What do you think of Steam coming to Gnu/Linux.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
In my own opinion i hate the idea of Value trying to trick us into giving up our own freedom up. And why does some people don't care? Value is targeting on those type of people, and they don't same to care. Also, they like having freedom, but they give it away to have things that same like a good idea to them.
I just down get those type of people do you.
I believe rms is right (like always).
In my own opinion i hate the idea of Value trying to trick us into giving up
our own freedom up. And why does some people don't care? Value is targeting
on those type of people, and they don't same to care. Also, they like having
freedom, but they give it away to have things that same like a good idea to
them.
I just down get those type of people do you.
I am a member!
I'm not sure I'd agree RMS is always right...
but I'd bet he is probably right about this (I'm sure you didn't mean that exactly though!).
There is a lot of unnecessary dependence here with valve. GNU/Linux in general though has a lot of that really. It works though because it ultimately comes together.
Even if/when one distribution disappears the software is available. Not so much with valve. It'll only work so long as valve is into the GNU/Linux market.
Developing and distributing proprietary software is unethical. The developer keeps people divided, subjugated, and helpless. Having Steam on GNU/Linux makes attractive bait in Valve's latest attempt to convince more people to give up control over the technology in their lives.
In exchange for Steam people receive software that is proprietary and doesn't allow them to study or modify it, that requires people to agree to be subjugated by Valve and to never share or help their friends, and that is Defective By Design.
I hope that, as Valve's attack on human freedom moves forward, people will recognize this as the poor deal that it is and refuse it. For their freedom's sake.
My Opinion ? Okay then if you ask me so gently :D
1 - More people will come to Gnu/Linux since the "only problem was the games not available [under Gnu/Linux]" so more people comming and not understading the free-software "idea" more people using their voices to tell the developpers that (and sorry for this example but for me it's the best one) "HEY you developper from the PRIME for nVidia Ion that licensed the software under GPLv2 ! Don't do that or nVidia will not release their wonderful driver that works so well for my [proprietary] games with my Ion"... And believe me I've already seen some harder critics (to not say insults) about this subject by those kind of people on the Phoronix forums (but that another problem :D).
2 - It will kill hardly and at once all of those people living only from free software gaming on Gnu/Linux (as well as those entreprises with those little games under Gnu/Linux even if it is not Free Software).
So in conclusion. In the short term it is a good thing. In the long term it is an horrible thing because they will force Ubuntu to change (some changes are good like the Intel's performance over the Intel GPU drivers and some are bad like more support for non-free stuff on the distros in order to support Steam, like Ubuntu now shipping with the nVidia and Ati proprietary GPU drivers) and other distros will do the same in order to be side-by-side with the [money] evolution which will be bad for everyone (except for those that just wanted a Free (like in Free beer) Windows with a Penguin.
I am a member!
It isn't necessarily to our advantage or those moving to GNU/Linux advantage if with it they bring non-free software. It gives the other side (corporations, etc) the advantage in subjugating users. RMS made a good point about this. I want more users to use free software as anybody here. However we need to be concerned that those making the decisions understand that the users will not tolerate being enslaved. As it is we haven't done a good job of teaching users the value of free software.
Developing and distributing proprietary software is unethical. The developer
keeps people divided, subjugated, and helpless. Having Steam on GNU/Linux
makes attractive bait in Valve's latest attempt to convince more people to
give up control over the technology in their lives.
In exchange for Steam people receive software that is proprietary and doesn't
allow them to study or modify it, that requires people to agree to be
subjugated by Valve and to never share or help their friends, and that is
Defective By Design.
I hope that, as Vavle's attack on human freedom moves forward, people will
recognize this as the poor deal that it is and refuse it. For their freedom's
sake.
