cares if they are wanted by the user and they work. We, the users, matter more than any one’s crusade for open source software. Do I prefer open source solutions where possible? Certainly! But it's not always possible. Realistically, programmers need to be compensated at some point, many make their living writing computer code. This means that the software their employer sells goes toward paying their wage, this puts food on their table, a roof over their head, and helps support their family.