Quoting: Quote from liamdaweHamish, it is the developers choice, Steam offering up their own doesn't mean a developer has to use it. It is a matter of simple fact that it is a developers choice to use DRM on Steam or not.

And really people, this article is nothing to do with DRM, it's about free games, take a chill pill guys?

It's remarkable the fact that free (in Gabe's mind) hasn't the same meaning than free (in DD's minds).

Sorry, I had already written my last comment before seeing yours, anyway, one more comment after seven pages of offtopic talk isn't that bad I guess.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from liamdaweThe desura client doesnt let you you download windows games.

No, but Desura does, thanks to the fact that you can download games straight from the webstore. I for one really do appreciate this feature, and do find Steam lacking for not having it, although I do agree that that in of itself is not DRM; that being said, I hate having to install unnecessary software just to get where I need, and I am very glad Desura offers this.

I think having to install some closed source software to make a download is DRM, while you could argue it isn't doing anything else than downloading and installing the game, I don't think so and we can't be sure. Comparing the Steam client to a web browser is absurd for this purpose since I can't substitute it with a browser. If it was just a web browser, why wouldn't Valve allow web downloads using other browsers and why some people seem so much against that option too?

The key codes, disk keys, and USB keys in the 90s were the same thing, little annoyances that you may find they're not so, but DRM anyway. Disk keys were easy to copy most of the times but you had to use the correct tool, you might think it's not DRM then, but for the legitimate user that is trying to make a simple backup it's DRM. The publisher plugs some wires trying to have a bit or a lot of control over your downloads/computer/software/gaming/etc. It may succeed or not, but a publisher trying to sell DRM will try harder in the next update maybe. Valve is going that route although it hasn't pushed too hard for you to be annoyed, but maybe in the future. I'm already annoyed by their silly requirements.

I think we basically disagree on the definition of DRM, while I think DRM is any form of control on the use of the game by any means, some of you may think it's just DRM when it does so in a way that annoys you. The second definition is highly subjective, it could annoy you the server not responding, your inability to copy your game files or whatever.

Some of you have fallen so much in love with Valve that it seems you don't want to hear it has annoyances also called DRM.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from ElderSnakeWhat Xpander said.

I love DRM-free as much as anyone, but I'd be pressing the game developers to provide DRM-free version rather than hounding the Steam service, because they're just providing the games to you, keeping them up to date and a bunch of other community features etc (if the dev chose to implement them) and Valve will likely never change that.

If Valve forced every game added to their library to be DRM-free, they would likely have a far smaller library and therefore less customers.
The change has to start with the devs themselves IMO. Steam is just another vehicle of distribution, albeit a very influential one, but there's only so much compromising they would do to their service.

They don't need to force developers to go DRM-free, but at least they could label their games so you know what you're buying. I think they don't do that because they don't hold to any DRM-free promise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from Xpanderif you dont like it then dont use it imo... simple as that.

As simple as if you think Steam is DRM-free please stop trying to shove that view down other's throats, at least be kind to us when we say we're waiting for a truly DRM-free Steam. It would even benefit you and others.

From arguments read here I get that some think using key codes and disk keys isn't DRM, just a minor inconvenience. Well, we certainly come from different places, that was called DRM in the 80s and 90s, maybe not so popular methods today but they were back then.

If Steam's DRM isn't a big inconvenient to you or you have found some easy ways around it, that doesn't mean it isn't DRM anymore. When Steam allows some way to buy and play games like HS or Desura do some of us will follow, that's all we want to say without being turned down.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Valve: Hey, have some free games.
Debian Devs: No, they aren't free.

How much do you like discussing the same thing over and over? Steam is DRM in itself, it requires me to be a Steam user to buy and play the games, that's even worse than having to input keycodes or the game disk to play. DRM is about control, Steam too. I don't want to be a Steam user nor install some crappy client, I just want to buy and play games and I do in the DRM-free online stores. Why do Steam users need to claim it's DRM-free when it isn't?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from KamilHmm, it's a bit unclear whether forking is copying. However, by accepting Github's terms of service, it seems to be allowed, no matter what the header says. However, you still can't do anything useful with it, just browse the code, that's right. It would be nice if Github provided more info for the users what such situations really mean. Can you send patches to such a forked project? Can people download it?

A fork in github is a git clone operation, it can involve copying and downloading, I guess we can clone the repository and even use it for private purposes but nothing else. I think github is just trying to prevent to be sued themselves, but everyone else will have to look after his/her own actions. There's been some debate about the dangers of these github licensing issues. I try to stay away from code not properly licensed for reuse.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from liamdawe

Quoting: Quote from berarmaMay I ask where did you get that idea about github public repositories from? The readme in the repository doesn't suggest an error in the copyright notice.

Huh? It's not a random idea about github repos, it's githubs rules.

There is an issue open to discuss it, as of yet no reply
https://github.com/unknownworlds/NS/issues/1 [External Link]

I see, I wouldn't set my hopes too high on this since it's the developer's will really.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Quote from liamdaweOh really?

Quoting: QuoteBy setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

Their headers say otherwise since to copy it or "fork it" you would need written permission which is contrary to github public repo rules.

They're giving away some of those rights on github but not all of them and they're not forced to change their copyright notices neither.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

May I ask where did you get that idea about github public repositories from? The readme in the repository doesn't suggest an error in the copyright notice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They say they'll provide the source code to all customers, they aren't saying it will be freed. I hope they meant making it free or it won't be so useful.

View this comment - View article - View full comments