My Opinion ? Okay then if you ask me so gently :D
1 - More people will come to Gnu/Linux since the "only problem was the games
not available [under Gnu/Linux]" so more people comming and not understading
the free-software "idea" more people using their voices to tell the
developpers that (and sorry for this example but for me it's the best one)
"HEY you developper from the PRIME for nVidia Ion that licensed the software
under GPLv2 ! Don't do that or nVidia will not release their wonderful driver
that works so well for my [proprietary] games with my Ion"... And believe me
I've already seen some harder critics (to not say insults) about this subject
by those kind of people on the Phoronix forums (but that another problem :D).
2 - It will kill hardly and at once all of those people living only from free
software gaming on Gnu/Linux (as well as those entreprises with those little
games under Gnu/Linux even if it is not Free Software).
So in conclusion. In the short term it is a good thing. In the long term it
is an horrible thing because they will force Ubuntu to change (some changes
are good like the Intel's performance over the Intel GPU drivers and some are
bad like more support for non-free stuff on the distros in order to support
Steam, like Ubuntu now shipping with the nVidia and Ati proprietary GPU
drivers) and other distros will do the same in order to be side-by-side with
the [money] evolution which will be bad for everyone (except for those that
just wanted a Free (like in Free beer) Windows with a Penguin.
I am a member!
I'd rather not see GNU/Linux turn into another Mac os MS Windows clone. Be it in the proprietary sense or the experience. Unfortunately most users don't understand the values of those behind the software they use. Then they promote the proprietary developers because they'll get some cool new toy to play with completely unaware of the damage they have caused to the platform they love.
A little bit like everything nowadays unfortunately. But it is truth that this is what will happen in a near futur. And to understand why we just need to go to the streets and ask people if they use Gnu/Linux, their answer will be normally "No. Because I don't like it / (or) / No. Because I can't do the same things as Windows or Mac". And I've even heard things like this : "WHAT ?! How can you use Linux ?! It is sooooo old stuff !"... So yes, this is a cultural, and intelectual problem that need to be solved.
But it as turned into fanatism (a little bit like those that knock at our dors at 11am asking if we want to hear about the lord jesus) which makes the work way more complicated.
I code and do my work on a GNU/Linux machine. When I play games, its on a console like the Wii or Xbox 360. The TV I play them on has proprietary firmware and if I plug in a USB drive, it only plays non-free MP4 and MP3 formats. If I want that drive recognized, it has to be in FAT/FAT32 or NTFS and doesn't support EXT4.
Do I refuse to use the devices for my games or to watch TV because I don't have their source code? No. I'm not trying to code for it and just glad it works as it should. I'm simply consuming entertainment.
Here, here. My thoughts exactly. When I play a game, be it on gnu/linux
or my wii, I'm not putting much thought into whether I could examine the
code. MInd you I play smc mostly, which is open source, but zelda
twilight princess most certainly isn't. It's a game. I play it. End of
story.
On 01/27/2013 09:21 PM, name at domain wrote:
> I code and do my work on a GNU/Linux machine. When I play games, its
> on a console like the Wii or Xbox 360. The TV I play them on has
> proprietary firmware and if I plug in a USB drive, it only plays
> non-free MP4 and MP3 formats. If I want that drive recognized, it has
> to be in FAT/FAT32 or NTFS and doesn't support EXT4.
>
> Do I refuse to use the devices for my games or to watch TV because I
> don't have their source code? No. I'm not trying to code for it and
> just glad it works as it should. I'm simply consuming entertainment.
I am a member!
Mp3 is not a proprietary format and there are free software libraries/programs to play mp3s.
"Many organizations have claimed ownership of patents related to MP3 decoding or encoding. These claims have led to a number of legal threats and actions from a variety of sources, resulting in uncertainty about which patents must be licensed in order to create MP3 products without committing patent infringement in countries that allow software patents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues
OGG Vorbis was created to solve this problem.
I personally also use a lot of proprietary work (mostly on video game consoles since I am a retro-gamer collectioner). And I will not say no, but I just use them because I love it and because we no alternative. It is complicated to make the big jump from a day to another. Some are working harder than others for that to happen. When it started to be possible to jump in the "totally free distritution" boat I jumped as well and never came back. When it will be possible to jump in the "video game console totally free" boat then I will do the same, etc.. etc...
