hi,
why was steam removed from games?
bye, MH
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd | 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2013, 16:43:02 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd | 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
makes sense. problem is, the official steam download comes as .deb file and nothing else...
cheers, MH
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd | 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
-- Adam "Etam" Mizerski
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd> | 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Andreas
On Monday 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd>
| 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Then someone (official) from openSUSE needs to ask steam, too :) Has someone made contact yet?
Nico
On 14.01.2013 11:57, Nico Kruber wrote:
On Monday 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd>
| 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Then someone (official) from openSUSE needs to ask steam, too :) Has someone made contact yet?
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Greetings, Stephan
Am 14.01.2013 12:37, schrieb Stephan Kulow:
On 14.01.2013 11:57, Nico Kruber wrote:
On Monday 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd>
| 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Then someone (official) from openSUSE needs to ask steam, too :) Has someone made contact yet?
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Greetings, Stephan
and who would that be... it's kind of hard to find out with the package being gone.
cheers, MH
On 2013-01-14 12:44, Mathias Homann wrote:
Am 14.01.2013 12:37, schrieb Stephan Kulow:
On 14.01.2013 11:57, Nico Kruber wrote:
On Monday 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote: > hi, > > > why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd>
| 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Then someone (official) from openSUSE needs to ask steam, too :) Has someone made contact yet?
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Greetings, Stephan
and who would that be... it's kind of hard to find out with the package being gone.
cheers, MH
I have a feeling it might already be allowed, as the link exists on developer.valvesoftware.com see: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_under_Linux#openSUSE_.2F_SUSE
To be sure it's of course best to ask first/again.
Regards,
Joop.
On 2013-01-14 12:44, Mathias Homann wrote:
Am 14.01.2013 12:37, schrieb Stephan Kulow:
On 14.01.2013 11:57, Nico Kruber wrote:
On Monday 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:37:59 Adam Mizerski wrote:
W dniu 07.01.2013 16:43, Jan Engelhardt pisze:
On Monday 2013-01-07 16:41, Mathias Homann wrote: > hi, > > > why was steam removed from games?
-------- r7 | adrianSuSE | 2013-01-07 12:56:52 | 212718ec887c351ef4ea775b2a518afd>
| 1.0.0.18 |
License violation, please clarify first if this can be distributed at all with the legal team
Look at this: https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/288716059060629504 Maybe we can have steam on obs back?
That was a permission for Fedora only,
Then someone (official) from openSUSE needs to ask steam, too :) Has someone made contact yet?
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Greetings, Stephan
and who would that be... it's kind of hard to find out with the package being gone.
cheers, MH
Via rpm -qa --changelog steam, if you have steam installed, you can see who is in the steam.changes file.
I have a feeling it might already be allowed, as the link exists on developer.valvesoftware.com see: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_under_Linux#openSUSE_.2F_SUSE
To be sure it's of course best to ask first/again.
Regards,
Joop.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Stephan Kulow coolo@suse.de wrote:
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Hi, coolo,
Just for a double-check, because I have many such packages required by my Chinese community users.
1. You words indicated that, openSUSE indeed never _just_ reject packages because it's non-free, but reject packages that is packaged without informing the upstream and getting a distribution permission.
Note: I didn't talk about potential patent violating packages(ffmpeg, MPlayer and etc), I was talking about non-free packages that want to be distributed with openSUSE but don't know how, which might be commercial (eg: browser plugin for banks or online payment services) or owned by a single person (eg: yong input method, which is an Chinese ime developed and owned by a forum user) or other similar cases.
so if I got permission from parties like Oracle, I can package JDK for openSUSE and distribute it, there's no barriers from our side, is it true?
2. If that's the case, does it mean that I can _just_ package and submit to Factory Non-free repository directly without noticing anyone, or just noticing our license diggers to give it a pass?
Is there any standard procedure for this? like:
1. Do I have to receive a written permission or oral permission?
2. If it's a written permission, what terms/keywords should it contain? eg: "I, (XXX), the owner of XXX, agree marguerite to distribute my software XXX with openSUSE" or just "I received your email, just go ahead please."
3. If the permission is issued to another single person, eg, me, the one who ask, what if I leave the community? should the package get dropped or we just take it as it was? or change a way of asking, can I stand for openSUSE to ask that distribution permission?
Thanks in advance
Marguerite
On 14.01.2013 13:06, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Stephan Kulow coolo@suse.de wrote:
There are no officials in openSUSE, the maintainer of the openSUSE package would need to ask steam.
Hi, coolo,
Just for a double-check, because I have many such packages required by my Chinese community users.
