April 6th, 2007
Game consoles are evil
Richard Stallman is the godfather of the Free Software Movement. He is also maddeningly hard core in his beliefs, to the point where I wonder if he would allow doctors to work on him if the machines they were using run anything but open source software.
The following is an excerpt from an interview given after a speech in Brussels:
Q: One final question. We're seeing more and more devices, and I'm thinking specifically of games consoles — I know that my kids have one in the house — where there is no —
Richard Stallman: I wouldn't. You have to learn how to say no to your kids.
Q: That's true, that's true, I wouldn't deny it. Now, there is no free software at all for devices like this [correction: Yellow Dog supports some console(s)].
Richard Stallman: That's why there is no possible ethical way you could use one, and so you shouldn't have it.
Q: All right, I think I'll take the kids out on the bike more often.
Richard Stallman: That would be much better for them.
Boy, would I like to be a fly on the wall were Stallman to have to explain to his own son that line of reasoning (I have no idea as to Stallman's family status):
Richard Stallman, Jr: Dad, why can't I have a Nintendo Wii for Christmas?
Richard Stallman: Well, son, because Nintendo won't let me customize the software which runs on the game console, which is an unethical restriction on my freedom. I could no more buy that console than sell myself into slavery.
Richard Stallman, Jr: Huh? I just want to play Nintendo Sports.
Richard Stallman: But you can't modify the game to add new events, and you can't change the runtime environment to enable new features in your Wii controller. So, it's wrong to want to do that.
Richard Stallman, Jr: But I don't want to add new events to Nintendo Sports. I just want to play the game.
Richard Stallman: Tough noogies. I am your father. Go play outside.
Okay, I don't think Stallman would say "tough noogies," but you get the point. This is the exasperating thing about Richard Stallman's point of view. It's worth fighting for transparency where it matters. I think it would be valuable for voting machines to have a certain amount of source code transparency. But game consoles?
The economics of game consoles dictate that the machine is sold at a loss so that money can be made from game licensing. An open model would mean those machines would be MUCH more expensive. And you think the PS3, at $600.00, is expensive. Imagine if they had to sell it at full cost.
Game consoles are like a restaurant. When I dine at an Italian restaurant, I don't buy the right to bring my own food and cook it in their kitchen. I buy food that they decide to sell to me. Similarly, when I buy a game console, though I own the hardware, I don't purchase the ability to modify it. This is what allows me to buy that hardware for less than cost.
It's a trade, in other words, and no more unethical than buying food from a restaurant.
That, at least, is how I see it. I don't expect the godfather of free software to agree.
John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.
| 04/06/07