The current situation with a lot of these games is that companies are licensing an engine and that engine is proprietary. Companies like Epic Games do make a good chunk of change on their games, but they make more licensing their Unreal engine to various developers and publishers. They wouldn't release the source code for their engine becuase it is their big money maker and keeps the lights on. It is their main business model, unethical or not.
In an ideal world, the game engines themselves would be free software and the only thing that wouldn't be open obviously is the game artwork. This is also one of those situations where companies could get confused with the GPL and how it works. If the engine were GPL and a company included their trademarked artwork in the completed game, then only the source code would have to be made available and not the artwork. It would still be considered a free software game in the code alone even if the artwork and names are trademarked.
Since this is drawing similarities with Mozilla Firefox and how you can only use the code if their trademarks and artwork is removed, then wouldn't a game engine benefit from being under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 instead of the GPL? Would the game engine be GPL and when the completed game is released, it goes under the MPL 2.0 umbrella? Or would all the code start from being under the MPL 2.0 license?
Of course if it was under a permissive license like Apache or BSD, the engine could still be free software but then they wouldn't be forced to give back code or release the source code for the game. They could make the game free software or proprietary and the choice is up to them.
Well, you've got the idea, but remember that artwork and other game data (e.g. levels) is copyrighted, not trademarked. Ideally, the game engine would be free (and probably available gratis, too, since there's little point in charging for it), and the game data would be contained in separate files which are nonfree and sold (quite possibly bundled with the free engine, for convenience).
As onpon4 wrote, the copyright law and the trademark law are completely different. The GNU GPL is a software copyright license.
The artwork is not "linked" to the GPL code and can bear whatever license, i.e., the GPL is not mandatory for it. Warsow is a famous example: the code is GPLed but the artwork cannot even be freely shared... what is bad! Yes, artwork needs not be free but I believe one should at least be free to non-commercially distribute it.
Here is an interesting reference about rms' opinion on this specific issue.
I'm confused as to why people are describing Apache and BSD licenses as "permissive". Really think about what that's supposed to describe. I think the word "permissive" is the wrong word to use. It gives the wrong idea of what the license is for. The GPL is far more permissive than those licenses are.
You are right though, the game engine could be dual licensed. I think the biggest problems the surround game consoles is that they subjugate the user more than non-free software does by itself. Not only are you running non-free software on the system, but you're not permitted to make the system do anything else. You're also not permitted to develop anything for the system unless you pay a ransom. Pay the ransom and you're "permitted" to create a game. That's only half the problem because publishing is still an issue for you. Not to mention that if you're trying to make money it would make sense to be on all the console if you can afford it. Since many can't then you've got to gamble with one. This does split the user base and it gives the hardware makers a huge monopoly.
I used to be a huge fan of Nintendo. I still think they make some of the most brilliant games but that is a separate issue from software freedom. If I modify my Wii I could risk having it get ruined by an "update" from Nintendo. I also have no option to publish a game for it because the cost is so high. Not to mention that the tools needed to develop a competitive title are non-free. I own a huge collection of console games but have made the decision not to buy any more. I will occasionally buy a really really cheap($3-4) used game, but that doesn't support the companies producing these games.
Looking forward things are only getting worse as companies are trying to do away with physical media and even limit how physical media can be used. I don't doubt at all that Sony would limit a disc to work in just a couple of consoles and otherwise render it useless.
I understand the differences but I don't think that makes it "permissive". Using "permissive" to describe a license that lets people restrict your freedom by releasing a non-free version of a program is a bit misleading I think. I think it would be better to call it a non-copyleft free software license. It more accurately states what the license is.
I am not a native English speaker but the first definition of "permissive" in Dictionary.com perfectly matches licenses such as the BSD:
tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.