- You words indicated that, openSUSE indeed never _just_ reject
packages because it's non-free, but reject packages that is packaged without informing the upstream and getting a distribution permission.
There are two things to seperate here: the openSUSE distribution and the OBS instance of opensuse.org. The openSUSE distribution includes non-OSI software if e.g. the license of it allows distribution without further regulations. This usually means we either have a perfectly clear license or a perfectly clear contract with the vendor of the software.
Now the OBS instance of opensuse.org allows only OSI software unless it's in the openSUSE distribution's non-OSI part - which by all practical means locks down further development of it ;)
Note: I didn't talk about potential patent violating packages(ffmpeg, MPlayer and etc), I was talking about non-free packages that want to be distributed with openSUSE but don't know how, which might be commercial (eg: browser plugin for banks or online payment services) or owned by a single person (eg: yong input method, which is an Chinese ime developed and owned by a forum user) or other similar cases.
so if I got permission from parties like Oracle, I can package JDK for openSUSE and distribute it, there's no barriers from our side, is it true?
Good luck negotiating with Oracle, but yes - that's the rule.
- If that's the case, does it mean that I can _just_ package and
submit to Factory Non-free repository directly without noticing anyone, or just noticing our license diggers to give it a pass?
Is there any standard procedure for this? like:
- Do I have to receive a written permission or oral permission?
It for sure needs to be something that can be verified. But we have tons of cases in our packages, where an email from the author to clarify the license was enough for passing legal review. This won't happen with Oracle, we won't believe emails "From: Larry" to be legit.
- If it's a written permission, what terms/keywords should it
contain? eg: "I, (XXX), the owner of XXX, agree marguerite to distribute my software XXX with openSUSE" or just "I received your email, just go ahead please."
I'm not a lawyer.
- If the permission is issued to another single person, eg, me, the
one who ask, what if I leave the community? should the package get dropped or we just take it as it was? or change a way of asking, can I stand for openSUSE to ask that distribution permission?
You of course need to have an allowance for the whole openSUSE community, otherwise we would put ourselves in your hand and in all respect to you - that won't happen.
Greetings, Stephan
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Stephan Kulow coolo@suse.de wrote:
Now the OBS instance of opensuse.org allows only OSI software unless it's in the openSUSE distribution's non-OSI part - which by all practical means locks down further development of it ;)
So because packages are not allowed to exist on OBS unless it's part of our distro, if I want to package a non-oss package on OBS for openSUSE:
1. get the "verifiable" distribution permission for openSUSE distribution on behalf of me as a single person.
2. show the evidence to OBS managers, and get their permission that the package can be "part of openSUSE" and can use Factory non-oss for hosting here on the mailing list.
3. start packaging on OBS and push.
right?
Thanks
Marguerite
On 14.01.2013 14:24, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Stephan Kulow coolo@suse.de wrote:
Now the OBS instance of opensuse.org allows only OSI software unless it's in the openSUSE distribution's non-OSI part - which by all practical means locks down further development of it ;)
So because packages are not allowed to exist on OBS unless it's part of our distro, if I want to package a non-oss package on OBS for openSUSE:
- get the "verifiable" distribution permission for openSUSE
distribution on behalf of me as a single person.
- show the evidence to OBS managers, and get their permission that
the package can be "part of openSUSE" and can use Factory non-oss for hosting here on the mailing list.
- start packaging on OBS and push.
right?
Sounds about right, and yes it's complicated on purpose.
Greetings, Stephan
On Jan 14, 13 13:48:34 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Is there any standard procedure for this? like:
- Do I have to receive a written permission or oral permission?
It for sure needs to be something that can be verified. But we have tons of cases in our packages, where an email from the author to clarify the license was enough for passing legal review. This won't happen with Oracle, we won't believe emails "From: Larry" to be legit.
- If it's a written permission, what terms/keywords should it
contain? eg: "I, (XXX), the owner of XXX, agree marguerite to distribute my software XXX with openSUSE" or just "I received your email, just go ahead please."
I'm not a lawyer.
A good approach (imho) is to head for a well known and public license, *especially* if upstream folks do not come up with a license themselves.
"Hello Upstream. We at openSUSE would like to include your package XXX under License YYY in our next distribution. Is that okay with you?"
Which license to suggest, is mostly guesswork. I'd try MIT, CC-BY-3.0, GPL-2.0+, CC-SA-3.0 not necessarily in that order. If many dependencies are under the same license, then suggest this one.
I'm not a layer either, but that is what I successfully did a several times in the past. CC-ing the legal team.
cheers, JW-
Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@opensuse.org писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:41:18 +0300:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
bye, MH
As I know steam is shipped as binary only. Does OBS policy allow building such packages?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 06:46:23PM +0300, Dmitriy Perlow wrote:
Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@opensuse.org писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:41:18 +0300:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
bye, MH
As I know steam is shipped as binary only. Does OBS policy allow building such packages?
The question is if Valve allows a redistribution of their binary or not. In later case, it has to be done like openSUSE:Factory fetchmsttfonts, which downloads things after installation and have all files marked as %ghost enabling the rpm -e.
Regards Michal Vyskocil
-- Dmitriy DA(P).DarkneSS Perlow / Linux x64 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013, 13:53:19 schrieb Michal Vyskocil:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 06:46:23PM +0300, Dmitriy Perlow wrote:
Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@opensuse.org писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:41:18 +0300:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
bye, MH
As I know steam is shipped as binary only. Does OBS policy allow building such packages?
The question is if Valve allows a redistribution of their binary or not. In later case, it has to be done like openSUSE:Factory fetchmsttfonts, which downloads things after installation and have all files marked as %ghost enabling the rpm -e.
since it needs to be available during build time, it is more like some binary only package in openSUSE:Factory:NonFree.
It can be hosted there, but the legal questions has to be clarified first.
On 08.01.2013 14:10, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013, 13:53:19 schrieb Michal Vyskocil:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 06:46:23PM +0300, Dmitriy Perlow wrote:
Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@opensuse.org писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:41:18 +0300:
hi,
why was steam removed from games?
bye, MH
As I know steam is shipped as binary only. Does OBS policy allow building such packages?
The question is if Valve allows a redistribution of their binary or not. In later case, it has to be done like openSUSE:Factory fetchmsttfonts, which downloads things after installation and have all files marked as %ghost enabling the rpm -e.
since it needs to be available during build time, it is more like some binary only package in openSUSE:Factory:NonFree.
It can be hosted there, but the legal questions has to be clarified first.
To make this more explicit: openSUSE:Factory:NonFree is for software that is not open source, but *perfectly* legit to distribute (for openSUSE.org and its mirrors worldwide).
Greetings, Stephan
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
cu Ludwig
On Monday 2013-01-14 14:21, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
That's probably so that $HOME/steam can update itself without requiring root. Not that that is a justification for the uglyness..
Am 14.01.2013 14:59, schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
On Monday 2013-01-14 14:21, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
That's probably so that $HOME/steam can update itself without requiring root. Not that that is a justification for the uglyness..
but still, having a rpm package would make it possible to initially pull the correct dependencies, which would make linux / openSUSE friendlier to use for the casual gamer.
cheers, MH
On Monday 2013-01-14 15:13, Mathias Homann wrote:
Am 14.01.2013 14:59, schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
On Monday 2013-01-14 14:21, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
That's probably so that $HOME/steam can update itself without requiring root. Not that that is a justification for the uglyness..
but still, having a rpm package would make it possible to initially pull the correct dependencies, which would make linux / openSUSE friendlier to use for the casual gamer.
That's irrelevant because steam ships its own libraries anyway. The distro integration is ZERO. Valve providing RPMs (or any distro packages) is a fallacy.
On 14 January 2013 13:21, Ludwig Nussel ludwig.nussel@suse.de wrote:
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
This thread (http://steamcommunity.com/app/221410/discussions/0/846939854324291029/) could be of interest to this technical discussion.
Also from the legal point of view, there was an article on Phoronix about it http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIyOTI
Matt
W dniu 14.01.2013 15:15, Matt Williams pisze:
On 14 January 2013 13:21, Ludwig Nussel ludwig.nussel@suse.de wrote:
Mathias Homann wrote:
why was steam removed from games?
hijacking the thread a bit... Has anyone actually looked at the package from a technical point of view? Even if we got permissions to distribute this I'd still consider it very ugly and hardly acceptable. /usr/bin/steam is just a shell script that extracts the tarball that contains the actual binary to your home and then runs the binary from there.
This thread (http://steamcommunity.com/app/221410/discussions/0/846939854324291029/) could be of interest to this technical discussion.
Also from the legal point of view, there was an article on Phoronix about it http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIyOTI
Matt
You may also be interested in this: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/94
-- Adam "Etam" Mizerski
buildservice@lists.opensuse.org
-
Adam Mizerski -
Adrian Schröter -
Andreas Jaeger -
Dmitriy Perlow -
Jan Engelhardt -
Joop Boonen -
Juergen Weigert -
Ludwig Nussel -
Marguerite Su -
Mathias Homann -
Matt Williams -
Michal Vyskocil -
Nico Kruber -
Stephan Kulow