Sorry for using the term 'a matter of principle'. I was trying to differentiate
between the ethical basis for rejecting proprietary software, and the
possibilities for active abuse due to the user being denied control.
I accept that all proprietary software denies the four freedoms to the user,
Any joint activity depends on software on someone else's machine. Here, I was
only talking about the difference between centralized communication vs.
distributed communication. Distributed communication would be things like
P2P. The entire WWW works in a centralized manner: a server has all
RMS would agree with the last paragraph. Even he uses proprietary software on
occasion, for things like browsing, when he is without his own computer.
There's a difference between communicating with remote software, and using
remote software as a replacement for your own.
There is a huge difference between depending on remote software being there and
actively outsourcing your computing somewhere else. Retrieving a web page
depends on remote software being there, yet is clearly not substituting a
service for your own software.
Quake Live isn't SaaSS, just a typical client-server multiplayer game as far
as I understand it.
Wwell I personally think its safer in some aspects.
Like for example, admins of those servers are very limited compared to
admins on a q3a server. id is basically the admin now, and its all in the
cloud. You can't just make your own server with your own hardware like in
q3a.
Which is
I think this is maybe the difference between quake 3 arena, and
quakelive.com?
Indeed you would. I do not.
Unethical or not, it's clear that you have way more independence and control
over your computing running the software on your own than using a service.
And since the whole point of the free software movement is to have control
over your computing then SaaSS should be avoided. SaaSS is even
That really doesn't matter; you still depend on the software on the other
player's computer to communicate with them. The only difference you're
talking about is whether the communication job is centralized or distributed.
If centralized communication jobs were no good, that would extend to
Personally, I'm of the opinion that SaaSS is not necessarily unethical. I
can't see a way to justify calling services substituting for software
unethical which wouldn't also justify calling all services to do something
you could do yourself unethical. However, I do think RMS is right that we
moxalt wrote:
In the same way that the issue with proprietary software is not
necessarily that it is directly abusing the user (in many cases it is
not) but a matter of principle.
Then this is where you differ with the free software movement.
Proprietary software mistreats each of its users
Games are for fun, so you don't need to care if they're SaaSS
I know that Games aren't exactly computing/work/tool. But still, cloud
gaming means depending on someone's else server for doing something that
you're perfectly capable of doing on your computer. It also means that you
never
No. That's a communication job, a joint activity. It's impossible to play a
multiplayer game with someone else using only software on your computer.
If the game was single-player, and the server only existed to provide the
game world... that still probably wouldn't be SaaSS, because in that
I agree. Seeing that paragraph in the original version of the article had me
somewhat confused as to how that qualified as SaaSS, and got me asking this
question here. I held, and still hold, the opinion that multiplayer gaming is
not SaaSS.
It's impossible to play a multiplayer game with
You clearly don't understand the distinction between SaaSS and connecting to
servers in general. Browsing the web is not SaaSS, but under your definition
('anything that involves connecting to a server you do not directly control')
it would be. The difference is that in the case of, say, Google
I believe he was probably referring to things like AdventureQuest, BattleDawn,
and the like- all multiplayer games, yet hosted entirely online.
Is playing Nexuiz online SaaSS? RMS seemed to think so here, in the original
version of Who Does That Server Really Serve?:
http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM
Interestingly enough, the passage where he mentions games is no longer in the
current updated version on the
It's not SaSS, like software repositories and webmail services aren't. It's
only SaSS when the server is running software you don't know with your data
that you could be running in your own machine, like wolfram alpha for
example.
Thanks for the info onpon4. I didn't knew this was already happening, or even
possible. This is exactly the nightmare that I have been seeing becoming true
over time. This, the tablets/toasters, and everything that has cloud in
their name is pure crap. Whether we are talking from a freedom,
If this is actually SaaSS then being under a free license isn't enough if
you're going to use the service anyway. You have to run it on a computer
under your control (both server and client). So the question isn't whether
SaaSS can be acceptable under a free license but whether using
Multiplayer games == SaaS?
Well this is new, sort of.
A SaaS game would be more like having the whole game on the server. So the
client only sends the input and receives the frames. Could Stallman actually
be referring to MMO games that have an important part of the game only in the
That actually has been done before; there was a system designed for this
called the OnLive. I don't think it ever really caught on.
It seems obvious to me that he simply changed his mind. He was probably
referring to exactly what it looks like in the original version. Like all
human beings, RMS is imperfect and makes mistakes.
With these games (especially the Quake 3 ones), there is a dedicated server
for the clients to connect to. If the client is under a free license, the
server software is probably free as well.
It doesn't. Multiplayer games aren't your own computing, but a shared
activity by multiple people.
Then we should ask Stallman what was he referring to with multiplayer games
before people picks the wrong idea.
moxalt wrote:
Interestingly enough, the passage where he mentions games is no
longer in the current updated version on the GNU website.
Did you ask him why the versions differ with respect to your point? If
so, what did he say in response?
I personally don't share his view. I don't think
Why are you making such a big stink about this? It is software running on
another server that you connect to and probably don't have any control of. If
you have a problem with that, you may as well disconnect from the internet.
But whether there is actually some grave threat or not is irrelevant. In the
same way that the issue with proprietary software is not necessarily that it is
directly abusing the user (in many cases it is not) but a matter of principle.
The issue at stake here is not what the operator could
I was trying to understand Stallman's position, but it seems he was just
mistaking. So there's no reason to ask him now.
That's exactly the question. I could be running Quake solely on my machine-
client and server. However, I am using someone else's server, and entrusting
them with that part of the game- acting as a hub of communication between all
instances of the game. Is this SaaSS? That is the question.
You're right. This change clearly reflect that change:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ko-diff.html
So it's pretty much solved now, the article is just outdated.
As well as things like AdventureQuest, which is an MMO hosted entirely in the
browser as a (*spits*) Flash game.
35 matches
Mail list logo