In our case, the something is "turning the application proprietary" and others (copylefted licenses such as the GPL) forbids it.
The word "permissive" definitely has positive connotations, though. If something is described as permissive, it's usually taken to be a good thing. If someone didn't know much about licensing, and they heard that the BSD license is "permissive," and the GPL is not, they might conclude (erroneously) that the BSD license is superior. That's something that we don't want to have happen.
I really don't think "permissive" has either a positive or a negative connotation. It's a relinquishment of control, and that can be a good or bad thing depending on the circumstances. Regardless of copyleft licenses such as the GPL being a good thing, they don't relinquish control and are certainly not permissive; they give the right to use, modify, and redistribute under certain conditions. The copyright holder still has some control; that's how the code is prevented from becoming nonfree.
I really don't think we need to sugar-coat our language like that. Copyleft licenses are not all that permissive (they're selective of what you are permanently allowed to do), but some of them are still free (I say "some of them" because a noncommercial license like CC BY-NC-SA is nonfree).
Valve is a company; their business is making money, Have You ever wonder? Why suddenly they are friendly to GNU?
The answer is a simple one: Greed and Money!
I won’t trust them!
For me they are Wolves dress in sheep skin!
Even the Bible talks about it on the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:10) starts "For the love of money is the root of all evil.
We all love games, but to compromise to them, are too much of a carnal sin.
WHY ARE THE FORUMS DOUBLE POSTING? HAS ANYONE bother to take a look at it?
I have an idea.
Some time ago someone did develop a complete GNU/LINUX Trisquel gamer, since that time, there, has been lots of new w gnu games develop and technology has change. Why not develop our own? or better yet, revamp the old one? and make it competitive and at the same time in keeping the faith of "Libre" Games?
I personalty hate Valve, I experience that you buy ONE OF their game CD, then you have to download the whole game on line, yet they manipulate the game graphics and many other things. Yes, you bought the license but not the game. Example: Total war! for that I got tired of their manipulation and end it deleting totally. Do you think they will keep it clean and honest? Hell no, they won't!
Again, I say no to them.
I am a member!
Was it including games outside the core repository? If it was wouldn't it be better to focus on getting those games into Debian and/or Ubuntu? That would trickle down to Trisquel.
I have an idea.
Some time ago someone did develop a complete GNU/LINUX Trisquel gamer, since
that time, there, has been lots of new w gnu games develop and technology has
change. Why not develop our own? or better yet, revamp the old one? and make
it competitive and at the same time in keeping the faith of "Libre" Games?
I personalty hate Valve, I experience that you buy ONE OF their game CD, then
you have to download the whole game on line, yet they manipulate the game
graphics and many other things. Yes, you bought the license but not the game.
Example: Total war! for that I got tired of their manipulation and end it
deleting totally. Do you think they will keep it clean and honest? Hell no,
they won't!
Again, I say no to them.
What do you think about Desurium, the GPLv3 version of Desura? I found a PPA which supports Trisquel 6.0 and above:
We should be pushing for software, in all its forms, to be free so that we have control over our computing and not someone else. Think of it as a form of social solidarity.
jxself is basically saying having access to the source code makes sure the author is playing nice even though the user of the software doesn't own any ownership of it. The user can contribute code back and the owner can give them attribution if they choose. The owner of the software can choose any license he or she wants whenever he or she wants, delete it entirely from the internet, or disappear off the face of the earth.
The hope with GPL code is that the code can be forked and stay under a GPL licence if for some reason the base source code disapears or goes proprietary. A recent example is the GPL licensed MySQL fork MariaDB which functions identical to the GPL licended MySQL community edition. If MySQL were to ever go proprietary, MariaDB will live on.
With companies like Blizzard and Ubisoft already putting backdoors in their programs, including rootkits and making up excuses to track users, I think the need for free games has become even more important... mainly because hypothetical abuses of power have now become a reality.
If you want to do some reading:
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/30/1214206/ubisoft-uplay-drm-found-to-include-a-rootkit
I am a member!
