Dear Reader,

Remember the old days when you could buy software and they gave you a permanent copy of the files on a shrink-wrapped CD? It was primitive, but at least you knew what you were getting, and you could rest assured that your new purchase would remain in your cupboard until you or one of your heirs decided to throw it away. The new service-based Internet was sold to the public as a convenience, but under the surface, it made consumer decisions even more complicated and challenged our assumptions about what it even means to "buy" or "own."

Kindle readers have been complaining for years about books they thought they had purchased that, as it turned out, disappeared when they closed their account. "Read the fine print," Amazon would reply. You thought you were buying the book, but you were buying a license to read the book. Corporate lawyers have a way of making such things seem quite logical and obvious – as if the concept that you were actually buying a book from the world's largest bookseller was not just backward but was even slightly uncool.

A recent complaint comes from the gaming community. Gamers are weary of "purchasing" games that operate as some form of online service and then disappear whenever the vendor decides to end support. A grassroots organization called Stop Killing Games [1] has started a lobbying campaign to end the practice. Now a bill in the California Assembly, the Protect Our Games Act [2], has passed the appropriations committee and will come up for a vote by the full assembly. The bill would require vendors who sell access to games to either refund the money or provide an alternative way to play if they choose to discontinue support. As you can well imagine, the gaming industry is strongly opposed to this initiative; however, it seems to be making some headway in spite of the objections.

The Stop Killing Games website states [1], "Publishers are permanently destroying the video games you've paid for. An increasing number of games are sold as goods, but designed to be completely unplayable for everyone as soon as support ends. We are demanding legislation to end this practice."

I don't know if Stop Killing Games and their allies will ultimately be successful in their efforts, but I am encouraged that they are investing the energy to take a stand. Even though this situation is not about Free Software per se, it is an example of how the ideals of the Free Software movement have influenced the surrounding cultural landscape. This issue roughly mirrors problems like planned obsolescence and vendor lock-in that have long animated discussions of Free Software. An even wider social movement called Right to Repair [3], which has actually been playing quite well with many politicians, relies on a philosophy that Free Software advocates have championed since the 1980s.

People are wondering what will become of Free and Open Source Software in the new age of AI, service-based computing, and IBM's end run on the GPL [4]. I'm not sure I know the full answer, but I'd like to believe that the ideals of the Free Software movement have already expanded into the greater culture, empowering consumers to stand up for their rights in the face of sketchy corporate slight-of-hand.

Joe Casad, Editor in Chief