Why no Steam, Notch? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#31

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #23

bugsy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right that GPL is draconian and limits freedom. But I am not sure your point because you didn't state it. You have a drive by post where you post some cryptic excerpt that seems unrelated to the topic with no commentary. Are you a posting bot, or are you a person with a point? Speak clearly. Explain yourself. If the intent is to be critical of notch, I can't see any fault in his saying he hopes to release source…

I agree with everything you said, except for the following: release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http:…

> In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries.

I've heard this in the past. Functionally, what's the issue with this? The person who placed it into the public domain seems unlikely to sue in a country that doesn't recognize the public domain status.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#32

Post by georgemcbay » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 6:58 PM UTC

Valve: Xbox 360 is too closed for Steam [1]

Notch: Steam is too closed for Minecraft [2]

Minecraft is coming to Xbox 360 [3]

Head Asplode!

[1] http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/25/valve-ms-needs-to-be-comfort...

[2] http://notch.tumblr.com/post/9550850116/why-no-steam-notch

[3] http://www.ifc.com/news/2011/06/e3-2011-minecraft-kinect-xbo...

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#33

Post by wmobit » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 6:59 PM UTC

psykotic wrote: post #27

wmobit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying the GPL is draconian and limits freedom is like saying the 13th amendment limits freedom since it takes away your right to own slaves.

That rhetorical stance you take is particularly irksome when someone is talking about giving away their own code. He isn't whining that library X isn't under the GPL/LGPL. He's saying that'd he'd rather just give away his code entirely with no legal strings attached whatsoever.

Such is impossible under current copyright law

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#34

Post by sid0 » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 6:59 PM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #32

Valve: Xbox 360 is too closed for Steam [1] Notch: Steam is too closed for Minecraft [2] Minecraft is coming to Xbox 360 [3] Head Asplode! [1] http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/25/valve-ms-needs-to-be-comfort... [2] http://notch.tumblr.com/post/9550850116/why-no-steam-notch [3] http://www.ifc.com/news/2011/06/e3-2011-minecraft-kinect-xbo...

AFAIK a very restricted version of Minecraft is coming to the 360.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#35

Post by seanalltogether » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 6:59 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #31

dkersten wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said, except for the following: release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http:…

> In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. I've heard this in the past. Functionally, what's the issue with this? The person who placed it into the public domain seems unlikely to sue in a country that doesn't recognize the public domain status.

Maybe it's possible that some entity within that country could pick up the code, slap their own copyright on it, and claim to now own the code? Probably a long stretch but maybe that's the case.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#36

Post by georgemcbay » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 7:05 PM UTC

sid0 wrote: post #34

georgemcbay wrote: post #32

Valve: Xbox 360 is too closed for Steam [1] Notch: Steam is too closed for Minecraft [2] Minecraft is coming to Xbox 360 [3] Head Asplode! [1] http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/25/valve-ms-needs-to-be-comfort... [2] http://notch.tumblr.com/post/9550850116/why-no-steam-notch [3] http://www.ifc.com/news/2011/06/e3-2011-minecraft-kinect-xbo...

AFAIK a very restricted version of Minecraft is coming to the 360.

That's true, but then I'm not sure why a less restricted Minecraft on Steam on the PC is a problem... I'd actually buy it then.

I do very little PC gaming these days, 100% of it via titles bought on Steam -- people can argue about the DRM issues with it all day long, but the cloud features of it that allow me to access my game library from whichever of my computers I am currently logged into is huge as is the centralized updating, etc. I realize I'm hardly representative of the entire PC gaming world (since I'm barely a PC gamer anymore), but if it isn't on Steam it doesn't really exist for me and I'd love to pay for and play a slightly dumbed down Minecraft.. looks like I'll have to do that on the 360 instead of on the PC.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#37

Post by bryanh » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 7:06 PM UTC

I can understand Notch's position here, because really, the only thing Steam can provide Majong with is... eyeballs and distribution? Some sort of community? I don't know, but I don't think Minecraft needs any help with those.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#38

Post by psykotic » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 7:11 PM UTC

wmobit wrote: post #33

psykotic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rhetorical stance you take is particularly irksome when someone is talking about giving away their own code. He isn't whining that library X isn't under the GPL/LGPL. He's saying that'd he'd rather just give away his code entirely with no legal strings attached whatsoever.

Such is impossible under current copyright law

Could you be more precise? Are you repeating the "it's impossible to voluntarily place a work in the public domain" canard? There are well-established precedents in the US and Europe for authors waiving copyright. See djb's FAQ: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html. If you are really paranoid and want a wordy license written in legalese to the same effect, you could use CC0. There's a detailed FAQ here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ. There's also the Unlicense patterned on SQLite's public domain declaration: http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense.

In short, if you agree with the philosophical and practical advantages of releasing your code into the public domain, there is no excuse not do so under the guise of legal FUD.

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#39

Post by jroes » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 7:13 PM UTC

Is there some crevice here that can be made into a startup? A digital distribution platform for indie game devs who want more freedom with what they are selling?

Re: Why no Steam, Notch?

#40

Post by nuclear_eclipse » Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 7:20 PM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #30

dkersten wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said, except for the following: release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http:…

Re: people in countries without public domain... is that a real actual problem that actually impacts people? I mean, suppose a user in Nopublicdomainistan uses some software that is released in the public domain... clearly the author is never going to come after them for a copyright violation, even if their local government doesn't recognize public domain as a concept, so what is the actual real world problem they fa…

I think it's seen more as a problem for a) software with multiple contributors, and b) corporations that want to use open-source software. When there's no legally-recognized guarantee of rights to users of the software, you have to implicitly trust that the original creator will not change their mind and sue you later. In cases with multiple contributors, it adds that many more unknown entities with the ability to litigate. By releasing the software under a permissive license such as MIT or BSD, or even CC0, the legal wording is there to help guarantee your rights to use the software in the face of lawsuits.