We need some dedicated people to work on fund raising. Unfortunately we don't have the funds to pay them! I guess if they are worth there salt they'd come up with those funds and more though. Maybe just a part time job though or person who could do work for a combination of different projects.
I'd love to see a fund raising effort to support:
1. Trisquel
2. A flash replacement
3. Freedom friendly entertainment to replace netflix and similar
3a. Actual production of shows/movies
4. High quality games
None of this means that there can't be a business model behind it either. In fact I think developing one is a good idea particularly if it was constrained to the general ideals of the hacker community.
We have a good base with Trisquel 6.0 :)
1 ) It works wonderfully. My Intel IGP rocks and runs ever better than my old laptop with an NV8200, even with the propietary blob from nvidia that crappy card is slower.
2 ) Flash is dead and HTML5 with video tag, JS, Canvas and WebGL will replace it.
3 ) Miro is wonderful .
4) Kdenlive, Blender, Cinelerra, and the future video editor from the VLC guys are pretty powerful.
5 ) I do not mind if I play games with a free engine but with propietary data, like Scummvm, Sauerbraten, Doom, Quake... If the Unreal 436 engine had a free implementation, it would be awesome.
Data is not considered software so I am safe, I think. Playing those games is like playing a commercial DVD on VLC.
I totally agree with you on these ideas Chris. I do wonder why the flash things hasn't been resolved considering that it is a high-priority fsf project...
Rather than writing a flash compatible solution why doesn't someone design and write a replacement that has all of the features that flash offers(other than DRM)? Maybe if that existed people would begin using it on sites instead of flash.
That already exists: it's called Javascript. With the HTML 5 specification, most important things Flash was historically used for can be done in Javascript. The problem is Flash's long historical use means it will probably still be common for a while, and if a website depends on Flash, you can't use it without Flash.
I thought there were some browser compatibility problems with HTML5, namely Internet Explorer. If that's the case that would easily keep sites from using it. Although that is an area that changes rapidly and I haven't been good about keeping up with the changes.
My one huge concern regarding flash is that adobe can change things and just break compatibility. As everyone knows it's a ton of work just to get caught up with their latest release of flash. It would be a huge waste of resources to try and keep up with all of the adobe changes if they were doing it just to try and ruin compatibility with a free software alternative. If flash were an open standard then it would make a bit more sense.
My bits: F**k Steam service & living in virtual reality pushed by "fake" achievements screwing up with your brain's reward-circuitry. This whole gamification trend is sad from my point of view. Saying this I also have to honestly admit that just thanks to gaming I learned English way easier than what would be the result of sole school's class attendance. Half-Life was amazing until I realized that shooting & doing harm does not bring me ethical joy. I've never regretted the day I "close" account with some 13+ legal (by current society and business norm) launchers on it. Enjoy & FYI. (=
PS: And if anyone feels like he / she has to desperately shoot figures to get relaxed, then I gladly recommend Xonotic community, they build on DarkPlaces engine. =P
_______________________________________________________________________________
YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE ENTIRE FOLLOWING LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE PROGRAM. THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS IMPORTANT TERMS THAT AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. BY INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL THIS SOFTWARE PROGRAM.
The software application(s) (the “Program”) is the copyrighted work of Valve Corporation (“Valve”) or its suppliers. All rights reserved, except as expressly stated herein. The Program is provided solely for installation by end users according to the terms of this License Agreement, except as provided below regarding permitted redistributions. All use of the Program is governed by the terms of the Steam subscriber agreement located at www.steampowered.com/agreement (the “Steam Agreement”), as such terms may be updated from time to time, which terms are incorporated into this License Agreement by this reference. Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Program not in accordance with the terms of the License Agreement and the Steam Agreement is expressly prohibited. LICENSE AGREEMENT
1. Grant of Licenses.
A. Personal Use Limited Installation License. Valve hereby grants, and by installing the Program you thereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license and right to install one (1) copy of the Program on each of your computers solely for your personal use.
B. Limited Redistribution License. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license to reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the Program; provided that the following conditions are met:
1. you must distribute the Program in its entirety;
2. you may not modify the Program, except that, in the case of the Linux version of the Program, you may modify scripts and other documentary and graphical files, but not any files containing the term “bootstrap” in the file name, provided that you do not modify any icons, change any copyright or other notices, or alter this or any other license agreement that is included with the Program, and provided further that any modifications you make are identified by you as modifications from the original Program provided by Valve;
3. you may repackage the Program and distribute it with another software program, provided that you do not integrate the Program in any way with that other software program, or combine the Program with that other software program in a manner that would require you to distribute the Program under any open source or other license terms different from these terms. 4. you may not charge any separate fee or receive any compensation attributable to the Program;
5. you must include this License Agreement provided with the Program and ensure that it will display and be required to be accepted by the end user in the same manner as is required by the Program in the form received by you; and
6. you must preserve in all copies of the Program all copyright and legal notices that are attached to the copy of the Program received by you.
C. Restrictions/Reservation of Rights. Except as expressly set forth elsewhere in this License Agreement, you may not, in whole or in part: copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the
Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program. You may not package the Program with, or pre-install the Program on, any hardware, without obtaining a separate license from us. The Program is licensed to you as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer. You may not sell, grant a security interest in, rent, lease or license the Program to others without the prior written consent of Valve. The Program is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Program or copies thereof.
2. Ownership. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and “applets” incorporated into the Program) are owned by Valve or its licensors. The Program is protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international copyright treaties and conventions and other laws. All rights are reserved. The Program contains certain licensed materials and Valve’s licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.
3. Termination. This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by destroying the Program. We may terminate your rights set forth in Section 1.B. of this License Agreement at any time upon notice to you. This License Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event that you fail to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein. In such event, you must immediately destroy the Program. The provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 5-7 will survive any termination of the Agreement.
4. Export Controls. The Program may not be re-exported, downloaded or otherwise exported into (or to a national or resident of) any country to which the U.S. has embargoed goods, or to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Commerce Department’s Table of Denial Orders. By installing the Program, you are agreeing to the foregoing and you are representing and warranting that you are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list.
5. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; NO GUARANTEES. DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY SET FORTH IN THE STEAM AGREEMENT, AND/OR ELSEWHERE IN THE STEAM AGREEMENT, APPLY TO YOUR USE OF THE PROGRAM. AS NOTED IN THE STEAM AGREEMENT, FOR EU CUSTOMERS, SUCH PROVISIONS DO NOT REDUCE YOUR MANDATORY CONSUMERS’ RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION.
6. Warranties/Indemnities Relating to Redistribution. If you choose to redistribute the Program, you represent and warrant that any modifications you make to the Program, if any, and your particular combination of the Program with any other software or hardware, do not infringe on any third-party intellectual property rights. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors, and its and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that arise from or in connection with your redistribution of the Program or your breach of this License Agreement. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter.
7. Miscellaneous. Provisions relating to applicable law and jurisdiction, and dispute resolution, set forth in the Steam Agreement shall apply to any disputes arising under this Agreement. This License Agreement and the Steam Agreement terms incorporated herein may be amended, altered or modified at any time by Valve in Valve’s sole discretion. In the event that any provision of this License Agreement shall be held by a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, such provision will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible and the remaining portions of this License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This License Agreement and the Steam Agreement constitute and contain the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede any prior oral or written agreements.
You hereby acknowledge that you have read and understand the foregoing License Agreement and agree that the action of installing the Program is an acknowledgment of your agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of the License Agreement contained herein, including the Steam Agreement.
I am a member!
>Half-Life was amazing until I realized that shooting & doing harm does not bring me ethical joy.
I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
Whatever you say.. since you have right for it, I'm against violence && pity I did not express myself more clearly.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires