Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman vs. Jorrit Tyberghein
Catharsis writes: "Jorrit Tyberghein, leader of an excellent open-source, cross-platform 3d engine recently posted a dialog he engaged in with Richard Stallman, leader of the Free Software Movement over whether it was kosher to sign an NDA with Sony to write a PS2 API wrapper. Now, I'm no pro when it comes to Open Source vs. Free Software vs. open source, but this dialog left me feeling a bit unclean. I'd be interested to see how Slashdot users react to the conflicting views portrayed here. Jorrit's stance was that he wants his software to be available to the largest possible audience. Richard's response was that any (ANY) concessions to a non-Free mode of thought was a failure and a defeat." This gets down to the core differences between 'Open Source' and 'Free Software.' Worth the read.
This article brings to mind a pet peeve I've had -- people who advocate running only Free Software on PCs but are quite content to play with game consoles. The hypocrisy, of course, is that today's consoles ARE software platforms.
:), playing games on Windows is no worse than using an N64, yet I freqently hear comments like "Sorry, can't play [game] because it's proprietary non open source crap," followed by "Time for some Zelda action!" as if consoles are somehow different because they aren't PC-like to end users.
From an ethical standpoint (using RMS ethics
Of course, there is always the argument of price with consoles vs game PCs, but that's another barrel of worms...
That guy's gone completely senile. Yapping about "I don't do Open-source, I do free software" for 3 consecutive emails seems to me like enough nagging to warrant a good dose of ritalin (or a shovel on the forehead). We don't need religion, we need solidarity and dedication to what we envision as the ideal software model, something our old fart RMS seems to totally ignore in favor of his Jimmy Swaggart brainwashing. Somebody get some duct tape and shut him up please!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Ultimately, it is. I never have to give you money if I don't want to. It's not your money until I give it to you.
Sorry, that's life.
Go ahead and make your software with your monopolistic liscensing terms. You'll ultimately fail because someone (maybe me) will make a free (as in speech) version. Time to find a different way to make money than extorting it through the use of monopolistic liscenses.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The poster was pointing out that some licenses, like the first run of Apple's license on Darwin (which is basically all BSD code that they borrowed) allowed Apple to revoke your rights to use the software at any future point in time. In other words they could release it as "open source" and then later (when it was popular) say:
"Oops, it's not really open source anymore. Pay up or stop using Darwin."
RMS, Bruce Perens and others pointed out that such a license wasn't really "open source" and it certainly wasn't free software, and the license got changed.
ESR, and the Open Source boys, on the other hand, were willing to accept Apple's license.
I believe they should be compensated. I think the granting of a temporary monopoly has become the wrong way to do it.
I can't get over how people think that the granting of temporary monopolies is the only means by which ideas will come to fruition.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
umm... just one question...
:)
doesn't a negative nice value give processes MORE processor time?
Plus, that could be considered redemption of the wayward user, since his processes are all becoming nicer
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
If you violate the GPL, your license to the software terminates.
:)
Where do you get "license termination clauses are 100% non-free"?
Either you're pretty confused on the issue, or else I am.
No, you can't. If I rip apart a piece of software you wrote, and see a neat algorithm and decide to use it somewhere, I have to worry about whether or not you have a patent on it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Sorry, we'll create it and put you out of your stupid little petty monopolistic business right here at home.
Ideas are NOT property, no matter how many guns you point at me to try to make me think it is. And that is _exactly_ what copyright and patents are. They are guns pointed at me to try to make me agree that somehow some random idea happens to be yours, and that I 'stole' it because I have the same one.
If you had an idea and I managed to go to a different planet and use it, how could you ever tell? If you can't even tell you were harmed, how can you say you were?
Copyrights and patents do NOT enforce natural rights. They are only a societal convention we created to incent people to create more ideas. In my opinion, they are a societal convention that no longer works. Time for a new one.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I now have concluded that Richard Stallman is a bit gone. Basically, his 'freedoms' are as constricting to others as certain current licensing practices are now.
I really don't think one gets a full view of Mr. Stallman's opinions or methodology by reading this one link. His freedoms are not concerned with the needs of some developers. His freedoms are aligned with the freedom of users.
I develop a program, spending my time and energy so to do. I need to eat, drink, surf and play Quake - and to do so I need to pay my electricity and grocery bills. How do I then make any money to repay my time and effort to enable me to live?
Your so-called needs are not essential to this equation in the sense that user freedoms should be sacrificed in order for you to survive. There are organizational and financial models in existence which provide both incentive for programmers to program (i.e. they get funding in accordance with the service they provide) and users feel sufficiently incented to provide financial compensation to those providing the service (i.e. they send money).
Merely because Mr./Dr./Prof. Stallman and others feel that they can devote their time to developing free software doesn't mean that all should be forced to.He certainly has no interest in forcing you to do anything. He has made this decision for himself. He has explained why he considers this a moral imperative. He has asked you as a developer to join him in this morally based change in behavior. He has beseeched users to accept nothing less than freedom for themselves-- and to support developers who support those freedoms. He certainly does not seek to use coercion (other than perhaps market pressure) to obtain freedom. How simple a contradiction would that be?
As far as I can tell, his politics are merely the other extreme to Microsoft's and therefore just as suspect.
Mr. Stallman operates a charitable organization (the Free Software Foundation), which subsists on donations and gives the world Free software and works on issues relating to that. Microsoft is a corporation which seeks to enrich itself and therefore its shareholders as much as possible through whatever means available (and apparently their ethics are quite questionable-- Mr. Stallman's ethics are quite clear, he believes it ethical to support freedom and that there are more important goals than personal wealth). One group works actively to better the world (although some might say that Free software is no great boon, others of us like it in spite of it's shortcomings), the other group seeks only to make a maximum profit. While I might disagree with Mr. Stallman, I certainly think trying to paint him as "suspect" in the same way that Microsoft is (and they are the ones under Federal investigation, mind you), is patently unfair and shows little examination of the topic.
I do not have a signature
>>esr>>
Then why was the Open Source Definition even created? If they were meant or intended to be identical, then why didn't the Open Source folks just say that they would adopt any and all requirements of Free Software?
Well maybe it was because the Free Software definition ala RMS seems to be a volatile thing that changes by the mood of the Saint IGNUcius. Maybe they wanted to nail down the definition RMS seemed to advogate at certain time and keep it the same without allowing him to change it whenever he pleases.
Seems to me it bit them in the ass when RMS changed his mind again.
I was wondering if anyone has draw a parallel with what crystal space is doing with what the FSF did way back in it's early days (before the Linux) If I am not mistaken, did RMS use non-free dev tools and libraries in order to begin the FSF. Now I do believe that he felt it was wrong (back then) but he felt that the ends justified the means. This is similar to what the CS is doing now. Sure I am not, even for a second, believing that CS is trying to reach a moral high ground with this action but couldn't console development w/o big co. NDA's further the proliferation of free (speech) software. This is of course assuming that {Sony,Sega,Nintendo} doesn't just crush CS (or anybody trying to circumvent their dev. license). Not as simple as one would hope but it does make you think, right?
I don't think they were either. They were added in reaction to APSL 1.0. While this is not `inconsistent', it does constitute publishing requirements nobody knew about before.
>>esr>>
It's kinda like if someone asked me about programming an old Intel processor. They may all seem almost the same on the surface, but if you do some deep programming of a '286, thinking it was a '386, (or vice versa), you could end up with come serious problems once you broke out of compatability mode.
Similarly with OS vs FS. It doesn't make much difference on the surface, but when M$ tries to 'embrace and extend' your code, it can be really important to know which paradigm you were distributing your code inside of.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
He could say exactly the same things, and be better admired for it. He just never expends any energy in trying to communicate. A couple of responses into that article I wanted to smack him for his prissy 'you come to me' attitude. There's nothing wrong with the content of what he's saying, so there's no cause to talk in such a way as to give people cause to think he's a looney.
Someday we'll all be negroes
> API (Application Programming Interface) supposed to be public?
:-)
Interface does NOT imply PUBLIC access.
> If it is not public, then how is it called an Interface?
Logically, it's called a PRIVATE interface.
i.e.
let's say I have a driver for a video card. It has a front-end (OS interface) and a back-end (low-level register interface). I can sell the driver, and still kee the (low-level) interface private, right? *cough NVidia cough* Of course I can. Or I could expose the interface, and make you sign a NDA if you want to use it. *cough Sony cough*
Cheers
--
"Live Free or Die" ironically seen on the NH license plates.
If microsoft does it, and the FSF does it, why is only the FSF instance being contested?
It would seem wrong to ignore one over the other, it would seem the hypocrisy would be on the original posters end.
-- iCEBaLM
RMS is usually quite lucid. Remember, he is a strongly moral person, and feels that he is fighting an uphill battle. Most people do not have the moral fiber to fight for Freedom, nor the backbone to sacrifice convenience for their beliefs. If he sometimes seems a bit strident, it is perhaps because he feels he must shout to be heard. (I am being presumptuous, of course, ascribing motivations to another person. I present this as merely one *possible* explaination.)
Without moral certainty, the Free Software movement has nothing. The Open Source movement was created to deal with situational ethics-- "We can sacrifice our freedoms to convenience in some circumstances."
And then, there are those who are only along for the ride, "F1rst POsts" and all. Since they contribute nothing, morally or technically, they are nothing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Since it's expensive, only the most dedicated and the ones with the deepest pockets come forward.
There's less noise only because it's too damned expensive to play in that playground unless you're dead-serious about the games you're trying to produce. The PC games are a flop, not because of a lack of licensing, but due to a lack of good focus. (Any fool with some smattering of coding skills can come forward and try to make a game in the PC arena.)
Drawback of the console licensing? Simple, it's more homogenous than in the PC world. How many of the games on Nintendo are Dokey Kong 64 "clones"? How many of them are Zelda 64 clones? Etc. How many of those 30-40 are truly novel things- different from much of the first offerings on each of the console brands? Gauntlet Ledgends? That's an arcade re-make. Any of the racing games? Ditto. What's truly novel in that arena? Not a lot. Why is that? The novel stuff comes from those PC developers and from the Arcade game developers.
Which would I have? Both. The PC and the arcade stuff is an incubator for the novel gaming experiences. The console is the just-plug-it-in-and-make-it-go expression of these sorts of new and old experiences.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Ok, since neither of the high-rated responses to this have read any of the GNU philosophy section or even seem to understand that RMS means free as in speach not free as in beer, I'm going to say that I much prefer RMS brand of fanaticism. I may not agree with him on everything, but he does have a point. Several actually. One of which is that, in the legal system, what you call something matters.
-RickHunter
He visted china and they decided to make linux the national OS. Hmmm....
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
-earl
Something is proprietary if someone owns it and has legal authority to tell you what you may and may not do with it. All of the software of Stallman's Free Software Foundation is PROPRIETARY, for example. Just ask anyone who has gotten a letter from one of Stallman's lawyers. THEY learn what proprietary means in a hurry. I wish other people would too.
I often see "open" and "proprietary" used in the same sentence as opposites. Argh! (Nobody would doubt that a patented idea is both open and proprietary.) The opposite of "open" is "not open" or "non-open" or "closed". What's so hard about that? (But then there are those that want to apply a special, wierd meaning to "open" too.) I suspect the word "proprietary" is thrown in because of its value as a poison-pen bugaboo. It just sounds bad. These that really believe it (not those who, like Stallman, just pretend to believe it) release their software to the public domain. That's the only way to make software non-proprietary.
In what respect do you consider the universe to be "amoral". You may perceive the universe as amoral but then there are two (actually three) things, the universe, your perception of it and your concepts about what is and is not "moral".
The GPL guarantees freedom downstream, by restricting the ability to restrict it upstream.
As other posters mentioned, its the nature of their business model. They lose money (or maybe break even) on hardware, their profits all come from liscensing costs, so they need to keep tight control of access to their apis.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Can someone please explain what his motives are? He is espousing free, but non-open source software.
Well, he backs free software as defined by the freedoms listed at gnu.org - the freedom to run the program for any purpose, the freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs, the freedom to redistribute your changes to help your neighbor, the freedom to release your changes to the public.
Back in the day, Stallman was burned by a proprietary vendor that refused him the source code for their buggy driver. He could fix the driver, but was not allowed to do so by software writers. He found this infuriating. He bought a piece of hardware, but he was not allowed to improve it for his own use, or to help others improve it for their use. Imagine this in a car. You buy a car, and can fix some nasty bug in the car. Under non-free software analogies, the manufacturer would not allow you to fix the bug, would force you to sign an agreement that you would not even try to fix the bug, and would strictly prohibit you from fixing the car of your neighbor in the same way.
Stallman's views on software are not so different from most of our views on property. When I buy something, I want to be able to fix it (should I have the capability and need). I want to be able to share this knowledge with others, and even make it public. These freedoms are common with most properties, including houses and cars.
So under this setup, programmers and developers should perform complicated feats of software engineering (which things like Mac and Windows ARE, whether you like/use them or not), but then give it away for free. What are these programmers supposed to live on? Do they eat floppy disks and old toner cartridges? Sleep under their desks?
There are many programmers making lots of money writing free software. Some are paid by corporations to improve free software, like kernel hackers. Some are paid by distributions. Some are paid by GNU. Some of them provide support for their software. Just because your model of how software works is not supported by GNU philosophy is no reason to presume that no one could make a living doing it.
In a very real sense, software is support. You make it easy for someone to get some function out of their hardware. That has value.
Stallman seems to advocate a sort of software Marxism - "from each according to his ability, but to each according to his need".
This is the most FUD tactic thrown at Free Software. Calling Stallman a Marxist. Top Free Software hackers are highly sought after - and make a good living at it. If you want to install GNU/Linux, you can do it from floppies via Debian for free. You can pay for Debian's CD and install floppies and documentation - that is more service, and costs a little. You can buy a slick distribution with a wicked installed for yet more money. The cost is basically reflecting how easy the distribution has made it for you - basically, how much service you get with your software. GNU philosophy actually makes few statements about making money. As long as freedom is preserved, money is not so relevant.
Stallman urges people to preserve freedoms. He feels it is in the consumer's best interests, and would love to see consumers have more power, and software copyright to carry less. In a very real way software copyrights have completely perverted the copyright system. Now, software, protected by copyright, can actually forbid reverse engineering in the US using DMCA by proclaiming something to be copyright protection. Reverse engineering is only protected against by patents in the US - until now.
It is becoming time in the US for consumers to stop corporations from rewriting copyright laws to take more basic freedoms away from consumers. Without those freedoms, we are all lemmings headed to sea.
"Next time, try listening to what RMS has to say, not how he says it."
But how he says it is just as important as what he has to say, if not more so. No one wants to listen to an evangelical and arrogant man, no matter how important the message.
Ranessin
The /dev/random patch in the kernel. Neatest idea I've never seen.
reiserfs. It has some pretty new and interesting concepts in filesystem design.
My StreamModule system. Not at all a derivative of some non-free system.
Rogue, Nethack, Angband. Completely original in their time, and still leaps ahead in terms of gameplay than any commercial alternative.
emacs. It was originally free software. One of the first visual editors.
BIND. Sendmail, Apache is derived from the first (free) webserver. Netscape, derived from the first (free) web browser. Mosaic, the first web browser.
Eros, a totally new concept in how an OS should handle security and persistence.
Practically every new and innovative idea in CS came out as a piece of free software first before some company stole the idea from the public domain and tried to erect a fence around it using copyrights and patents to extort money.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Sorry, your software has very little in common with your car. Comparisons to physical objects are stupid and don't work for exactly the reasons you try to dismiss.
Come up with a better argument.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Some rights are reserved. Who is reserving those rights? The copyright owner. Thus it is Proprietary.
How we know is more important than what we know.
RMS wishes to deprive me of my right to sell my ideas in the manner I see fit. I dont want to make money supporting software I write, I want to make (a whole lot more) money selling that software. Bill doesnt seek to deprive me of any right whatsoever.
Shame on RMS for powerfully coercing you by deviously using the word 'please' when he should have gently lead you into the fold with hidden EULAs subject to change at his whim and an army of lawyers to back it up!
Similiarly, your right to copy and distribute my software doesnt exist.
Apparently, your fight is with the warez kiddiez rather than RMS. RMS has consistantly urged supporters of Free Software to never use non-Free software such as yours. He has also said (to paraphrase) that warez is not the answer to the problem of non-Free software. By all means, license it any way you like.
Write your own damn software if you cant abide by the terms of my creation.
Thank you, I will.
Yeah, but the fact that RMS says some licenses made by others are free does not change fact that the guidelines of their "freeness" are still set by him. Not everyone wants their freedom to be defined by RMS.
Since he's the one who did the writing, of course he did the defining. If I write something, I will do the defining. I might choose to define freedom as 'whatever RMS says is freedom', or I might choose another definition. I don't feel coerced in either direction.
The odds are, when you write that RMS is wrong, you will mean by your definition of wrong. By setting guidelines of what Freedom means to him, he is simply thinking for himself.
You have no obligation to give it to me. But once you do, I'm perfectly free to give it to someone else. You can't stop me without invoking the massive threat of force and violence of a large government. You can't even tell I've done it without invoking such an entity.
Now, in this country, we have a societal convention, encoded in a set of laws, that say I'm not supposed to do that unless my friend has paid you some money for your idea too. This convention was made long ago with the hope of encouraging people to come up with new ideas and tell others about them. I submit that there is a means of accomplishing the goal without the high cost associated with not letting people share information.
There is a very high cost associated with not letting people share ideas. That cost is the extra innefficiency introduced when not every can use the most efficient and best method of doing something because someone else 'owns' it. In the past, when sharing ideas was harder, this cost was not so noticeable, but now it's becoming more and more noticeable. It's time for something different.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
No, but to sell any game for the playstation 2 you would have to have Sony's license. Otherwise you wouldn't even be permitted to say the word "playstation" in your advertisement of the product. Plus there's the fact that Sony would totally bomb you to the public. "This is an unauthorized game. It does not meet the strict requirements of Sony's licensing procedures. It is crap." And if all else fails they can go in front of a judge and sue you for causing damage to their platform: Inspiring consumer rebelion to by unauthorized games weakens consumer satisfaction in their product (for example when the game crashes because it hasn't been properly tested).
How we know is more important than what we know.
No, instead he tries to convince users and developers that non-"free" software is "morally repugnant".
And you are trying to convince users that it is not.
As I said before, I have no problem with free software. I use free software, and I've also contributed to several projects. However, I think that stating that non-"free" software is immoral is at worst immoral itself, and at best exceedingly childish.
Careful! That could be construed as you trying to convince me of someone's immorality or childishness! Next thing you know, you will be saying 'please'.
It sounds nice, it reminds of the French Revolution (as RMS likes to point out when he gives lectures in France, the real ideals of the GNU project are "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" -Fraternite means brotherhood-), it's easy to understand in an English-speaking environment because "libre" has the same root as "liberty", it's not ambiguous.
The problem with "Open Source" is that it's just meaningless. For example, a commercial non-free software which is available with its source code to customers who bought it, but with conventionnal restrictive distribution terms, could easily be claimed by the marketing as being part of this category, even if it has nothing to do with the actual open source guidelines.
Note: I'm French, ie biased.
Hmm.. is that really how it would go down? Or would the judge be more inclined to think that Crystal Space was illicetly peddling a trade secret to second rate developers to undermine the Sony platform.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The key issue that makes the two mutually exclusive is the whole "And I have the right to give copies of it to anyone I want" clause of the GNU dogma.
If I spend $50 million developing some new program, according to RMS I get the opportunity to sell it to one person to recoup my costs. That's it, from then on it's free game to everybody on the planet.
Software doesn't have to be free to eliminate the proprietariness.
If you can't see that, it's you who is thinking sloppily.
obviously the "nice cheap" games are priced much higher than the cost of producing them
Hmm.. lets think.. a game costs $69.. the cost of development is what, $100,000 or more? Yes.. they are priced less than what it costs to make them.. that's why they are sold multiple times. Sony is essentially equivilent to a buying collective. They say, "ok.. we'll agree to market your game to all our customers - who have willfully purchased our restrictive game machine for precisely this reason - however, you cannot charge more for the game than our customers are willing to pay". And to ensure that developers can play only by their rules they use NDA's and trade secrets. If you don't like their system, don't join their collective, but lots of people do like their system. Isn't it their choice?
How we know is more important than what we know.
The point was never to stick to a certain set of freedoms as outlined in the white papers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that anyone be able to list all of the ways that software might be made non-free, and I don't think that either license termination clauses or change disclosure clauses fall outside of the reasonable range of things one might not be willing to tolerate.
I don't agree with everything RMS says and does, but it's pretty clear in this case that he was reacting to specific objectionable restrictions, and not mearly drawing a meaningless distinction between "free software" and "open source" for political reasons. I hope you see that as well.
If the Open Source Definition is so rigid that it can't be made to protect against new restrictions in its original spirit, I don't see it as being a useful definition.
Public domain and meaningful freedom are not necessarily the same. IMO, truly free software can never be made unfree -- that's what the GPL tries to do.
--
He doesn't have to have a monopoly.
He could sell you licensing rights to produce your own energy saving devices.
Besides, the monopoly would only exist for a short time, so yes eventually everybody would have free access to it. In the meantime the inventor get's to benefit from his work.
Why do you think people shouldn't be compensated for their work?
I Applaud those who do, but I also understand those who don't. My own dear mother makes her living writing text books. I think she's entitled to remuneration for her efforts.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
RMS consistently urges people to NOT use anything but Free Software. RMS asked the crystal developer to NOT port to PS2. RMS asks that you follow his example and contravene non GPL licenses. RMS does, in fact, _wish_ people such as myself went as far away from software as possible. If he didnt wish that, there would be no need for a GPL in the face of the already existent BSD license. You were saying?
I have nothing against the GPL but RMS and his free software political clap trap is a blight on software.
> Until such time you can provide proof there
> were no clause 3 violations go by the statement > and CONTIUNE to point out
Of course you will. Your cause is far to important to let such minor consideration such as "the burden of proof is on the procecution" matter. It is basically impossible to prove anyone innocent, which mean you will be able to continue your groundless accusations.
BTW: First, you *don't* lose your right under copyright if you don't defend them (you are confusing copyright law with trademark law), so UofC haven't lost any rights. However, they probably didn't have them in the first place, since clause 3 go beyond copyright law.
Right now, anyone wanting to program for the PS2 has to sign an NDA. If one person does this work for CrystalSpace, then noone need ever sign the NDA again. The NDA is dead in the water, finished, has ceased to be an issue. A small amount of pain and we are back in the realm of free software. Its not turtles all the way down, but are we ever going to get that?
Sony will find a dwindling number of people coding to the PS2 API (which I hear from folk who are coding for it, is a right pain in the arse). Instead they'll code for CrystalSpace; and if Sony tried to remove PS2 support those folk would not hurt as bad because their products will still sell on other platforms where an NDA was not required. Including their main rival-to-be, the X-Box.
'course this is an ideal. It doesnt work unless crystalspace abstracts everything you need - the WHOLE PS2 api.
-Baz
> Nothing about execution that I see.
Nor any violation, unless you can find some FSF advertizement for glibc mentioning features from or use of the BSD code.
Oh RMS is definately right, in his own mind that is. My freedoms are described in The Constitution of the United States, the country I am currently a citizen of.
I am already free, are you? According to RMS, we'll never be free until all software meets _his_ guidelines. Sure sounds like your friendly neighborhood dictator to me.
It's kinda like looking for Suzuki motorcycle parts at a Harley Davidson shop. It's not only pointless, but it annoys those in the shop.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Nice conspiracy.
Actually, if you read the phiosophy section of the GNU website, and then look at how RMS behaves in public, you'll see that it's painfully obvious that this "conspiracy" is true. RMS is a control freak and an egomaniac.
No, RMS wants us to have what was taken away. Freedom is the opposite of domination. Do I need to repeat that?
It sounds like you have a very simplistic view of the world. Freedom isn't an absolute. For every freedom someone has, there is a freedom someone has lost. In a "fair" system, it generally boils down to each individual has freedoms by sacrificing others.
For example. I don't have the freedom to go into your house and eat your food without your permission. But I don't mind this, because I also have the freedom from you coming into my house and eating my food without my permission.
Supposedly* RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to get the source code to, well, to any software that's available; people should be able to distribute the source, as well as any derivatives, (like compiled binaries) without even getting the permission of the original devloper. They can also modify this as well.
(* I say "supposedly", because many of his actions dealing with GCC and Emacs haven't been as "free" as they could have been...)
Those are the freedoms RMS wants us to have, but you have to realize that if we accept these freedoms, we have to give other freedoms away. For example, developers can't reasonably expect to be able to sell their software. The only people who can really make any profit off of software are the packagers, and the "value adders" (support sellers, T-shirt sellers, etc.). Is that a reasonable trade-off? Many of us don't think so.
I also think it's funny that you say "RMS wants us to have what was taken away". I assume you're talking about copyright here. In a "natural state", you can copy any data you want, but copyrights prohibit this. In that sense, you're partially correct.
However, RMS also wants developers to be prevented from releasing code without source. In that respect, he's taking away something that was there naturally. (Think about it: If I write a program, and release it without source, have I taken anything away from you? Nope.)
Personally, I think free software is great. But I think it should be the choice of the developer. Developers shouldn't be pressured into developing free software by being told that it's immoral. Having the source, and being able to distribute the code without having to pay royalties is merely a (very nice) feature. Software which doesn't have that feature isn't any more immoral than a text editor without a scripting language. Sure, I'd prefer a text editor with scripting support, but if I find a text editor that lacks this feature, I'm not going to accuse the developer of being immoral. That's infantile.
Likewise, I'd prefer a text editor that's "free software". That's a nice feature too. I'm not going to accuse the developers of "non-free" text editors of being immoral either. Their software simply lacks a feature that I desire. (For the record, I use VIM which is "free", and has scripting support - both features I desire.)
Have you even read the GNU Philosophy pages? There's at least half a dozen licenses listed as free software licenses, and I seriously doubt RMS wrote all of them. Also, IIRC, the Constitution does not define your freedoms. To the contrary, it tries to avoid defining anything as much as possible, because a precise definition greatly increases the likelyhood of abuse. If the constitution explicitly defined speach as X, Y, and Z, it can be argued that A, a form of expression that did not exist at the time, is not speach.
-RickHunter
This attitude of RMS honestly makes me want to vomit. Freedom does not come with a GNU label or with RMS's seal of approval. My advice to the game developer is to do what will benefit his customers, not what will appease some egomaniac with a cult following. Speaking to RMS on these issues is an obvious waste of time judging by these responses.
I wonder if RMS refuses to use all forms of non-free software, i.e. bank terminals, electronic watches, etc... That would be quite a hoot!
First, I don't think it was childish that he would not respond to the term Open Source. There has been a bitter feud between the two, and a lot of people (as he stated) thinks he supports the Open Source Movement. He supports the "Free Software Movement" where it may seem similar to you, he wants the world to know that it is not and that he disagrees with the other. The only way to accomplish that is that he has to act (as you say) "childish". It's not childish to me, just "loud".
One wonders how he reconciles this with writing a gcc that supports closed source operating systems.
Please read why not to use the LGPL. He talks about this. It is also in line with the answer he gave at the end of this story. "If it will hurt Sony (for being closed source) than it may be of some use".
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Yes, it's insanity to strive for a better world.
If you're not doing something for power or wealth than you're worthless as an individual. Did I say individual? I mean consumer.
The next time I take a shit, I'm expecting to be reimbursed for my lost and unproductive time that could have been used to make myeslf slightly richer.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
In the interests of both freedom and better software, I demand his source code.
That was a link a frame. The actual article is here.
-Rob Ewaschuk
"Something is proprietary if someone owns it and has legal authority to tell you what you may and may not do with it."
That also meets the criteria of closed. Closed means that you can't extend it, change it, etc. If they have control over what you can/can't do with a protocol, API, etc. they can change it out from underneath you, etc. It's CLOSED.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I don't have the link, but it was on slashdot
some time ago, how RMS was influenced by anarchist thinking. However, saying 'Marxism' is the right direction; it's as radical.
Someday we'll all be negroes
First off, RMS is RMS. Everyone in Open Source likes to refer to him as "the crazy uncle we keep in the basement."
It really doesn't matter what anyones personal opinion is of RMS; he simply "is", and he has a strong, unwavering belief in "Free Software". If you don't know that, you have never been to the fsf site or read any of his writings.
Really, if the developer had done *any* (five minutes?) of research on the difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software", about 1/2 of those emails never would have happened.
Clearly, there is NO WAY this person was going to get RMS to say "Yeah, distribute NDA protected binaries with Free Software you developed under my license. Thas' cool. Shit, sent me a copy."
Please. Amyone who has every read anything on the fsf site knows he would say "Dump the PS2".
This developer has benefited greatly from both closed and open source. Glide, DX, OpenGL, all published interfaces that allowed him to grow as a programmer. For the most part, it's people like RMS that gave us *some* freedom in computing.
Is it really so wrong to just say "the PS2 is lame because it uses undocumented, NDA protected APIs. Don't use it?"
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I would chide Jorrit a bit for not having read enough of RMS's writings to have known his answer ahead of time. He slapped the LGPL on his blood sweat and code without even doing an hour's worth of reading? Tsk... tsk.
That being said, I'd like to give Jorrit my written support. Stallman really turns me off when he adopts a holier than thou attitude when it comes to "free" vs "open" software. The whole issue contains way too many shades of gray to fit within his black and white depiction.
Let this be a lesson to all of you about to use the [L]GPL: It's extreme and it locks you into a philosophy just as surely as signing a deal with Microsoft. I'm not saying that it's wrong or evil. I'm just recommending that you read it carefully before you use it.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Maybe it's just me, but RMS seems as psycho as Bill Gates most of the time. He has the same basic philosophy as Microsoft (take over everything and make it fit with your agenda), and will accept nothing but complete and total compliance with what he feels is right. He has no concept of middle ground. Everything is not going to owned by MS and closed source, but everything will not be "Free" either. And everything shoudln't fall into either category.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
If that was Jorrit's question, shouldn't he ask a lawyer?
I don't know, but it would seem to me that to expect anything less than RMS's moral stand on something it pretty naive.
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
If any conessions to non-Free mode of thought is a failure and defeat then what is the purpose of LGPL?
m
Since when is solving a problem not a step forward? If a problem arised and was solved successfully, that, to me is a step forward, regardless of the application or method.
RMS - Free software involves the freedom to change a program
If you want to change the behaviour or applications of a program, you're going to have to at one point edit the source. If you have to edit the source, the source is going to be available. Namely, if you don't want to pay for it, it has to be free. Therefor, doesn't that mean in an ideal case free software = open source?
RMS - Would you be so kind as to forward this to the other developers of Crystal Space?
Read the sign on the door. It says "No Soliciting."
Philosophically, Open Source is a great idea. It is an attempt to solve the problems of greed and profiteering that have run rampant in the technological age. Yet, in a world that is driven by greed, some concessions may have to be made.
Pax Digitalia
Then this is where we disagree. I don't think it's necessarily that bad, particularly if you have similar beliefs to the evangelical, arrogant person. I try as much as possible to listen to the message and not the medium or the manner. (thanks Chomsky!)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Uhh.... I never answered for any community of software developers. I just interpreted and expounded on what I believe Richard Stallman's opinion is. This is based on reading a lot of rants he's written, having a few conversations with him, and reading this correspondence. Do I agree with him? Sometimes. And sometimes I disagree. But I never implied that the sentence you quoted was what I felt.
RMS doesn't view software in a moral and principal manner, or maybe he does and doesn't realize where he went wrong. The source for commercial software is available, you just have to be willing to reimburse it's owner for the value that the source has. RMS's doesn't know it, but his real problem isn't with "closed source", it's with pricing. In fact it can be said that RMS and the open source movement are waging an immoral economic war against those who wish to make a living producing software, all because RMS doesn't like the pricing structure of software. Make no mistake about it, free software competes unfarily with commercial products that reflect the price to produce it. This is an economic war of dumping, and is immoral. You see it can be just as easy to take an oposing view and the moral high ground from Mr. Stallman.
Let me just fix up your title a little here:
RMS Challenges Us All to Think in HIS Moral Terms
I think the reaction against him is somewhat related to his strong attitude on the issues. I don't agree with him, however I do find them interesting as well.
I don't think Sony are attempting to protect their revenues through by controlling the quality of the Developers. I think they're attempting to protect their software API so that it can't be reproduced for a competing console (MickeySofts XBox for isntance).
The more games available on PS2, the more consoles Sony will sell - we've seen it before with PS1 vs Sega Saturn (Saturn was IMHO a vastly superior machine to PS1) and Atari ST vs Commodore Amiga.
No, it's the actual API which Sony wish to protect. However, I can't imagine them being too happy with Sony PS2 titles being availble on other platforms. Many PS1 games are exclusive to that platform and Sony may wish to see a similar situation for PS2.
RMS is a moral man, and like any moral man he is in opposition to Ayn Rand. No "misunderstanding" necessary, Ayn Rand is not a moral authority. Quite the opposite.
And, no, RMS is not against making money. He just doesn't make it the ultimate goal, the final arbitrater between good and evil. Also in this he is in opposition to Ayn Rand.
It *is* possible to make money without preventing other people from sharing information. The far majority of the population of Earth does this.
Your examples are wrong:
The Coca-Cola formula is *not* secret, Coca-Cola remain #1 mainly because they control the distribution network, and partly because they can afford to spend more money on advertisement than any of their competitors.
Not knowing what is in a Big Rat is a pretty good reason not eat it (I promise you, whatever it is, it isn't healthy), but the best reason is that they taste bad.
I'm confused by what seems to me to be a glaring non-sequitur in this post.
You say a lot of fairly sensible things about judgement, about the way that moral convictions are articulated to moral theories; then you say that you hate post-structuralism. But what has post-structuralism got to do with it?
Post-structuralism might have some interesting things to say about the way that judgements connect moral convictions to moral theories; and it might suggest that if the connections were simple and self-evident there would be no work for judgement, as such, to do. Thus: moral theory x does not automatically commit one to moral stance y; it depends somewhat on how things work themselves out in situ. This is why one needs to judge constantly, rather than resorting to pre-judice.A possible criticism of RMS is that while his moral theory is consistent and his moral commitments are admirable, his judgements are sometimes inconsistent. A post-structuralist might say that it cannot be otherwise, and have some reservations about what seems to be RMS' assumption that the path from his theories to his commitments is a straight and narrow one: perhaps not everything that RMS urges and supports follows directly and incontrovertibly from his moral premisses, and perhaps it would be nice if he were able to recognise this. But this certainly doesn't amount to a denigration of commitment, or an indefinite suspension of judgement on the grounds that one can never get it right once and for all - it's the fact that one can never get it right once and for all that makes judgement necessary...
"Knowledge is the continuation of ignorance by other means"
Not only that, but to all those folks asking "how do you make money with free software", I'll note that because I was working at Cygnus at the time, some of that PS2 money went into my pocket! In fact, I've been paid to work on free software fulltime for almost 10 years now, and paid fairly well too.
Right now the numbers of people working fulltime on free software are small, but for instance at Apple the number used to be 2, and now, between GNU tools and BSD kernel work, the number is more like 25, plus we've got more positions open for people to work on free software. So things are changing, slowly, and in another 10 years many more of you will also be getting paid to work on free software.
While RMS isn't so good on tactics (and we've debated tactics a number of times, starting with when I introduced GCC at Apple while the FSF was boycotting them - was that boycott useless or what?), in the long run I think the strength of his philosophical position will be better appreciated. "Open source" really is a weak position vulnerable to co-opting, in fact many of the comments here show the process starting already.
(And yes, I know Apple does proprietary stuff, duh. "Tactics")
Choice is the very definition of freedom. To quote Webster's: "a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or arbitrary power." If noone else is controlling you and making decisions for you, I believe you have choice.
In a truly Free society, you are indeed allowed to own slaves, but the slaves are also allowed to sneak into your bedroom at night and axe you.
RMS is a zealot. That's his job. Jesus did not politely ask the money changers if they would mind leaving the temple, did not say "Maybe do unto others...", or "I think I'm the son of God."
The greater goal of Free Software must be at the very least clear to it's current guardian or it has no hope. (Look at what our obscured view of democracy hath wrought.)
I'm sure if the above bash artists did not actually type their slander on a machine powered by free software, they have programs on that machine that are heavily influenced by it.
I learned to program picking that software apart, much like I learned guitar from songbooks and tabs. Now imagine if noone ever published the "source code" for music. We always stand atop the shoulders of giants, and without free software non-institutionally trained programmers would have no prior art to learn from. (And who really gets a degree in programming nowadays?? OOh! I can learn fortran.... Instead of making $80,000 a year.)
Anyone who has ever held strong convictions on a subject must surely understand the position RMS must take. Looks like many Slashdot users cannot come up with more of a conviction than "Bill Gates sux." (And even then they think their rebels for using Netscape on Winblows....)
And on a final note, RMS never said don't do it, he simply said a) I would not do it, and b) It's not free software. From the author's comments it looked as though he knew both of these to be true and was looking for some approval from RMS to quiet his concience (Or at least "feel better" about it.). And with all of the links RMS was tossing out I'm suprised that he didn't resort to the old RTFM defense.
Personally, if I decided to bug RMS without reading his foundation's philosophy, history, and license, I'd feel dumber than a bean pole at Weight Watchers.
Train wrecks and famines I can understand, though I'm stumped about the Barry Manilow.
Pete
Sorry, but I DO understand the difference between Open Source and Free Software. It was just not the question that I wanted to ask so I was a bit sloppy in my terminology. Why couldn't he just accept this?
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. A society that is Free because it has no slavery, is not "free" by your definition because people aren't free to own slaves. A society that is politically Free is not "free" by your definition because people aren't free to politically surpress others.
Freedom always exists in context. We live in a society, and everything we do is strongly affected by those around us. The only way to ensure our freedom is to demand that the society actively protect our freedoms (and in turn, each of us individually protect each other's freedoms).
It is only in this way that support for freedom can make any sense. With your argument you rail against RMS for wanting you to use Free Software, all because you don't want to be condemned for using proprietary software. And yet, that proprietary software very clearly restricts what you can do. All RMS is saying is saying what he thinks you should do, but the proprietary software makers not only tell you what you should do, but what you must do (or not do), under threat of legal action. And RMS is the bad guy?
How does it help freedom to let a person sell themselves into slavery? How does it help freedom to impose voluntary censorship? How does it help freedom to accept proprietary software?
RMS views software in a moral and principled manner. This bothers you, because you don't do so, and you don't even want to be reminded of moral distinctions. If you had larger moral goals which proprietary software helped achieve, I could respect that -- even if I didn't agree with your goals, I would still respect you for having convictions. But I seriously doubt you -- or all the other free==choice advocates -- have any moral passion that drives you to be critical of those who do.
If you were a privacy advocate that developed encryption algorithms in the public domain so they could be used in proprietary programs, then it would make sense: you value privacy above the freedom of your code. If you were a misguided FBI programmer making closed email sniffing programs, at least I could see where you were coming from. And if you are someone who can only get a job developing closed software, then I can empathize. But why would you attack those who have chosen not to make compromises? If you learn RMS's convictions and say, "I cannot choose that path", that is a choice for you to make. But why do you fault RMS for expressing his convictions? Why do you fault him for defining what he thinks is right without compromise? Why do you fault him for making explicit the differences between his ideas, and the compromised and sanitized ideas of Open Source?
--
"I don't support the Open Source Movement, so I can't have a discussion with you in the name of open source."
And that is why RMS is irrelevant.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Said original poster may have asked for M$ to apologize...
It doesn't change how FSF is willing to violate a licnece if it suits them.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
What would people say if Microsoft adapted as fascist an attitude as RMS has? Picture this - you're only able to compile software under Windows, linking to MS libraries, if the software you create retains the MSPL. RMS has done some great things, but I really don't know why people pay so much attention to him. If he thinks the world is simply black and white, he needs to grow up.
-lx
Sorry if we don't all follow the RMS standard of terminology.
Ranessin
Do you know anyone who has an idea of what SONY's real motives are for this secrecy?
This is the crux of the entire argument regarding "free(dom)" of the project. Why, oh why, is it that Sony would not want someone to release Free code that runs on their platform?
Why?
Is it an argument for the almighty buck?
Is it a historical corporate paranoia?
Is it that their technology is so weak that simply seeing a bunch of API calls will allow competition to surpass them?
Oh good grief. Do you have any idea what the cost model for a console is? Here's a gross simplification:
Every PS/2 that Sony currently makes costs them around US$450 to manufacture. Go have a look and see how much a PS/2 sells for. Then factor in the development costs and do the numbers. Where do you think they make their money?
Answer: It's the software. Sony makes money on titles shipped, not on the actual console. Obviously it's in their interests to ensure that software sells as well as possible. To this end Sony decides who can develop and publish for their console.
Why? Quick history lesson. Back in the early 80's the Atari 2600 was king and those early game developers lived in a land flowing with milk and honey. Then the videogame bubble burst. One of the primary reasons attributed to this was the Z-grade standard of software available for the console. Any idiot with an assembler could throw together a so-called "game" and get it out on the shelves. Consumers got sick to death of buying crud and just stopped buying altogether.
Nintendo, Sega and Sony learned that particular lesson very well. If you make a console ensure it has QUALITY titles available or you *will* go broke. That's why Sony restricts access to PS/2 development information. If they don't they're killing the goose. Given the massive investment required to actually produce a console, I think their approach is justified.
I am considering getting a PS2. Now I am drastically having to reconsider. And I'm not joking.
Sony couldn't care less. Really. They market the PS/2 to teenagers interested in entertainment, not slashdotters with obscure conspiracy theories. It's their console, they've made the investment, they've built the market. If you want to develop for it then you have to play by their rules. If you don't want to then tough. There are plenty of people who do.
For all his lauded status, Stallman seems surprisingly ignorant. He has no idea what a console is and has never heard of the DirectX API. Given that console and DirectX targetted games sell more units - in total - than any desktop application or OS, I find this somewhat odd.
Frankly I think Jorrit was talking to the wrong person. Game development wouldn't even be remotely feasible in Stallman's universe. Indeed, I'm sure he'd deride it as unethical. After all, how can creating entertainment for the masses compare with writing software to do something actually useful?
Having said all that, I think Jorrit's intention to make Crystal Space available for the PS/2 is misguided. It benefits no-one but Sony and their authorised developers.
It does not provide developers with access to the PS/2 platform because Sony controls the PS/2 and decides which software will be published. If you're an authorised PS/2 developer you don't need Crystal Space (indeed there are probably very valid reasons for *not* wanting to use it).
If you do need Crystal Space (because you're on a tight budget) you're unlikely to be granted PS/2 development status. I think targetting Crystal Space at the PS/2 is a waste of time.
Cryptimus
I disagree. It's useful to ask him something if you want a well-thought out *moral* response to a problem.
Each of us needs to have a set of values to work from, and decide when it's appropriate to push these values. I choose to write Free Software during my evenings and weekends, and I choose to volunteer to the GNU project as a sysadmin because the work that they do supports my values. However, in order to pay the bills, I develop proprietary software that is covered by IP patents. I make a concious choice to do this, and it's important that I recognise that this is very much a choice issue. At my work, I have convinced my employers a number of times to support Free software instead of writing proprietary because it was a better business case.
I value the advice that RMS has given me in the past, even though I may have chosen not to follow it. It allows me an outside perspective on a problem, and frequently has led me to what I've felt is a clean compromise.
Can someone please explain what his motives are? He is espousing free, but non-open source software. Under this scheme, the ideal Stallman software is something like MS-Office, only given away for free. It seems that under his philosophy, open source but pay-for-it software would be bad.
What are you talking about? Have you read ANYTHING Stallman has said? Can you read? Stallman wants software that is totally unencumbered. Merely costing $0.00 does not meet his standard of Freedom, so your example of MS Office for free is idiotic, as it is totally incorrect to everything he has said for 15 years.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
this whole thing could be avoided if someone simply grabs a single-board pc platform with a ntsc output, puts "gnu/linux" (or just plain "linux", for those of us less ideologically pure), writes some nifty tv-screen-compatible menu system a la tivo, and loads crystal and a bunch of other linux games on there! viola! a "free" console, which can be run in menu-dumb-user mode or, by attaching a keyboard and a vga monitor, turn into a regular development system for editing and customizing?
You are close, but not quite correct to say that BG's unethical business practices are a form of coercion. The non-violent acts of any party isn't coercive. The problem is when the state enforces those acts with guns that coercion enters into the equation.
Let's give a concrete example. There are literally thousands and thousands of houses in the US with contract clauses that state that the buyer contracts to not sell the property to nonwhites. Several decades ago, such contract clauses were ruled non-enforceable and poof! the problem disappeared as a practical matter. Since it costs a good deal of money to formally remove the clause from the state paperwork, there are quite probably cases where black people are selling to other blacks with the contracts still formally intact.
As for accepting 'partial compliance' with what I think is right on issues I think of as vital, any libertarian does that every day. To do otherwise would require full time activism for any holder of the philosophy pretty much anywhere in the world. Most people, even consistent people, accept half a loaf on even vital issues for self-preservation.
DB
I found myself stumbling into the middle of the above quoted conversation on the crystal space mailing list, and must say I found it quite annoying. Mostly because it was dominating the mailing list with philosophical debates that seemed off topic, ie not to do with 3d engine development.
However, I think that there is a tendency within the Free Software movement to over-zealously guard some precious "sacred spirit" of free software, as though without vigilant guardians it will be lost to human apathy.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that I think this is necessarily a bad thing. I have a great deal of respect for people who are vigilant in fighting for the integrity of free software.
Let's be honest with ourselves about this whole thing shall we? Free Software is really a revolutionary thing, certainly on the scale at which we are seeing it grow and flourish. It is revolutionary in a number of ways.
Firstly because never before has such a large scale social movement ever existed - I mean one in which skilled craftsmen ( software engineers in this case ) have given away for free not only their work, but also their knowledge and skills. And not only giving it away for free, but offering support and aid to those who wish to learn this knowledge. And this is occuring not only as a few isolated incidents, but as a large and powerfully growing community.
Secondly when you put this movement into the social context of a society in which knowledge is becoming more and more the domain of corporate property, and where everything from the culture that nurtures and raises us to the basic components of our own biological structure can be bought and sold for corporate profit, such a movement is not only refreshing but a desperately needed sobering and balancing force.
Thirdly, it is a revolution in the sense that it really challenges traditional capitalist philosophy that people won't do anything ( or at least anything of value ) without monetary compensation. The failure of communism in eastern europe was often held to be proof in practice of this tenet of capitalist theology, and I think that what the free software community has already accomplished demonstrates that this isn't necessarily true, and gives us hope that perhaps there is a better way of organizing ourselves than through the allmighty Dollar.
So I think that this movement really is an important one. Not only important, but I think it really reflects a very mature attitude, especially when you contrast it with the immense background of corporate bickering and squabbling over copyrights, patents and trademarks. This kind of bickering really seems childish and immature, and I find a refreshingly sober attitude prevalent within the free software culture which really recognizes that "I am not my works", that giving away ones works, and one's skills and knowledge to those who want to learn and create doesn't diminish you in any way, and that there doesn't need to be any golem-like "ooh, my precious" fondling and greedily accounting for every byte of knowledge ever spat out of one's brain. ( or as is so often the case, the brains of one's cubicle slaves ) Or rather that if one is truly in one's works that this is the best way to become larger and spread. ( A la ghost in the shell? =)
Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here.
What I wanted to get at is that I think there is truly something wonderful to the free software philosophy, and I think that a lot of other people feel this way. I also think that the free software movement, despite its astounding growth over the last number of years, is still relatively young and fragile, and it would be very easy for a laid back attitude to destroy the whole thing. Therefore I think it is really important to have people who are not willing to let apathy, indifference and laziness ( one of the programmer's virtues afterall ) kill what really is our chance as a community to make a big impact on the world.
So I do want to say that I have a lot of respect for those who are willing to make themselves thorny and unpleasant in order to push the rest of us out of our apathy and hold us all to a higher standard.
However, I also think that demanding a "pure" dogma of nothing-less-than-totally-for-free-software is both ridiculous, and is itself against the very spirit of freedom that we're trying to expand here. I do not believe that someday all software will be free, nor do I believe that someday there will be a total lack of software companies and for-profit intellectual property organizations.
It is quite a paradox to say that you are going to enforce rules on freedom. Freedom is by definition the ability of individuals to operate within their personal responsability to themselves and others without needing to be chained to any strictures of behaviour. Freedom can't be enforced, it can't be mandated or policed, to do so is a paradox. It is just as paradoxical as it was for the communist states to try to put the common man in charge of the state via a totalitarian government. Not that I'm comparing anyone in the free software movement to communist dictators, I'm just drawing out the furthest example of such a paradox.
When it comes down to the heart of the free software movement, the objective is to put power back into the hands of the average person. In this case it is power in the sense of knowledge being power, and keeping the essential knowledge about the machines that are more and more running our lives ( or at least playing strong parts in them ) freely available to the common man. However you can't accomplish this task if you then want to turn around and police what the common man does with this knowledge, that detracts from the basic concept of the free use of this information.
To quote Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". ie if you sacrifice freedom for security, you essentially shoot yourself in the foot, and lose both.
Not only is it a conceptual paradox, but in actual practice you rob yourself of the security of greater freedom. A police state in the name of freedom is not only a conceptual paradox, but the actual state of security is less than one in which people are given greater freedom. A society of scared paranoid people is bound to be a lot less safe to live in than one in which people feel secure in their own liberty. Likewise the free software movement gains strength by allowing its resources to be used in any way at all - even for the pursuit of profit. It DOES NOT lose strength for this. It does lose strength if we begin to enforce rules of stricture on the use of the software, even if these rules are intended only to keep such softare free.
It's something of an act of faith one must make in human nature. We have to trust to the good faith of our own kind that by giving such freedom away the body of free software will continue to grow on the good intentions of individuals, and we will not see the gradual sapping away of all the code into private projects. This is how the free software movement has worked this far, and this is where it gets its amazing power. If, on the other hand we demand strict regulations on the use of free software that it can never be used for purposes other than purely free open ones, I'm fairly certain we will see the gradual loss of interest, the chasing away of new talent, and the project will lose much in the long run.
Naturally there is no assurance that one can have from trusting in human nature, you just have to make the leap of faith that people are well intentioned on the whole. So far I think this has been the real fuel behind the whole movement, and to risk that now would be more fatal than anything that programmer laziness could do.
What we really need is the courage to stand by our principles.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
And that was the person whem I quoted POV....he wanted to see the 'advertising' clause inforced. It didn't print the message :-(
/. post, the complaint is there was no display of "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." as per the license requirements.
Under the 4 point BSD licence version, to use the code you have to have the copywrite notice. In the quoted
Microsoft was in violation of this clause also...but by the argument you are offering up, if M$ does it, its OK for others to do the same?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Support The GNU Project!! http://www.gnu.org
So RMS ignores non-free software. Big deal. I'm completely out-of-touch with pop music. Does that mean I'm no longer a musician? I don't pay attention to the latest fashion trends. Does that mean I'm suddenly poorly-dressed?
Why should we pay that much attention to things like game consoles (unless we are gamers ourselves) or what Microsoft is doing? That's like saying, "Giavani is dressing everyone in scotch tape this year! Let's outdo him and use duct tape!"
We have a choice-- we can either copy everything we see (in which case it is important to know everything about the closed-source world), or we can do our own innovation. Yes, it's still important to know about the important ideas of the closed-source industry, but DirectX and game consoles are not important innovative ideas themselves. (DirectX is merely a marketting term used to describe a graphics API. And I'm sure RMS knows about graphics APIs, at least in concept.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Then this is where we disagree."
:-)
I guess so
Frankly, I don't like being preached to by anyone, even if I agree with their beliefs.
Ranessin
That works out great for the people who add custom tweaks to existing applications. It doesn't work well for someone planning on developing a new application from scratch. The people doing 1% of the work end up getting 99% of the payments.
If you were running a business and needed a change to Free Software, would you prefer to hire the original author, or someone willing to study the source? The more complex the app, the stronger the preference I imagine.
There's also the question of whether customizations are even useful to have "freed". Some of these will involve bug fixes and the addition of generic features, but a lot of customization work involves stuff that is of no use to anyone but the customer though.
Then it won't matter very much either way.
So you think all unsolved problems can be solved by adding tweaks to existing software projects?
Of course not, I never said any such thing. I DO believe that many if not MOST unsolved problems can benefit from existing code, even if that code amounts to a wrapper (user interface, basic functions like hashes, etc) for the interesting part.
He seems to think that anyone who doesn't yet appreciate the difference between "free software" and "open source" is mentally defective, when in fact it's an easy mistake to make.
He also seems painfully unaware of the world outside of the FSF. He doesn't know what a console is, for instance.
Then his opinion that nothing proprietary is worth supporting seems to be contradicted by the fact that much of his own software is available on proprietary systems.
Previously I've found much of RMS's writing to be fairly inspirational and convincing, but the more I hear from the man himself outside of prepared essays, the more I come to fear that he's a latter-day Don Quixote.
Too bad you didn't understand it until after you pressed "Submit". :-)
Regards, Tommy
Communism is about state ownership. Not no ownership. I'll shut up when you tell me which FSF web page advocates state ownership of software.
Basically, it's a world where freedom is(/isn't) enslavement. The freedoms are complete, but its the mindsets that are created, there is an autocrat, and the populace is "free", yet enslaved to do work.
Contrasted to now, where freedom is(/isn't) enslavement. Our freedoms are complete, but we're enslaved by being forced to make choices.
Freedom is enslavement, At least in most cases, because you're forced to make choices. You can't just communistically trust your government to do the right thing.
Anyways, it seems a bit hard to understand, and I can't explain it very clearly, but freedom is not clearly the opposite of enslavement (Which, I assume, is what you were meaning by domination; dominants tend to be free themselves.)
Slightly offtopic, but there's a point to be made somewhere in here.
-=Canar=-
But why is this so bad? Why do most folkes here want the software to be "free", and stop right there? If everything needs to be open for teh sake of openness, why doesn't anyone demand the drawings of the chips? Or the compound formula of the resistors inside the machine? Or the ink of the plastic cover?
"Well, that's ridiculous", I can hear you say.
OK, if so, then why should a corporation be denied the right to not open up their APIs and source code? Freedom works both ways. Just like you and I have the freedom to choose free software or use closed-source materials, a company should have the freedom to open up their source code. Or not...
If they don't, then you have the freedom to reverse engineer.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
This is not true, he also cares about technology, usefulness and utility.
The difference with other people is that he weights the impact that software has on the society.
And promotes the development of software in a way that benefits the society as a whole.
Support The GNU Project!! http://www.gnu.org
I'm not saying RMS is the person I'd want in charge. I'm saying he's a good, predictable, figurehead. Even the most zealous of free software fanatics can look up to him.
<I>Yeah, well, think "The Crusades".</I>
And this helps your argument how?
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
That's debatable. Many believe it's actually about RMS taking credit. His actions have often been more consistent with pumping up his ego than actually promoting "freedom". (For example, his "Han Solo" comment at Linux World in San Jose last year) And his doublespeak is rather disturbing as well.
Besides, pre-pending GNU onto Linux isn't necessary for people to learn about GNU. Anyone who uses Linux for more than a little while will eventually run into the dreaded paragraph in a man page:Once a person sees that, they'll realize what GNU is: an organization bent on forcing people to use the worst hypertext system ever devised by man(?).
And I thought *BSD had something very similar to readline? (At least, the ash Makefile under linux says something to this effect.) I'd hardly say that as of February 1999 (when that page was written) readline provided a "significant unique capability...not generally available elsewhere." It's propaganda like that that hurts the FSF in the eyes of nonpartisan observers.
I'm going to bitch about that stupid tag handling. I chose "Extrans", dammit!!
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
Incidentally, the reason Sony probably don't want the PS2 APIs to go public is that the they don't strictly exist; the native API is mainly a bunch of #defines for addresses of memory-mapped DMAs and suchlike. Nice!
You've turned the question around. You're asking if it is wrong to forbid people to develop for a platform. I don't like it, but I don't think it is wrong.
Is it right or wrong to go to great efforts to protect a free codebase in order to comply with Sony's business model even though you happen to be enhancing their market?
I personally think it is quite morally wrong.
Yes, I'm ignoring market forces, the network effect and percieved value... If you were to include those, the objectives will have changed from freedom to dominance... which in turn can compel corporations to see your point of view and ensure your survival... but it doesn't make it moral. RMS answered on grounds of morality... and I agree with him. If I were to ask on the grounds of business strategy I would have been very clear about it, and I probably wouldn't have asked RMS.
(And I'm not saying to boycott the PS2, simply to boycott developing for it... ditto for your microwave, and for other uncooperative hardware manufacturers.)
He doesn't speak for the whole corp. Today's major corporations are usually comprised of many independent units. Granted, Mr. Heckler is obvioulsy a loon and should be watched carefully, as I believe he represents a danger to himself and others.
I still just bought a Z505LS laptop. Bottom line: they rock. I also use a Roadrunner cable modem through Time-Warner Cable. Time-Warner itself sucks, but the cable system is ok, as cable systems go. Yes, I know they used to do all sorts of unfriendly stuff such as requre a login protocol with only Windows and Mac implementations provided. They are learning and improving tho. I still think that Time-Warner Media needs a solid *THWACK*.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
No... RMS is a moral figurehead. As such, he *must* have zero compromise. It isn't RMS's job to say "You shouldn't do that, but you can if you want to." That would be like the Pope saying "War is okay, sometimes."
Rather, as the moral figurehead of the free software movement, he must state strongly and simply that "You should not do that."
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
The Playstation 2 was created by the devil's own hand. It is evil.
You should not buy a Playstation 2, much less help to write software that runs on it.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Oops. I forgot we were talking of PS2, not Nintendo Entertainment System (or any console that would actually be profitable for the makers).
But that was the Idea. Just that the Implementation sucks. =)
If your not going to buy the PS2 then can I get yours? They are pretty hard to get now :-)
There is always scarifice when it comes to society. Everyone can preach on what is possible and what should be. But the fact of the matter is we live (or at least I) in a society that is powered by the exhange of money for goods. We can easily abandon this as soon as everyone is considered equal and everyone puts in the same effort. In other words never.
I finally realized the difference between what would be ideal and what really is when I came to my 3rd month in jail. I have since gave up on fighting a system from without and decided to fight from within. I have learned two things since then - You can only fight fire with fire and nobody listens to zealots
I seriouls doubt this will make any kind of impact but I never the less decided to give my two cents.
An ode to Freeness from the sultan of source!
--
I got that idea, too -- that Sony won't open it, but if we take away the need for their NDA, then they might.
I would say that it's okay in this case. It's like dropping a wrench in the machine in a totalitarian state -- you can't be totally free at the moment, but you can fuck up the totalitarianism a little. That's a morally justified choice.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
They don't build a completely free computer system. They write free software. Intel doesn't make you sign an NDA in order for you to learn what the X86 instructions are. This is a completely invalid analogy.
No, he's saying that some people "support open source over free software because they're fooled into thinking I support open source." Which I don't doubt is true.
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
After reading the article, I was amazed by how much RMS did not know. If he isn't aware of Microsoft's licensing strategies, how can he attack them effectively? It's difficult to wage a war _for_ something w/o also waging that war _against_ something, especially when you are fighting over ideals.
Maybe that's why Stallman never really appealed to me. Without focusing on what is really happening in the industry, you end up just spouting the same argument year after year. Your views don't evolve, and you basically come down to a "It's a rock because I say it's a rock" mentality.
Free software is what RMS describes as free software. It appears that if you ask for his opinion on whether something actually _is_ free, he can't really pin it down. He never once said, "Yes, the LGPL would apply to your case," "No, the LGPL will not apply to your case," or "Although the LGPL will apply to your case, I would suggest that you don't use it as that would corrupt the Free Software Movement's philosophy." It's his license. If he is so adamant about what is denoted as "Free," then he should do a bit more than say, "Well, what do you think?" It reminds me of George Bush's answer, "If Affirmative Action means quotas, then I'm against it." That's nice, but all that says is that you're against quotas. It's the answer with the minimal amount of information possible.
Of course, it also bothers me that Stallman wasn't familiar with the game console market...does he own a TV? Is he on the Internet? I also realize that this is a petty pet-peeve of mine, so save your angry retorts.
An El Haqq!
Sorry-- the perjorative "Commie" is used to describe socialists, not communists. The term arose during the cold war, and was used to label anyone who didn't subscribe to the ultra-right's ideals of "America, Right or Wrong!"
Stallman believes that the most good can come when we contrbute something lasting-- and the only way to contribute something lasting in the computer industry is to make it available to everyfuckingbody. Otherwise, your contribution dies when the copyright owner dies.
How many programs have just gone away? Remember WordStar? What would have happened if that code had been released after the company died? And WS is just one example of many.
"Sharing" is not a communistic ideal. It's not even anti-capitalist. It's just anti-greed. So RMS abhores greed. So what? Name one good aspect of greed.
Anyway, RMS is hardly a "commie." He might have communistic ideas, but remember, there has never been a true communistic government. True communism would give you something like the world described in the SF short story, "And Then There Were None." I forget the author.
Well, it would give us a world like that if people weren't so goddamned selfish and short sighted.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Please don't compare current issues regarding IP to theory that stretch back to the industrial revolution. The key point here is tangible and intangible goods and services. Besides, RMS is not forcing you to become part of his movement. He doesn't even want people like you. If he did he would of become ESR. Hey, did you know that Free Software requires freely avaiable source code too, duh! The Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition both require souce availabilty.
Anyways, when you buy a box of cereal, it is tangible, you can eat it. When you go to the hair salon, they cut your hair, and that is an intangible service. However, when you buy software which category does it fall into?
It doesn't fall into any. However, software is just a collection of bits and bytes, just as a book is a collection of words and spaces. Books and printed material and are covered under copyright law. So should software be covered under that same umbrella?
You are arguing yes, because in a free market, a person should be able to make money off you own work. You have your point, it is the 'easiest' wasy to make money. RMS is arguing no, because when you copyright a collection of bits and bytes, and you enforce the copyright to gather royalties and what may you, you are essentially depriving other to use the same order the bits and bytes in the same fashion. RMS has a point that goes beyond creating value and earning a living, that's why it is the GNU philosohy.
I can't say I agree with RMS, but he has a point. Software is pure virtual goods. A book is a semi-virtual good, since the main value of the product is its physical components combined with its virtual component (what they call IP).
Pure virtual goods didn't really exist 150 years ago. The world is changing. Virtual goods create expotential value to society. Every time someone makes a copy (for the small cost of the electricity and depriciation to your computer) of software, the value it provide is multiplied, while the cost is virtually unchanged. Physical goods have a linear model. You always have utility compared to the cost of producing the unit, and this margin stays almostconstant if units were produced in a meaningful number.
Right now IP laws are allowing software makers to sell software as a tangible, physical object. So books have been doing this for centuries, what new?
First thing is that books on paper have a significant physical component. The second thing is much more significant, the distinction between source and binary code.
Source and binary code is essentially the same, but humans would need to take an large amount of time to just understand a small amount of binary code. Source code normally allows for higher level parsing of the instructions issued to the computer.
We can use a modified version of the car analogy. A program that has it's source closed is a car that has its hood so tight you need to pry it open, and after that all the components are labeled in encrypted glyphs that only the dealer knows howto(and can legally) service. A program that includes source code is like a car that has a open hood, and has clearly labeled part and uses standard components that you can service anywhere.
Clearly, with books you don't need to compile any words or sentences. You have a piece of work written in a common language. Copyright can protect that. But software without source code is creating a black box. You cannot ever know what is going on inside it.
That's an abuse of the system. There is something called accountability. Businesses need to keep detailed accounts for tax and legal purposes. This may be big government intervention, but it is a neccessity since businesses have to operated on a fair playing field. We need to combat fraud and what have you. The free market isn't a perfect system, unlike some people would like you to believe.
RMS maybe on one extreme of the spectrum, but you have to see where he is coming from. Source code should be open and reviewed by all. That's one major difference between patents and copyrights. With patents, you need to describe the mechanism in detail, since the inner workings are not obvious. Copyright didn't have this problem since all the works at the time were written, and is open for review. Now copyright has been extended to include binaries. It was not meant for such a system, there is no review at all, you have no idea what the code you are running is actually doing, everything is virtual.
If insisting you have to distriute source can ensure our long term freedom, that's a noble goal worth pursuing for. When you factor in that maybe copyright should never have covered binary code at all, then you can get a better picture of why RMS is defendable, even if a little extreme.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Others, have less of a problem with companies using their free software. They find the LGPL useful (look at Ogg Vorbis, for example). By using the LGPL, he is encouraging companies to use it by linking to his library. This helps EVERYONE out because it reduces our dependency on mp3, and thus, Fraunhofer's licensing fees. And since Vorbis is LGPL'd, companies who start using it will contribute back to the project if they extend the library. This is a GOOD thing and will make it a better codec.
Stallman needs to get off his high horse once in awhile and realize that a little cooperation can be more beneficial than butting heads all the time.
Best regards,
SEAL
Given that the Open Source movement != Free software Movement, it's a shame the OSM has chosen to nail its testicles to the GPL (or LGPL, which is an improvement but not a perfect one) rather than create a licence that acknowledges that programmers are not working in a free software isolation...
Actually, it's worth noting that the Mozilla license accomplishes much of what the LGPL set out to do, and is much more clearly written. It may well not be stringent enough for RMS' standards, but it manages to strike a very nice balance, keeping the open-source software's sources available while making the relationship with the closed-source software clearer...
Justin
Who has spent way too much time reading licenses lately...
That is really misguided, at best. Fundamentally, if you make something free, you'll have a tough time making money off it. The problem with software as opposed to other things (say, vehicles) is that with software, the blueprints ARE the parts. So by getting the source, you have no need to buy anything.
Sure some software developers make money from open source. But they usually get money because the company they work for has them salaried.
COMPANIES, on the other hand, make little to no money from free software. They may sell support contracts (not very good business - check Redhat's recent stock price...). Or they can use the free software as a loss leader to other payware products. Microsoft wrote the book on this one. Cygnus was doing this to a degree as well.
Don't let Stallman's little world delude you into thinking that EVERYONE will get along with our nice free software world. It's not going to happen. I have no problem writing free software when I want to. I also have no problem working for my company which sells proprietary software. There is room for both.
As long as consumers find value in the proprietary software I write, they should buy it. If they find more value in alternative free software, then more power to them.
Best regards,
SEAL
Voluntary amortization (donations or shares) could still work...
... the reliable way to share the burden is to collect the money up front and hire somebody to do the work. If I need a class of software, my competitors probably need it too, and posession of software isn't a worthwhile competitive advantage unless I hire the best coders in the industry to design and maintain it--if we all start with a well-tested base and customize it, we'll usually all come out ahead.
I doubt that voluntary contributions would work. Take a look at Fairtunes. They've been operating for a few months and they've been able to collect less than $4000 USD, for all musicians. How long would that pay even one software developer? Most people won't pay for something if they don't have to. And I don't see why developers who provide useful contributions should have to beg for donations in any case.
What if we're talking about software that would have millions of users? Who's going to fund that?
My favorite points in the article were the ones where RMS was intentionally being obtuse. "What is this console to which you speak..."
--- http://foo.ca
I fear RMS will practice cultural genocide now, or maybe rape us in a figurative manner, or somehow try to invalidate our personal narratives. That's a dialog I just don't need.
--
So then ignore him. No-one's stopping you, not even RMS himself. He wants you to have freedom, including the freedom to ignore him if you so desire.
-RickHunter
yet Bush acts dumb He's not acting ;-)
Software patents delenda est.
It's embarrassing actually - I mean, it's sad to see brilliant people who are also closed minded on some issues...
--- http://foo.ca
For once he's quite lucid about the fact that what he believes and what others believe are equally important.
If you were asking for his advice, it's the least you could do. It's not hard to read about it on the GNU website and do a little background before emailing him.
/. would be about how RMS is butchering his own terminology! He doesn't speak for open source software, and so refused to. It's as simple as that. Jorrit didn't understand that, just like RMS didn't understand 'game consoles'.
If someone came up to you and was asking you advice, about a topic you're knowledgable on, but they're using terms you don't use, would you answer their questions? Or would you get clarification first? Should RMS talk about the Open Source Movement as though he represents it?
If RMS didn't get clarification on the terms, the next story on
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Basicly, it seems like RMS is saying 'dont run Free Software if the driver is closed source?' does that mean i have to stop using my nvidia card?
I always prefer to start the year off with a bang - or, to be more precise, a series of loud hums, a crackle or two, and
No, RMS only stands for zero compromise when it suits him.
Want proof of this?
LGPL.
Read it and then tell me RMS doesn't tolerate compromise. He certainly tolerates his own double-standards when it suits him...
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Sign the NDA. Learn all you can about it. Develop a clean-room solution, using none of Sony's code. release clean-room version under LGPL. Of course, Sony will still want to sic their laywers on you, but there's precedent supporting this is acceptable.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Richard Stallman vs. Jorrit Tyberghein
ONLY ON PAY PER VIEW!
A quote: "Nowadays, the free software philosophy is getting drowned out by the wishy-washy open source philosophy. There must be thousands of people who support the Open Source Movement because they think I do!
Read: People support open source over free software because they're fooled into thinking I support open source. No intelligent person could do so otherwise.
What was so funny?
I agree - it is absolutely vital for people to think in moral terms, in terms of what each and every decision they make means; what the reasons and consequences are that accompany each act; to understand their role in their environment.
However, I don't agree with much of RMS's convictions. I create, and I expect to benefit. No one has the right to take or benefit from my efforts, expressed as "intellectual property", without my permission and a proper exchange of value (in the world today, primarily money); this is called looting, and insults my ability to conceive and implement ideas. I don't work for insults.
nebulo
/*
It shouldn't be anybody else's responsibility to help make your life more pleasant or
make working with non-Free systems easier for you when you embraced them and consciously gave up your freedom.
*/
Right. So you're saying that no-one producing free software should even attempt to help me out here. Uh-huh. Okay. Tell me, do you send nasty letters to those who, say, get XFree going on some piece of undocumented hardware? Because if you don't, you're a hypocrite. What RMS is talking about is different. Here, someone is wanting to write binary-only software and make it work with LGPLed software (not right, because anything derived from it not using it as a library *must* be a library AFAIK) and RMS says no, it's not OK (mainly, as I see it, because the dreaded "open source" phrase was invoked).
What you're saying is that, if I choose to buy hardware that I know to be non-compliant with Free Software practices, I shouldn't expect (or receive) *any* help getting it to work. Thanks for answering for an entire community of software developers.
Myself, I'm an idiot when it comes to developing software. One thing I do recognize is that much hardware is poorly documented (especially when compared to personal computer hardware of the 80's.) That's changing. If it weren't for the efforts of people who just wanted their video card, sound card, etc. to work under something other than Windows, things are changing, and for the better.
I pity those who choose to adopt the Hurd--it sure as hell won't work on much hardware (unless the GNU project chooses to practice the hypocricy you speak out against.)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
It does highlight the fact that if you want to write open source software under the GPL, you do have to restrict quite heavily what you can do, and the audience you can work with. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of NDA'ing APIs as most games console makers do, that decision has been made without an open source programmer being able to do much beyond not support that particular platform, and if a platform with such restrictions takes up a sizable portion of the market, then a programmer has to make the choice between getting a licence that supports what sie wants to do, or ignoring that platform (and thus an audience) [Or designing something convoluted, such as building layers above and below an LGPL'd library that are potentially closed source]
Given that the Open Source movement != Free software Movement, it's a shame the OSM has chosen to nail its testicles to the GPL (or LGPL, which is an improvement but not a perfect one) rather than create a licence that acknowledges that programmers are not working in a free software isolation. or build upon a licence such as the X11 one which provides for more freedom for a programmer working on such a licenced product at the expense of allowing them to potentially reduce that freedom for others.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
--
I agree that the *philosophy* of the GNU is central to Linux (the movement). I refer to "GNU/Linux" for a more concrete reason, though. Consider how much of a typical distribution is GNU code. Most of what makes it "really unix" is GNU. This might not matter to someone who wants to startup in an X-windows "MS Windows" clone for the primary purpose of web browsing and word processing. I suggest they'd be happy enough with a free non-commercial copy of BE. (And please, I respect BE.)
Everyone knows Emacs is GNU, but what about bash, gcc, g++, libc, libg++, gas, ld, size, nm, gprof, gdb, make, sed, gawk, etc... etc...
I agree that its not about *personal* recognition. But personally I do think the *GNU tools themselves* deserve recognition.
If "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." was not being displayed, it was in violation.
I notice by your very careful wording, you aren't actually claiming that the notice was not displayed.
If you don;t enforce your rights, you loose them.)
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright.
Until such time you can provide proof there were no clause 3 violations, I'll go by the statement and CONTIUNE to point out how the positioning of RMS as some kind of moral absolutist WRT software licensing is hyprocritcal.
Is RMS actually aware of the mistake (assuming it exists)? You don't mention anywhere that you have actually told him about it. RMS has forgiven past licensing mistakes where the FSF is "wronged". He hasn't, AFAIK, ever whined about a technicality in obsolete software, without notifying the person(s) responsible.
AMEN.
Very lucid - better than I've ever heard it expressed outside of two (thick!) novels that I think you've probably read.
nebulo
This entire article would have been completely avoided had Richard answered his question, "Is it possible to use a separate,closed-source module in a LGPL-licensed piece of software?", and not stuff his head full of dogma about how "Free Software" is better than "Open Source".
I don't recall Jorrit asking "Should I make Crystal Space Free Software instead of Open Source?".
</rant>
Hmm. We all face the question of how to live morally in an essentially amoral universe. The RMS solution is analogous to living in a monastery.
On the contrary, I would say that newcomers to the Linux world read Slashdot and the other media and get the impression that "free software" culture has always existed exactly as it is today, with preoccupation with ideological figureheads, manifestos, VC funded startups, IPO's, jihads and endless yammering about the correct terminology for everything.
In fact (I'm hardly a grizzled veteran but even 3 or 4 years of experience is enough to know this) while the FSF/Emacs/gcc world may well have been like that for years, for the most part free software was written and shared by a pragmatic, easy-going community that was happy to receive what they did instead of complaining that they were entitled to everything from video drivers to movies on their own terms. That's the world that produced Perl, Apache, Sendmail, BSD, Linux, Qt, KDE and all the rest of the stuff that the RMS's and ESR's retroactively claim for their own movements.
The "lack of context" comes when people judge long-standing projects as if they were part of the 1998-1999 companies whose primary activities pandering to "the community" and keeping their stock valuation wildly overinflated.
More like once they understand this their next NDA will be even more draconian.
www.ozric.net
Had Richard answered his question, Jorrit would sign the NDA, get Crystal Space to run on PS2 and everybody would be happy, right? But that's not the point. This is about standing for what you believe in. Just like some other reader pointed out, he isn't telling Jorrit what to do. Instead, he wants him to decide for himself, based on what he thinks is right or wrong. I think it was very wise of Richard not to answer his question. He believes NDAs are bad, and he's doing the right thing by not supporting them. By not answering the question he is sending a message to Sony, telling them to change their practices that are taking away our freedom.
And btw: It's a good thing this article got posted on Slashdot. I think RMS makes a lot of good points and it's definitely an interesting read.
"To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite; To forgive wrongs darker than death or night; To defy Power, which seems omnipotent; To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates From its own wreck the thing it contemplates; Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent; This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free; This is alone Life; Joy, Empire, and Victory!" Freedom is not created, nor can it be curtailed, by governments, societies, or licenses, including the GPL. It is bestowed by the unquenchable self. Dostoevsky was freer than his jailer. Imprisoned in a cranny in the Tower, Raleigh wrote The History of the World. Of course I don't expect Stallman, with his slavishly Hobbesian mind, to understand this.
http://www.openhardware.net
http://www.openhardware.org
Why people can't first research then do any statements?
Support The GNU Project!! http://www.gnu.org
Yes, I know you can charge for "free software". I also know that you cannot prevent the buyer from making as many copies as he wants, which severely limits your ability to sell lots of copies (unless the product is so large that it is more convenient to buy a CD from a vendor, such as is the case with a complete linux distribution)
So the market is reversed. You make money based on how much easier your software makes life for someone.
Some people take linux and place all security risk deamons/programs into wrappers, and sell the resulting product. Bastille linux.
Some people take linux and make it Japanese. Or German. Or French...
Some people take GNOME and make it work with your distribution. Helixcode, for example.
There are just lots and lots of ways to provide service by differentiating your wrapping of linux from someone else's. Bastille linux will have return customers if their systems stay secure. So will OpenBSD, for that matter.
Redhat will keep customers coming back if their distro is easily installed/upgraded, and functions to their ease of use.
A company could write tax software. The changes in the tax code are relatively fast compared to the time to wrap a new product, so having it open source would allow rapid fixing of bugs, without yielding a competitive edge.
I could go on, but I think it is obvious that not maintaining that source code is intellectual property, but service, still allows for a whole lot of money to be made by the programmers. If you write good code fast it is your market today.
However, it does not allow room for companies like Microsoft whose entire portfolio is based on intellectual property copyright value.
As Bob Young of Redhat used to claim - the goal is not to compete with IP copyright companies at their own game - the goal is to change the game. The new game has service as the primary value of software, not intellectual property. The last 20 years of software development has been pretty perverse wrt intellectual property, and it is primarily the corporations not the programmers that are making the money.
Last time I checked a seasoned 3l337 h4x0r was making 6 figures in Northern California - hardly starving. And that is largely independent of the type of hacking being done.
/*
But in addition we gain another kind of freedom: 5) The freedom to compile/run games developed with Crystal Space on
ANY platform including the PS2.
That is not a freedom, it is just a practical convenience. People will be able to run the program on the PS2, but they won't be able to
do so in freedom.
*/
If the CS->PS2 closed-source wrapper doesn't happen, I won't be free to play/develop CS games on the PS2. For the latter case, I'll have to use proprietary Sony tools(correct me if I'm wrong.) Thanks, RMS, for watching out for my freedom.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
The only way to make money on "free" software is to work for a company that deals in said software, like RedHat for example. Unlike what others want you to believe, there aren't "many" open source programmers making a living. It may be a number that is somewhat impressive at first glance, but if you put it into perspective, you will see that only a fraction of a percent of all the programmers out there are making money from programming "free software". So if you want to do that, make sure you get hired by a "free software" company. Also realize that all of those companies are burning money at an alarming rate, don't own the product they are selling, and aren't preventing anyone from simply taking that product and selling it under another name. That does not make for a good business model. Few, if any, of them will be left in a few years.
I think "militant" would be a better word.
I agree with RMS on many planes, but his lack of ability to recognize other models for their abilities, as well as their faults, makes him rather subjective mainly because there are other models which closely resemble his method, let he refuses to recognize him.
ergo, "childish".
From his standpoint as a moralist and philosopher, this is very, very wrong. Every moral has a subset of defined points which comprise that moral. For instance, with "free software", the morals that the source code should be freely available to view, modify and release is in lines with Open Source software - in fact, it's one of the shining points of Free Software, but RMS refuses to believe that this can cooperate with his model.
If RMS wants to plug Free Software, fine with me, but I think stooping to the level of uncompromising "I didn't hear you sargeant!" statements regarding OSS is utter bullshift().
I also had engaged in a conversation with Mr. Stallman on a subject of different non-GPL open source software, and my impression was that he considers any non-GPL software as evil, and every commercial software as deadly sin. While appreciating integrity of his position, it appears to me too far from the Real World as we know it. Though, he appears to be in this point a politician, meaning it's not too useful to ask him about something if your primary goal is to get the work done, but only if your primary goal is to get a "kosher certificate" from FSF/GNU/whatever. If these goals contradict, one should choose what he wants first - certificate or thing done.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Until early 1999, the definitions of "open source" and "free software" were, as far as anyone but RMS knew, identical. The set of necessary freedoms described in the Open Source Definition was (and was intended to be) the same as the set of necessary freedoms described in the FSF's white papers and propaganda.
Then why was the Open Source Definition even created? If they were meant or intended to be identical, then why didn't the Open Source folks just say that they would adopt any and all requirements of Free Software?
If anyone has the knowledge of what Free Software is or is not, isn't it RMS? I would think he has the right to say that something is not the same as Free Software, and he doesn't even have to make sense when he says it.
My impression is that Open Source is different at this point, not perhaps because of little details in a definition, but because of basic philosophy: Open Source begins from some utilitarian viewpoint (this is the best way) and Free Software begins from some moral/political viewpoint (this is the right way).
Trying to "nail down" RMS on precisely what he suggests as action is almost always nearly impossible, but it's interesting that the conclusion at the end can be fairly readily read to indicate that he considers the idea of building the "NDA-ed bridge" to be a good idea because it would annoy Sony!
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Reading this thread reminded me of an old Technocrat posting. Please forgive me for stealing, but here it is:
by Jim Boswell on Sunday March 26, @02:56AM
I had the opportunity to hear Stallman speak recently. Some tool in the audience asked him,
"When are we going to have a RAD tool?"
Stallman asked, with a rather convincing air of feigned innocence, "What is RAD?"
"Rapid Application Development," replied the young tool.
"If you want to develop applications rapidly, I would suggest using Scheme," quoth Stallman.
(Found at http://technocrat.net/953960390 )
I would say you make money based on how big or user-unfriendly your software is. Easy-to-use software that is a relatively small download will sell less, since the convenience-factors of having it on CD or getting a manual matter less. //hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-people-regi ster-shareware.html
You have to give people a reason to pay. "I use the software daily and it makes my life easier" is not a reason to pay for it for the majority of people. See also http:
I could go on, but I think it is obvious that not maintaining that source code is intellectual property, but service, still allows for a whole lot of money to be made by the programmers.
And I suppose that is why Redhat et al are raking in money instead of losing money? Oh wait, they're not...
How many? How many programmers are there worldwide? Do you think that all of them could find jobs working on products that will be effectively given away for free?
Yes, I know you can charge for "free software". I also know that you cannot prevent the buyer from making as many copies as he wants, which severely limits your ability to sell lots of copies (unless the product is so large that it is more convenient to buy a CD from a vendor, such as is the case with a complete linux distribution)
To quote Janet Jackon: "what has he done for you lately?".
- RMS has no idea what a game console is, or how the licensing works.
- The Free Software movement would be idealogically opposed to not only developing for such a console (following a traditional licensing scheme), but is probably opposed to their existence.
I found the two most telling statements to be "..the PS2 is so proprietary that it doesn't seem worth spending time on," meaning that if you're idealogically opposed to the way a console company makes money, you're screwed out of that market.The other statement would be "It would be better to tell people that if they want to use this game they should install GNU/Linux." There will be a lot of PS2 owners who don't have computers, or have computers that lag behind the hardware of the PS2. Or maybe they want to play on a TV, not a monitor. Either way, while this stands by the beliefs of the FSF, it pretty much kills the chance of working on a console.
This stuff is important. Much more important than getting money for the software you write. (if that's a problem, get a day job for a company that's doing things using computers that are of minimal interest to the free software people; that's what I do.) It's about freedom. Not money. Get it? Once you break out of that foolish american frame of compulsive moneymaking, you'll see what he's really talking about.
As someone put in their .sig, "Lighten up. People will like you more."
If one had read anything by RMS one would expect him to take this extremely hardline position. It's what he does. It's what he believes.
It sounds like Jorrit might merely have wanted some very technical advice on what is appropriate with licensing, but he phrased it as a "What do you think about this, RMS?" kind of question, and we all know what RMS thinks of anything which is not Free Software -- it is Bad. Morally wrong. OK, you can agree or disagree but don't be confused or surprised. That's what he stands for.
I think Jorrit might have been better off doing some homework on what RMS is all about, and if he didn't want to get into a huge discussion of Larger Issues, he should have asked only very very tightly focused questions.
This extreme idealism is why the GPL exists, and if you don't like it, don't use the GPL.
That in itself demonstrates to me that RMS is completely out of touch with reality, has no idea what is actually going on in the world. He has become an anachronism.
Who else talks that way? Not -- "Here is a way that will benefit you the most..." or "Here is a thing to do which will protect you from something you fear" or "Here is a way to get back at someone you resent."
But instead: "Decide what you think is the right way".
I find that pretty exhilirating. -Dan Milstein
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
OK, this is only a Slashdot post. I don't dare to post it to rms@gnu.org (or whatever his email adress is) because I guess mr. Stallman is a kind of a busy guy, and I don't want to concern him with this if it's not his choice to be concerned with it.
/. folks agree with this opinion, or disagree. (Patches are welcome, too ;-) If this turns out to be a more or less important point, we might send it to mr. Stallman after all.
;-)
But what I'd really like to hear, is how many
Anyway, here goes.
------8<------
Dear mr. Stallman,
It has occured to me that you are trying hard to make clear to the GNU/ Linux community, as well as the outside world, what "Free Software" is, and why it is good. You do this by writing so-called "Free Software" yourself, as well as propagating the use of the terms "Free Software" and "GNU/ Linux".
I won't discuss the use of the latter term in detail here; it would be an interesting, but not so important discussion about whether the term "GNU/ Linux" is accurate enough to describe any currently running distribution - but above all, the use of this term is a good advertisement for the FSF, and as such, it can only do good.
But I strongly disagree with the widespread use of the former term, the term that you seem wish to be used, more than any other term: "Free Software". I think it does _not_ serve as an advertisement for the FSF case, at all. Allow me to explain why.
You have noticed that "Free Software" easily gets confused with "Open Source Software" by the public, and you try to get rid of that confusion by stressing upon the strict use of the term "Free Software" when referring to GNU licensed software. However, I think that the main reason why people don't use the term "Free Software" too often, and rather fall back to the (more general) term "Open Source", is because the term "Free Software" is extremely confusing to outsiders. It gets confused with "free as in beer" and "freeware" way too easily.
Some people try to clear things up by saying "libre", "liberated", etc. instead. But because there isn't a clear party propagating the use of these words, they are not used by a significant lot of people. So the undecisive amongst the purists still fall back to "Open Source" *by lack of a better term*.
I support this fallback completely. Allow me to illustrate why I think that using the term "Free Software" does more harm than it can do good:
- Newcomers to GNU/ Linux are often also newcomers to the world of (freely available) source code. They can't interpret the term "F.S." correctly, because of a complete lack of context. Lots of folks can't understand what "software" and "freedom" could possibly have in common. They have never seen a line of code in their life. Sow how to make clear to these people that they have the freedom of getting, modifying and redistributing the so-called "source code"? Saying that the software is "free" just doesn't do that trick; saying it's "Open Source" does, but you don't like this term because it is often used in a more general context.
- Most people don't have your degree of software idealism. I imagine that when you use the term "Free", you mean "Free as in speech" in 90% of the cases. However, for most other people, "Free" most often means "free as in beer" - it's just inherent to our commercial society. So this word turns out to be more confusing for most common people, than you might imagine. It might inspire them to go shopping, but it doesn't really inspire them to change the world for the better, as I believe is your wish.
- As a result of both points, when I explain to someone that "I solely use Free Software", he might respond with "Cool. Well, I got my copy of Internet Explorer as a free download, too."
Well, I am not claiming to tell you something new here. But if you care about people using the correct terms (and, as a result, get inspired by your idealism) as much as you do, it is *really* important to use a less obfuscating term. If you continue to use the term "Free Software", I think you'll be making your mission unnecessarily hard.
But if you manage to come up with a much more descriptive term, I think that the word will spread like it has never done before. I understand that it's very hard to change such a thing right here, right now, but I think that it is not yet too late, and, as I explained, I think it would really serve your mission, while the current term does more harm than it does good. Additionally, you are the right person in the right place to do this. (Yup, I think your influence in the GNU/ Linux world is bigger than you think -- it's only because of the term that you don't see references to the FSF that much nowadays
(I personally like to use the term "copylefted": it's funny, it's used by the FSF already, and it's very descriptive too - it makes clear that the software is public property, and that the copyright owners do not place restrictions on it, except that no-one else can place these restrictions. However, I don't want to make a real proposal for better a term at this stage, so it should only be interpreted as an example.)
Sincerely,
Stefan Rieken <StefanRieken@SoftHome.net>
------8<------
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Ho hum.
As an atheist, I believe morality to be a totally human construct. Since I don't believe humanity to be at the center of the universe, I don't believe that human constructs like morality or justice have much to do with the universe at large. We try to superimpose them over our little corner of the cosmos and act baffled when the universe doesn't play ball and makes things like train wrecks, famines and Barry Manilow.
Yes, RMS is a fanatic. Also Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill.
When Hitler invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain) tried to be "rational" and to avoid a new World War. So he sat down to negotiate with Hitler. He succeded to keep the peace. Hitler would rule Austria and Checoslovaquia.
Churchill was very critic about that. He always said that the Nazis were dangerous and that Hitler and the Nazis should be stop as soon as possible.
When Hitler invaded Poland it was clear he was right.
Only fanatics can lead a revolution. If RMS was rational, the Free Software movement would be lost.
I know that also Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse-tung were fanatics. But is our responsibility to decide what is the wise solution. To follow a fanatic or to surrender to the current situation.
I follow RMS
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Does your precious constitution allow you to modify and redistribute your favourite software? No? Oh then it seems your constitution doesn't make you as free as you might like to be.
Honestly, I fail to see what the constitution has to do with anything in this matter. You're changing your definition of 'free' mid-stream. At one point you use the term to talk about your personal freedoms, next you use it to talk about the freeness of your software.
The matter is simple. While software you use is non-free, you also are non-free. This is because you are denied the freedoms RMS advocates, most notably, the freedom to modify and redistribute. It is clear that if you had these freedoms you would be "more free" than if you didn't have them (as is the case when you use non-free software).
Further, what is dictatorial about what he's saying? He's not saying you MUST choose free software, he's simply advocating it. He acknowledges your freedom to choose or not choose free software, and so he tries to convince you of why you should choose free software. I simply can't fathom why you people seem to read it as an ultimatum. He just wants you to consider the morals, and to do what is morally and socially right. He argues that denying your friends and colleagues the 4 freedoms described is not morally right, and so you should choose courses of action which do not deny these freedoms.
But he can't stop you from choosing to do whatever you like, or advocating whatever you like. After all, that's all he's ever done. He's chosen to not ever use or write non-free software, and he's chosen to try and spread his message.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Mainly to deal with the problems other people keep pointing out: that the term "free" tends to make most people think of cost, not of freedom. Perhaps that's a sad commentary on society, but the point was to make a term that made most people immediately understand what the movement was about.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
No, what RMS would prefer is that you completely boycott the Playstation 2 completely, since Sony does not provide the ability to make Free Software for that platform. It's all or nothing.
Of course, that isn't to say that this business model is the only one possible. If you haven't already, check out Indrema for a possible alternative. Nobody's sure that Indrema won't crash and burn as soon as it gets off the ground, however.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
Sorry to piggyback on a low numbered article, but hey...
/tmp directory to the compilation of emacs. He wasn't too happy about the amount of system resources it used either... I was a bit of an RMS fan. Well, hey, at the time they were trying to make us learn vi! The sight of ^[ blah blah blah appearing when you hit cursor keys was just too much... I think you know what I'm talking about :)
:) And it's fine to have those radical views floating about, but the cold harsh reality is that most people will take a moderate view. It might be that in a few years time we will be all touting the radical view (that we're all closet rapists :) but some (most?) people are not ready for that change.
This whole episode makes me very sad.
You know, when I was at university (around 1990-92) I encountered RMS's work and it had an effect on me. I remembered my sysop's unhappiness when I devoted my entire quota, and some of the (hehe) unquota'd
But Mr. Tyberghien is an enterprising fellow. I am a game programmer myself. I think I have a (closed source) system that's somewhat better than Crystal Space... But he and his team are certainly making strides towards an interesting system. I have seen his posts on a mailing list recently and I have respect for his position.
You know, people often talk about an 'Ivory Tower' situation in reference to academic situations. I think Mr. Stallman may have neglected to keep on top of the real world recently.
When I was at university I was friends with a few Union women's officers. Three 'generations' actually. I got interested in feminism. And I realised that you get some people with some really strong views. Like Andrea Dworkin
It worries me that Jorrit's obvious enthusiasm is being dampened by a torrent of idealistic politics.
Anybody with me?
I understand RMS's philosophy and his desire to stick to his guns, but all the guy did was ask a simple little question. How hard is it to answer or not answer instead of spouting off? Geesh, for being so smart, RMS sure is dumb.
I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!
Seems to me that there are no commercially available microprocessors that are "Open" or "Free" in any sense of the word. Perhaps we should all stop running software until the GNU/Linux people can craft up some open source hardware to use? Some concessions have to be made.
Why is it childish to say he won't give advice on a belief system he doesn't follow?
Would anyone think it childish if a Democrat refused to give advice from a Republican point of view?
--
Infuriate left and right
Actually the definition of "open source" according to the Open Source Movement is pretty close to our definition of "free software", but they interpret it in a somewhat lax way, so that they have accepted some licenses that we in the Free Software Movement consider too restrictive.
Until early 1999, the definitions of "open source" and "free software" were, as far as anyone but RMS knew, identical. The set of necessary freedoms described in the Open Source Definition was (and was intended to be) the same as the set of necessary freedoms described in the FSF's white papers and propaganda.
Then Richard started announcing additional requirements nobody had ever heard about before, including prohibitions on certain kinds of license termination clauses and on clauses requiring changes to the code to be disclosed to the vendor. It is due to these additional requirements that RMS says the definitions of "free software" and "open source" no longer coincide.
Richard's claim is that these requirements were implicit in the definition of "free software" all along, and that people who use the Open Source Definition as a standard have fallen away from the path of virtue by not also adopting them. But bear in mind when you think about this that until less than eighteen months ago, nobody except possibly RMS knew that the OSD's "lax" definition was any different from his -- and if RMS knew, he wasn't talking.
>>esr>>
Cost: One more piece of closed, non-free software is created. A developer who normally writes open, free software must write this. Users are still deprived (as they were before) of knowledge about the PS2 API. Users can freely share, but cannot easily learn from or change, this piece of software. (Whether this is depriving the users of their rights, or simply not granting them a right they didn't have in the first place is largely an issue of perspective.)
Benefit: An entire computing platform is opened so that free, open software can be written for it, whereas it was impossible to write such software in the past. Many existing pieces of free software can be immediately used on the PS2.
I think it's fairly clear that the benefits outweigh the costs (if these costs can be said to exist at all.)
Unfortunately, it's not in Sony's interests to disclose their secret API to someone who will make it possible for free software to work on the PS2. Their whole business model is about taking a significant loss on the hardware, then making that loss up in license fees from the sale of software. If there were lots of free software available for the PS2, sales of console games would dip and cut into Sony's revenue stream.
TeX? ? As far as I know, LDP docs have never, ever been written in TeX. And they are very, very helpful about getting you up to speed on DocBook. (If you can write HTML, you can learn DocBook in about 2 minutes.) And there are no LDP standards for content. Obviously, they'd prefer something that covers all the bases, but it doesn't have to. :) That doesn't change the fact that the ideology behind GNU is still important, and that people ought to learn about it up front.
As far as info being a horrific standard, well, yeah.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I've long admired RMS's philosophy and have felt sorry for his lack of acknowledgment regarding Linux.... err make that GNU/Linux. Linus and some people write the kernel and RMS and the GNU crowd do the other 10-gazillion lines of code for that less important stuff like cp or rm or tar or gcc (joke people). It never seemed fair that he's not in more in the limelight. Now I know why... my god I wouldn't have gotten to email #3 without jumping in the car to go find that guy and kick his ass.
Jorrit Tyberghein had a simple question: Can my software be licensed under the lgpl if I connect to some free (as in beer), closed, binary-only bridges to a closed gaming console. Well.... NO. See how easy that was? It takes RMS a dozen or so emails later before he finally spits out an answer. I understand the dif between Open Source and the Free Software Foundation as do most people in the thick of things, but to brow beat an obviously intelligent and seemingly caring person like Jorrit is too much. Jorrit didn't even have to ask. He could have just done it and gotten tons of publicity about his project when RMS found out or he could choose one of the bsd or other licenses and stayed legal. Don't screw with the guy by saying shit like:" I have heard the name "DirectX", but I know nothing about it. It is shocking that a major Windows API would be secret." Well bullshit you can't live in the US and have half a brain and not know what DirectX is. As far as being shocked? C'mon it's Microsoft.
I believe Microsoft makes the Anti-Christ look like a do-gooder. But if you ask me how to fix the kak virus I'm going tell you without a sermon. Oh I might get in a jab or two but you'll get your answer in the first email or I'll just tell you you're too stupid for my answer and end the conversation right then and there. RMS doesn't play the game at all maybe that's good and maybe it's bad but I sure as hell don't want anyone I've been pushing Linux to, to ever meet up with him.
G
;)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
So under this setup, programmers and developers should perform complicated feats of software engineering (which things like Mac and Windows ARE, whether you like/use them or not), but then give it away for free. What are these programmers supposed to live on? Do they eat floppy disks and old toner cartridges? Sleep under their desks?
Stallman provides no rational justification for how/why this method would work. Sure, you can give something away if you write it in your spare time, you're not starving to death because you're not working for pay. But even those man-hours devoted to that project are YOUR time, which is freely yours to do with as you please.
Stallman seems to advocate a sort of software Marxism - "from each according to his ability, but to each according to his need". What he doesn't realize is that the people of ability are not dependent on those who simply "need" the product. They can simply trade with other people of ability. If you produce a software package and charge $500 for it, other producers will be able to pay. The person who is unable to produce enough to create $500 of wealth does not automatically have some magic claim against the producer.
On top of all this, Stallman has created a sort of self-proclaimed (and advocate-supported) ministry, where he becomes final arbiter of what is Good, and what Sucks.
I propose a new licensing scheme - if the code is yours, do whatever the hell you want with it - give it to some, sell it to others, whatever. Take a stand against those who would decree the particulars of how you can distribute it. It's YOURS - you can do whatever you like, including not develop, or develop, and run it on just your own box. The results of your own efforts are YOURS.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I've contacted several "Open Source" advocates (Bruce Perens being one of them) about a recent licensing issue I thought was of some importance, but never received any response.
RMS responded to me immediately (modulo his usual 24-48hr time lag) and although he was always very insistent that I speak very precisely, he was extremely helpful, and completely willing to carry on an extended conversation with me about the issue that I raised.
Now, I understand that some people, who are used to speaking with fast and loose definitions, find RMS pedantic. But I don't think that really should be a cause for complaint. I wish our political leaders insisted on speaking as precisely...
Can your IM do this?
A PS2 wrapper would probably be independent from the main engine. The engine could still be open-source and wouldn't have to change.
Of course, an open-source 3D engine that provided PS2 compatibility would be a boon for bedroom hackers.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
Whow. What a great exchange! RMS gets his point across pretty clear.
And thanks to Jorrit for publishing that.
f.
I don't think that the problem was that he didn't understand what a game console is, but that he wanted to correct what he considers an improper use of the word. That's how I would do it, if I wanted to be polite.
And that means that RMS is the only person who understands the LGPL? Seriously, I have a lot of respect for RMS and his accomplishments, and I even agree with a lot of his ideas, but if I was trying to get something useful like this done, I'd stay as far away from him as possible. He's a genius, but he's insane.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
The cost of writing the software has to be recovered. If I spend 6 months writing a piece of software, but can only sell it once, and can only ask $1 for it just because that's how much the CD-R cost, I won't be able to make a living.
Well, sure, but as others have pointed out if you do that you should recognize MIT, X, BSD, etc., and soon enough Mozilla and Sun. The difference (in my mind) is that while those groups have written a lot of code (and code is damn important, don't get me wrong) they didn't really start and fuel the movement in the way that Stallman and GNU did at a critical time.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
(Meaning no offence) What's so bloody hard to understand about free software? FWIW, I've seen RMS do nothing but good for free software. The only people who seem to get pissy about it are people who are afraid of losing control of their work. Especially when they're told that they have to play nice and share. If people don't want to lose control of their creations, then fine, just keep it closed.
In defense of RMS, he has only expressed honesty in what truly free software is. How is a non-disclosure agreement going to make truly free software. Other than wanting to jump some buzzword gravy train, why is this guy bothering to ponder free or open source software that has a non-disclosure agreement on it? It makes about as much sense as passing out steaks to vegetarians
/*drunk.. fix later*/
While not trying to take one side or the other on this stance, I do have one observation about what I read in the dialogue; however finding the precice way to say it isn't exactly easy for me. So, I'll use an allegory.
The situation:
You are handed a lethal weapon and told to personally kill another person.
The Consequences:
If you comply, that one person will be the only one to die. If you do not, several more people will be killed. Whether the person you are asked to kill would be killed anyway is not disclosed.
Analysis: This is, of course, a moral situation that nobody wants to be in. You don't know the person you are told to kill would end up dying anyway; so do you kill the one to save the others, or do you simply do nothing?
Depending on your ethical biases, you have a set of results.
Viewpoint #1: You refuse. You upheld your principle of not killing others. You are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Viewpoint #2: You refuse. You upheld your principle of not killing others. But your refusal causes many people to die, and therefore you are still directly responsible for their deaths.
Viewpoint #3: You comply. You violated your principle of not killing others. Whether you killed only one, or many makes no difference, because you violated your principle.
Viewpoint #4: You comply. While violating your principle of not killing others, you are in the moral right because you chose the path of minimal death.
Now, the situation seemed to me like Jorrit Tyberghein seemed to choose #4, and that having a proprietary plug to support a LGPL package being the better choice.
And, RMS seemed to follow the logic of #1 and #3: That the greatest good is achieved by adhering to principle.
And at least in the situation I painted, there really is no 'right' choice; just two choices, both having undesired results. From there everything counts on what matters most to you; which choice is 'best' depends on you, and your beliefs to where the greatest good is.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
In other words: All the people earning money with free software are people we've heard of, as far as we know. How insightful.
I think you're missing the point. There aren't many free software developers paid to write free software. Most of the people who write free software do it without pay. The few who are paid are the famous ones.
But since bits are free while labor is not, why don't we start paying people a fair wage to write the code and then let our civilization make maximal use of it?
That's an excellent (albeit obvious) idea. The question is, how do you accomplish this? The typical suggestion is "work for hire" type things... but who's going to hire a developer to write some code, unless they (the buyer) can turn around and charge others to use that code?
With commercial software, the large costs of development are ammortized over all of the paying users. So each user only pays a piece of the price for development. With free software and open source, ammortization schemes don't work, because any of the first few people to get a copy can then sell the exact same product but at a far lower price, and with higher profits (since they have near zero costs, while the company that paid for the development has relatively high costs).
From a hacker standpoint, if you ask a question, I tell you where to go for an answer (that you could have figured out on your own)-- and then you ask me the same question again 10 times, I am going to tell you to go to hell for wasting my time! I am a hacker, therefore I do not do tech support! Poor RMS has had to put aside hacking for lobbying, or he would have flamed this guy long ago.
Suppose you have written a good old FORTRAN program. You ask a Java programmer if you can link it with a LISP program.
Eh? What kind of sense is that! Well, none. And that's what RMS is pointing out here. This guy is writing a program using the LGPL, a deprecated part of Free Software, and asks RMS if he can use it in an Open Source manner with closed source code. RMS very politely says that he is a Free Software expert and cannot speak for Open Software. Yet this guy persists in playing as dumb as dirt.
This entire article could have been completely avoided if Jorrit had paid attention to the very first response.
--
Infuriate left and right
Excellent point. I wonder how the slashdot crowd will justify running linux on their transmeta notebooks, when that means going through a closed-source software layer (the processor's x86 emulation microcode)
But don't you see? RMS *wants* you to do techsupport. It's the only way to make money from free software!
Bill Gates is doing what people in our society are expected to do, gather power and personal wealth. He is not a rebel, he is working within the system and for the system. He is just more succesful than most.
RMS is the real madman, he is giving up both power and personal wealth in the pursuit of a dream of a better world. In our society, this is insanity.
I don't agree with a many of RMS' views, but I admire his madness. We desperately need mad people like RMS to remind us of dreams that go beyond wealth, power or even the geeky technical goals most of us here follow. We also need people like ESR to reformulate the dream in socially acceptable terms.
He is the president of the Free Software Foundation, and his "work" is to promote and defend the Free Software Movement.
"Now RMS, where does a bussiness get the money to pay them? hmmm. Ahh thats why software is not free."
The Free Software Foundation gets money from donations and from selling distributions of GNU software (Free Software).
"Lets see what happens after his company stops paying him and gives all his life's work away."
He created the FSF :)
"Stop complaining or work for free."
He has never said that you should work for free, he certainly doesn't work for free.
" Either one. Yor a hypocrite if you take money from a company and make non free software and then blast other companes doing the same practice."
Cool!, you just hit the big button, RMS is not a hypocrite because he doesn't take the money from making non-free software.
So, do some research before making your statements.
Support The GNU Project!! http://www.gnu.org
Here's one explanation of what clean-room reverse engineering really is.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
As a proud geek, I have no desire to take advice from someone who doesn't know what "console" means. Console is a very broad term, but in a geek context it refers to the highest I/O layer - the point where information is traded between human and computer.This guy made a mistake thinking Stallman was a friendly chap who'd give legal advice on how best to circumvent the LGPL he wrote, and ended up with moral advice instead.Nobody likes getting moral advice, because the fact that they're getting usually means they've transgressed.Wait a second. It's been almost a week since I last spouted my moral opinion of the GPL. Brace yourself. <cold_hard_truth> I use and propogate the software that comes into my posession exactly as I wish, regardless of license terms. When software comes to me in source form, it is more useful. Now, the social convention called "law" allegedly aims to maximise the general wellbeing of society, so most of society adheres to it most of the time. The GPL exploits law to deliver the greatest possible amount of source code to me. Therefore it is the best possible license for software.When you strip away all my pretentiousness and righteous indignation, I am only interested in maximising the wellbeing of society because being part of a healthy society benefits me. When faced with an opportunity that will bring significant gains to me with a negligible detriment to society, I invariably act against society. That is why I routinely violate software licenses. Strangely, I have never been faced with a situation where I've stood to gain by violating the GPL, but I have at times improved my lot greatly and society's lot slightly by fixing showstopper bugs in GPLed code and sharing it back. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. The situation where big_gain_for_me leads to small_loss_for_society is sometimes called the tragedy of the commons. This is where reckless self-indulgence of the majority eventually leads to a collapse of society. The point is, even universal disregard of software licenses will not lead to social collapse, because the losers are a very tiny fraction of society. Yes, only a tiny fraction. Because only the peddlers of extortive software licenses suffer from my disregard of licensing. Even if all people relying on software licenses for their income are bankrupted, large subsets of society which need certain software that doesn't exist will either collaborate to write it themselves, or buy the time of programmers like me until the software is written. Either way, I win and society also tends to win or break even.My arguments will be moot eventually anyway. The GPL is the only stable licensing model I've ever encountered, all other models are at a mathematical disadvantage. This fact alone explains Stallman's ridiculous level of confidence in 'Free' software. He knows with mathematical certaintity that it's going to win. </warm_fuzzy_truth> Have a nice day.
Software patents delenda est.
RMS lets morality guide his decisions and encourages others to do the same. Why do so many find that behavior subversive? What are they afraid of? What is RMS taking away from others, except complacency? He assumes that ethical decisions are not such a luxury, or even particularly difficult. Maybe we're missing opportunities every day. Maybe we just have to think through our own personal standards. We could decline propositions that make us uneasy. We could offer counter-proposals that seem more just. Why not do the right thing for a change? Maybe we could get away with it. Maybe we could even feel proud of it.
By the way, when did you master that frightening discourse?
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
What strikes me the most from reading this conversation is RMS total lack of tactical/strategical understanding of the importance of a cross-platform game API for furthering the goals of free software.
It's also surprising that the other part didn't do anything to make it clear to him. Seems like he hasn't giving any thought to the importance of his job to the movement as a whole either.
The free software movement will be helped in at least three major ways if Crystal Space becomes a popular 3D engine in commercial games:
1. Games based on Crystal Space will be more portable than those based on the proprietary APIs (Direct-X for Windows and whatever for PS2), increasing the possibility for ports to Linux. That would help us to get more home users to switch to Linux and once switched, they will be more open to the gospel and start to appreciate the freedom. That translates to more potential advocates and contributors, helping to grow the movement. I know that hardcore gamers probably are a minority here, but don't underestimate how many teenagers would switch to Linux if the same games were available there. Since they are teenagers they also belong to the category of people who still have a clear mind and like to think for them selves, making them more open to our ideas.
2. The barriers for doing high quality free software games will be lowered drastically, giving us more free high-quality games that can be enjoyed by everyone. That will help free software to break into new, tactically valuable territories.
3. Open standards have always been good for free software. Standardised and well documented fileformats, APIs and communication protocols makes it harder for single vendors to try to capture a market by providing their own proprietary solution. Microsoft is doing this with Direct X, Sony is doing it with their NDAs and stuff for PS2 etc.
So, if nobody uses the PS2-port of Crystal Space, then no harm is done except the developers wasting their time. But if it is a success it will bring more attention, support and developers to Crystal Space which is good for the whole movement.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us.
If it's ok for RMS to facilitate closed-source code in the name of gaining users, WTF is wrong with Jorrit writing a bit of closed-source code in order to help promote his otherwise free software?
Let me guess, you collect wellfare-checks for a living...
The guy *asked* Stallman what he thought. Why are we making him out to be the free software nazi? 99% of the time he only says stuff like this when you ASK him his opinion.
HOw low. I *HATE* it when the media does that... ask for an honest opinion then rip it to shreds.
Anybody unwilling to fight for their freedom doesn't deserve it
Malcom X
They chose the restrictions that come from joining a revolutionary war. It was difficult. It was dangerous. It placed hardships on them. They felt that it was worth the inconvenience -- including possible death -- to build something for the future that would not have otherwise been.
Once they won, they placed restrictions on what the government could do -- because they felt that those restrictions created a greater freedom overall. Restrictions, like the inability to cut off free speech mean that you can't censor a neo-nazi, but you do have the freedom to respond to one -- even if they control the government.
The GPL is a restriction, but it's a restriction with an intended future. If you don't like what the GPL is up to, you don't have to abide by it... Just don't use any of MY GPLed code to create your proprietary solution. Remember: If it wasn't for the GPL you wouldn't have had access to the code to begin with, so it's not like you're losing anything.
_____________________________
Gates wants 'his' software to control the world. He doesn't really care about how, as long as you continue to pay him your money. He lures you with flashy graphics and gaudy PR. If that doesn't work, he threatens to throw you in jail. "Do exactly as we say and nobody will get hurt." His freedom, our restrictions. As long as we're willing to live on our knees in this manner, nobody will get hurt.
Stallman wants his principles to control the world. He doesn't care as long as we have maximal freedom to share. He lures us with talk of freedom and principles. He lives by example. He creates software, gives it away, and invites us to do the same.
Nasty dictatorship, that.
He asks people to accept a restriction for a purpose. He tries to convince us that the restriction generates greater freedom overall. I think that the results, so far, have proven the point.
He planted the seeds about 20 years ago. We are now (many years later) starting to see the results of his work. Now he's asking us to continue planting our own seeds, and slowly pulling the closed-source 'weeds' in the garden. If we do that, then the long-term result will (hopefully) be a diverse forest.
If not, then we run the risk of letting the closed-source 'weeds' take over the shade created by his first trees. In time, his trees will die prematurely, choked by the weeds.
It's all about choice. Which freedom would you rather have?
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
But it is my belief that this ignorance is a ploy. It is a ploy designed to accomplish two goals:
Clever man.
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
I think RMS read "Atlas Shrugged" and got the wrong message from the book. It seems like he's incapable of understanding why a company would want to make money for itself.
Listed with the characters of James Taggart and Orren Boyle, etc., we might as well include RMS. Everything done should be for the well-being of everyone else. And cursed be the man who tries to make a profit for himself. Do whatever it takes to bring him down to the same level as everyone else.
What a shame that a company like Sony wants to make money for itself. And to protect itself, it requires people to sign an NDA. RMS thinks its immoral to sign the NDA to get technical data. I guess it's also wrong for every other company out there that doesn't bother to announce to the world how it makes stuff. It's time to boycott Coca-Cola, because they haven't told us their recipe for soda. Boycott KFC, because we don't know what the Colonel's original recipe is. It's immoral to eat a Big Mac, because you don't really know what's in the secret sauce. McDonald's should freely give out that information, so that other restaurants can recreate it and distribute it to the masses.
RMS's ideas might work in an ideal, Utopian society. But the world isn't made up that way. It's not immoral to think up a solution, share it with the world, but keep certain details secret. Not every idea in the world needs to be shared with everyone else. I have a feeling that, if pressed, RMS would argue that there isn't a need for privacy because you should never have a reason to keep information away from everyone else in the world. It's not really Free Software that RMS is selling. It's Free Ideas. The only problem is that his view of Free Ideas is for a collective mind that has access to every idea. Slashdot probably needs to make up a new icon that has RMS Borged out, instead of Gates.
I think that it is obvious why Sony doesn't want free code for the PS2 - they don't want their competitors peeking at the internals of their work.
The video game console market is a cutthroat business. It takes millions to design and build a console, to build a manufacturing infrastructure to produce the consoles, to develop the software with which to build applications for your console, and to get a stable of development houses to develop applications for your console. At some point, as a business, you need to recoup your money. If the system were completely open, then a competitor could make a clone for half the price - and Sony would never be able to recoup their investment.
If Sony had some whiz-bang feature which seperated their product from all of the competitors in the marketplace - a feature that created a demand for their product, then the last thing that Sony would want is to have all of their competitors have access to this because they don't want to lose their market advantage.
Have you seen some of the games for the PS1 such as Gran Turismo or Metal Gear: Solid? These games are visually awesome games - all on a little box that has a 33Mhz processor and 2MB of memory. That 2MB is for the OS, code, stack and heap. The ability to produce these games only became possible after Sony opened up what they were doing in two of their chips inside the playstation. If Nintendo and Sega had access to how the internals of the playstation worked, they might gain insight and a competitive edge in the marketplace by knowing what Sony was doing with its chipsets.
If you have moral reservations regarding the PS2 because of the closed nature of the hardware and software ( a lot of the software used by developers directly accesses specific features within the consoles chipset), then you cannot by any console or hand-held game device.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Does anyone remember this Slashdot article quoting Sony VP Steve Heckler as saying "We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC."
Since reading the above quote I've decided never to purchase another Sony product.
What's interesting is that RMS deviates from his usual perspective at the end of the exchange:
"But I could imagine that a PS2 wrapper that supports some standard interface used on other machines might make SONY extremely unhappy, because of encouraging people to write their software portably instead of writing it specifically for the PS2. Making them unhappy seems like a good thing given the circumstances."
I wholeheartedly agree. Closed source is OK if its purpose is to piss Sony off!
(/rant)
--
I work on a large open source project (www.vovida.org) It originally had a LGPL licenses but now it has something very close to a BSD license. Since this change we have had far less conversations along the lines of this one.
Amen. Though that problem isn't limited to the FSF, alas. One person came to my Linux networking page and then snarled at me that I "owed" it to the world to donate my effort to the Linux Documentation Project.
Which would be fine, except:
*They have to cover all the bases; I picked out one common case only, and documented that with as few digressions as possible. A worthwhile tradeoff, IMHO.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
I see. You're right-- we *were* apparently arguing different things.
He was asked about licensing, and closed vs. open source compatibility/morallity. He rendered his opinion based on the general nature of the question, and not the specifics-- just as "Don't take baths with plugged-in kitchen appliances" is good advice, no matter which appliance we are discussing.
Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make-- that he doesn't need to know about the specifics to render a good judgement.
IMNSHO, at least.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
RMS said, "The Free Software Movement has a more far-reaching and deeper goal: to give users the freedom to cooperate and participate in a community together. To have freedom, we must use software that respects our freedom. A non-free program takes away its users' freedom, so the only way to be free if you use a computer is to keep the non-free software off your computer." It seems to me that the very computer platform you're running this free software on is itself loaded with software that is not free thus taking away the users' freedom, thus being a failure.
This is the crux of the entire argument regarding "free(dom)" of the project. Why, oh why, is it that Sony would not want someone to release Free code that runs on their platform?
Why?
Is it an argument for the almighty buck?
Is it a historical corporate paranoia?
Is it that their technology is so weak that simply seeing a bunch of API calls will allow competition to surpass them?
I am considering getting a PS2. Now I am drastically having to reconsider. And I'm not joking.
Me too. In fact I used those same words when this article showed up on Kuro5hin recently. Actually, I'm quite disappointed that this even showed up on Slashdot, because this can only lend credence to Jorrit's apparent belief that he has done something useful for the hacker community with this interview.
RMS made a few simple meta-requests for this interview, and Jorrit abided by absolutely none of them. In fact, a number of statements almost seem to be calculated to have the precise effect of pissing RMS off, which is odd, since this whole affair was ostensibly for the purpose of getting helpful advice from him. I'm proud of RMS for exercising the amount of patience and control that he did.
Anyway, I would urge you to read my comment at the time, linked this way in case /. screws up the links again: ht tp: //www.kuro5hin.org/?op=comments;sid=2000/10/10/319 24/280;pid=0;cid=26#26
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
I don't really think the FSF did violate the BSD license if indeed they took BSD licensed code.
The advertisement provision states that the line must display when the program executes, however the code was in a library and libraries, by themselves, don't execute.
-- iCEBaLM
RMS never got around to answering the legal question, which would have been that there is no problem running a LGPL library on top of a closed source driver.
I don't understand one thing - isn't the API (Application Programming Interface) supposed to be public? If it is not public, then how is it called an Interface? Am I missing something here? BTW, I think RMS is right in this case.
Well you can use it if you are using an open source driver (like I believe XFree 3.3.x, mabye even the stock 4.0) but not the one distributed by NVidia themseleves (at least the new one)
Ahem.
License termination clauses are 100% non-free. No license can be free, or even open, with a license termination clause of any sort- because at any time, the licenser is free to restrict the freedoms which should be inherant to the code. If for instance, I release an operating system under
an "open" license with a termination clause, then
any developer is fooling himself if he thinks he has any freedom in the situation, because at any time, the licenser can remove all those freedoms.
How could this have NOT been implied by the GPL?
j. scott olsson
Regards, Tommy - drinking his first cup of coffee
Well... I would say that PC game publishers (note I say *publishers*, not developers) also suffer from a lack of creative thinking. Especially in a PC market where sales have been going downhill for the past couple years, the publishers are going to be less and less willing to take a risk on a game that doesn't seem like a "sure bet" ... read: a knockoff of Quake or Command and Conquer or Diablo.
The arcades are actually worse than either the console or PC market. If you're been in one in the past several years, you'll find that almost everything is either a driving game, a fighting game, or a big-ass "simulator" game. Arcades have been sucking wind creatively *and* commercially for the past 5 years.
-Ed
you heard me
Gore Lieberman 2000 militia!
Okay, revolutionary statement here but selling software for money is not wrong. Did that run by a bit fast? Okay, I provide you with a service and you provide me with money in return. Sounds good? Flippant sarcasm aside, I honestly do not see why people shouldn't sell software. I certainly don't see anything wrong with open source software either.
It is all a question of balance - make some money, write some good software and prosper groovy! Write bad software and watch your stock fall. Alternatively write stuff for free in your spare time, gain karma. Do NOT on the other hand write software that is deliberately anti-competitive, ultimately feature-obsessed and ungainly not to mention unstable, insecure and ever-so-slightly crash-prone.
-'I think he is the one the prophecy spoke of.'
-'You mean the one who will bring balance to the source.'
Elgon
How many? How many programmers are there worldwide? Do you think that all of them could find jobs working on products that will be effectively given away for free?
Well, I'm making a shitload of money writing free software.
Oh... hang on a minute... sorry... I'm making a SHITLOAD of money selling crack. The software is just a sideline.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Just out of curiousity, if goodwill turned around and made a few billion with your sofa and in turn started a sofa company making pathetic excuses for sofas which monopolised the market, and you where then forced to buy a crap sofa which means more money for MicroSofa to continue their bad sofa spree, would you shout then? :)
He wrote Emacs and gcc, stupid.
Larry Wall, Linus, Alan Cox, to name but a high profile few are reasonably paid to write GPL software. This trend will increase because the demand for GPL software will increase!
Larry Wall isn't paid to write Perl. He's paid to sell Perl books.
Does anyone even know exactly what Linus is doing at Transmeta? Is it just working on Linux, or is their other stuff involved? Transmeta's "code-morphing" software is certainly not "free" by any stretch of the imagination...
Even disregarding all that, I still have one big nit though: these are all "high profile" guys, as you stated. There are very, very few "low profile" people being paid to write free software. It makes me wonder if the companies that do hire free software coders are just doing it for PR reasons. If that's the case, then there's a serious problem.
But why should it cost anything?
There's no scarcity. If you have a copy of the product, you can copy it infinitely without anyone losing a penny.
By setting a price on software, corporations themselves have created the piracy problem! Just like drug related crime in our narcophobic society has been created by running the drug usage underground.
In the case of glibc, a free implementation of some insignificant but essential code assists in the creation of many large, non-free projects. This is directly at odds with RMS's preaching that pandering to users should be secondary to moral considerations. I call it insignificant because there are lots of libc's out there and they all do exactly the same thing.
In the case of PS2 Crystalspace, a non-free implementation of some insignificant but essential code assists in the creation and promotion of a large, free project.
RMS's position is that it's ok for his glibc to be non-free because no-one would use a totally free version. Jorrit's position is that it's ok for PS2 CS to have a small non-free component because noone could use an entirely free version (Sony would sue him). Please explain how RMS's position is moral and Jorrit's isn't.
Sign then NDA, develop the code. Now people who develop using your API can develop for PS without having to sign the NDA. Also it would be a damn sight easier to reverse engineer your binary than it would be to do the same to the console.
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
A few people here on slashdot have suggested that I didn't understand the difference between Open Source and Free Software. It is true that I wasn't aware of the difference at the start of the discussion but after reading the links from RMS about this issue I did understand the difference very well... But that's not the point. I may be a bit sloppy in my wording but I didn't want the discussion to go in that direction at all. I was mainly interested in the answer to a technical question about the LGPL and the PS/2. I may not have used the correct terminology but I'm not the kind of person to worry much about correct terminology. This is probably not very sensible of me but that's the way I am. It would have been nice to see a little more acceptance of that fact on the side of RMS. Just wanted to say this :-)
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
- In a truly Adam Smith-style laissez faire capitalist society (laissez faire in French means "let [the public] do what it wants"), there would be no laws prohibiting me from making 5000 copies of Microsoft Windows and selling them at cost. If you are so rabidly capitalist, why don't you favor such a system?
- The Soviet Union attempted to apply state-controlled socialism to the distribution of material goods. Materials are a zero-sum game: if I take your sandwich, you have none. Software is not a zero-sum game: if I copy your MS Windows you still have yours. Failure of state-controlled socialism for scarce material goods does not automatically imply failure of non-state-controlled socialism for abundant digital goods.
It is quite possible to make a cogent argument applying the lessons of Soviet communism to software copyright laws, but you have not done it."extort"? "harassment" ? Did somebody put a gun to your head and force you to buy my software? If you don't like my software, its price, or the conditions under which I will sell and/or license it to you, you are free to find somebody who writes software in a manner that is consistent with your doctrine. Don't expect me to give away the fruits of my labor just because you're a freeloader.
>The advertisement provision states that the line must display when the program executes
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Nothing about execution that I see.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I saw that RMS didn't understand wahta a (game) "console" was. I think RMS (whom I think highly of) is out of touch with the average GNU_user/Software_developer/computer_user. The reality is, many of us are forced to use non-Free products and there do not exist Free alternatives. For example, how many of you are using OSS (blech! non-Free) sound drivers? Were you even aware of the existance of ALSA?
Perhaps he should stop writing LISP code using super-cuatomized Emacs in his ivory tower in Cambridge, MA and come out and meet people in LUGs and CS students. RMS seems to forget that my mom doesn't understand that many Linux users don't understand Free (libre) != free (gratis) and that I do not want to type "ctrl+meta+shift+bucky+option+f x".
The x86 instruction set is a public interface to a proprietary system. Can you use non-free hardware to develop free-software?
I think it is a very clear, noble and realistic point of view.
But you are Dr. Evil, so if you support him, that means he is a bad guy too! Oh God...just wait until we feel the wrath of Mini-RMS!!! Where's Linus Powers when we need his funky shagadelic self?
Ok, it was a joke.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Richard talks about licensing, yet he is willing to take from others, and not honor the licensing desires of others.
/. article.
If you are going to take the moral high ground and play the purist, then you had better be sure you are on the pure, high ground. A violation is a violation, and the GCC did violate another's licence.
The source page for this clipped
When will the FSF apologise?
by Pseudonym on Wednesday September 06, @01:11AM EDT (#100)
(User #62607 Info)
I have a copy of the source of glibc-2.0.105 sitting on my hard drive. In inet/rexec.c (amongst other files) what do I see but a file under the BSD licence including the advertising clause. Clearly I have no rights to this code since it cannot be distributed under the GPL.
Thankfully, in 2.1, the advertising clause has been removed. But nonetheless, I expect a full apology from the FSF for breaking the terms of the original BSD licence and forgiveness from the Regents of the University of California so that I can be assured that I may use glibc2 without let or hinderance.
I await my apology.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Well thank you for agreeing with me, but not really :) You would have to get up earlier in the morning to get that one past me...
First of all, it's worrying that you think of the 'hacker community' as the set of people who support your point of view. Your reference to Mr. Tyberghein's beliefs are clearly clouded by what you expect him to think. In short, you're making a straw man of him.
I am reminded by the movement to 'keep sport free from politics'. For 'sport', replace 'computing'. Why shouldn't people compute to their hearts' content, without politics getting in the way? I think that is the biggest problem I have with RMS's view of the world. I think that Mr. Stallman has some great intentions; Unfortunately his idea of 'freedom' is only of worth if you follow his narrow ideas of what that means.
I might seem some kind of apologist but I really can't see Jorrit's communication as trying to annoy RMS. If you will allow me to quote J.T's response to your Kuro5hin post:-
"Sorry, but being famous does NOT excuse somebody for not answering the question"...
... and I believe he has a perfectly valid point. It is not reasonable to expect RMS's correspondents to think exactly like him.
First, an ordered series of words from our local deconstructivist: 1. All Software that is Free (per the FSF) is also Open. 2. All Open software IS NOT Free! (The Open Source Movement accepts some licences that the FSF views as "non-free".) 3. All "Closed" (non-free) software programs are the Tools of Satan. (A somewhat loose paraphrase of RMS and the FSF.) 4. NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) are the very Words of Satan. Signing an NDA is equivalent to entering into a pact with Satan. 5. The "One True Path" between the worlds of Free and Closed software is Reverse Engineering. Those platforms for which the One True Path of Reverse Engineering does not exist (in any practical manner), then that entire platform must be Banished! 6. However, when a thin software layer may be created that provides the means to convert a Closed platform to a Free platform, then it MAY be permissible to Dance with the Devil, for the express purpose of making that thin layer. Note: Any person performing Step 6 WILL NOT be granted a dispensation: They will still Rot In Hell, since they did Sign the Devil's Paper. However, if this saves the Free souls of legions of programmers, and if it also Royally Pisses-Off the particular Satan involved, then, well... It May Be OK.
He wrote quite a few things, years ago. He started many of the FSF's pet projects, like gcc, gdb, and the like.
What is interesting is when someone else comes up with a code branch, something he praises the GPL for. While there were a great many other issues involved, someday read about the emacs/xemacs conflict.
I recently implemented a General Operations Daemon (GOD) that builds on the standard Linux system calls, but adds an advanced AI interface to handle all transactions. For instance, the core is able to manage processes by any user (at any level) on any host (on any platform) by superceeding the kernel with a set of Advanced Network Generic Extendable Languages (ANGELs). Each ANGEL is written to handle a specific platform. Currently the Linux ANGEL is having communication problems with the Win 9x/NT/2000 ANGEL and the BSD ANGEL seems to be so secure that it won't respond to requests made by the system (GOD).
/dev/random and forcing all of their processes to execute at negative NICE values.
In addition to the extensive user coverage that the system provides, GOD also spawns its own processes for dealing with internal conflicts. In addition to squashing virus/trojan infections, GOD will also fry 31337 K1d3Z (and other violators) demoting them to negative user space where the Dynamic Extraction and Violator Inventorying Librarian (DEVIL) takes over and restricts the offending party by replacing their keyboard map with values retrieved from
So my question is, do I release my GOD, ANGEL and DEVIL modules as an Open Source solution, or do I follow the guidance of RMS and follow the practices of the Free Software Foundation?
Oops, I forgot the GRAIN OF SALT tags. Forgive me.
glibc is under the LGPL, not the GPL. There is no conflict between the LGPL and the old BSDL.
/.. It seems clear that he is on some sort of personal vendeta, where truth no longer matter.
"mr" has a long history of spreading untruths about the FSF on
EXACTLY
Tell me you're joking, Eric. These requirements are implicit. However, if you want them to be explicit, look no further than "What is Free Software?":
I don't think those paragraphs were added in reaction to the OSD.Your diatribes about the "general public virus" notwithstanding, RMS has always been candid about the different kinds of free software. Even as the community was in an uproar over the QPL "open patch" fiasco, RMS pronounced it a free software license.
Once a person sees that, they'll realize what GNU is: an organization bent on forcing people to use the worst hypertext system ever devised by man(?).
This is a distribution issue. If RedHat or Debian (etc) want to grab a bunch of software off of the Internet and call it an operating system, that's fine. But that doesn't mean they have to use the help system that the original author used.
Think about it. If you wrote the greatest utility in the world, but documented it in a text file instead of a real help system, would you be pissed if someone else made a 'man' or a WinHelp or GUNInfo file out it?
Besides, the fact that these guys (the distributors) are too lazy to provide a common help system for their OS just makes them look like slobs. A user who opens the help system should never be told to go look for another help system.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
What many people (especially those decrying RMS as inflexible) seem to be missing is that, in the end, Jorrit seemed to have convinced RMS that his plan was a good idea, despite the negative points.
RMS can be very annoying, but it's not hard to get him to change his mind if you really have a good argument. If you *don't* have a good argument, well... you're doomed.
[as a side comment, Jorrit did come of as something of a clod, when he *kept* using the term term `open source' even though it was obviously pissing off RMS. Did he really not see this, or was he simply being a prick?]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Those who do not study Stallman are compelled to hear him repeat himself.
-- with apologies to Georges Santayana
If you don't want to listen to a recitation of dogma, you shouldn't ask the High Priest of Free Software how to make non-disclosure work with Open Source. You wouldn't ask the Pope how to reconcile Baal-worship with Catharism, would you? Tyberghein made the mistake of soliciting Stallman's opinion on the best way to comprimise with Evil without turning his back on Heresy. Of course Stallman responded by refusing to offer advice until Tyberghein renounced the Open Source heresy, and then replied with a sermon on Freedom.
Until people get it straight in their heads that Free Software is a religion, Stallman will always seem weird, dogmatic, and holier-than-thou. Once they do understand, "weird" will become "sacred", "dogmatic" a compliment, and "holier-than-thou" simply "holy". Likewise his antipathy for the schismatic Open Source Movement and it's Martin Luther, Eric Raymond. It will also then make perfect sense that Stallman is regarded by himself and his followers as the ultimate arbiter of Free-ness, and that he takes the clerical position of accepting donations while advocating poverty as a virtue. Like most religions, Free Software even has its lay evangelical arm, the League for Programming Freedom.
Tech Square is Stallman's cloister. Those who expect him to recognize terms like "console" and "PS2" ignore the Christian zealot's desire to be "in the world, but not of the world". Stallman knows about that which impinges upon his ascetic life as the chief prophet of software freedom. Like the most fervent and true practicers of monasticism, he is blissfully unaware of all else, and appears out of touch with reality to the world at large.
There's nothing wrong with religion. Like everything else, it has its place. And like most organized religions, Free Software is usually not well-understood outside of the priesthood. The lay preachers (those who write software but get paid to do so) tend to honor and in some cases revere the priests, but also tend to hold forth on scripture incorrectly. The Christian Bible is so full of contradictions and passages open to interpretation that the Roman Catholic church used to forbid its study outside the priesthood. At least Stallman asks his followers to read his works (see "What is Free Software?"), although he tends to reserve their interpretation to himself. Like most other religions in their infancy, Free Software lacks a category of simple adherents - the non-programmer software users in this case.
And perhaps that's the biggest reason for Stallman's hatred of Open Source. Those who are not practicing programmers are much more attracted to the heresy than to the mother church. Free Software is focused on software practitioners, and has no story to attract software users other than that they will benefit as a side-effect of having free practicioners loose in the world. Open Source focuses on the availability of quality software, and that interests users and programmers alike.
Just my tuppence worth!
All free software is also open source, using RMS' definitions. You are allowed (morally and legally) to charge money for developing free (open source) software. RMS does so himself.
He is not proposing anyone should starve to create software. Nobody has starved to create Linux, GCC, or Apache, which are all quite impressive feats of software engineering.
PS: We don't need your "new license", it is basic copyright law. Your basic problem seems to be that RMS excercises his freedom of speech, to suggest other people what they do with their software.
Reading this, I don't see any disagreement between Stallman and Tyberghein. Both people have been polite and courteous, and both seem to agree on almost all substantive issues.
The only point of difference is that Stallman wouldn't sign an NDA for API documentation himself, and would generally prefer that other people refrain from doing so. He seems to agree that a system using a wrapper around the PS2 API is no different morally than a system which uses the Win32 APIs.
Where's the argument?
-Damien
why he didn't contact Bruce Perens, instead of richard Stallman? Richard told him he was a 'Free Software' advocate and that his answer would be based upon that. RMS made many attempts (sucessfully)to steer him to sources that explain 'Free Software.'
:-)
Had he asked Bruce Perens his question about 'Open Source Software,' he would probably have gotten an answer in reply to his first e-mail. Oh well! It was an interesting read
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
Does it not put a little shiver down your spine that our community has a "leader" that is SO out of touch with the realities of our world that he understands neither the meaning of "console platform" nor what DirectX is(!!)?
Never mind my personal opinion (obviously not favorable), but that's pure idiocy. Has he no pride in his technical prowess any more? Or has this Church of his consumed and brainwashed him so completely?
RMS just lost big marks with me, and he didn't have many to begin with.
G
The moment that anyone working on Crystal Space signs the NDA, there can be no safe clean-room implementation. The court will likely NOT believe that you did it clean-room.
Frankly speaking, while the PS2 support would be cool, I don't think that it's worth risking the Free Software aspects of Crystal Space (It's LGPLed!) to get "support" that's dubious at best (I mean, let's face it, CS is NOT ready for primetime yet- why are we even talking about this?). I'd wait, get it rocking and then use the games that are made by it as a cudgel to make Sony either make their own closed source driver for it or release the details without an NDA. Anything less is not really a good thing.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm surprised you read long enough to get past his childish "If you don't call it Free Software instead of Open Source I'm going to pretend I don't know what you're asking about."
In particular Mail 5: Jorrit Tyberghein -> Richard Stallman:
Note that in the first regards I'm asking a question about the LGPL license.
Five emails into this exchange and RMS hasn't bothered to answer this guy's extremely basic and painfully obvious question all because the guy said Open Source.
I also liked the end of Mail 11 when Jorrit Tyberghein begins to wonder what's the difference between writing software that depends on a closed source PS2 bridge and writing software that depends on a closed source libc or closed source X server and RMS lamely comes back with "if I can't write truly free software then I write no software". One wonders how he reconciles this with writing a gcc that supports closed source operating systems.
There is scarcity, it's called time. If there was no scarcity then you would be able to reproduce the software by simply sitting down at your computer and thinking about what it should do and have it magically appear on your computer. Obviously this is not the case. I use someone elses software because I am unable or unwilling to devote the time necessary to recreate the same thing myself. It is therefore more efficient for me to spend some amount of dollars to buy a copy of someone elses work. I am trading dollars for time saved. Piracy is all about greed, and it's not corporate greed I'm talking about.
Exactly. Jorrit, bless his heart, kept saying, "but, but you wrote the LGPL ...." RMS is not a lawyer! I doubt that he'd even be called as an expert witness in a GPL infringement case.
Yes, his obtuse answers are frustrating; but can you imagine the volume of email he gets on this topic? He once wrote that it's like putting a fire hose in your mouth.
The discussions there were about different things -- politics, race, gender -- but far too often they turned in the same direction. You make a real statement, something with conviction, and they'd cut you down for it: just another example of the Western-based intellectual hegemony, attempting to invalidate other people's beliefs. Which would invalidate your belief -- but they never let that stop them.
--
Please correct me if I misunderstand here..
lgpl is not 'closed-source'.. it merely means that someone can develop against glibc without their software becoming 'infected' by the GPL.
This was necessary, as he put it, because if it was *NOT* this way, nobody would USE it.
What he sais about a console is the complete opposite. The back-end would be closed, the front end, open. Period.
The value in WordPerfect is not so much the program itself. It's the organization behind it. People bought WordPerfect because it worked and they trusted the company to keep up a regular flow of features and upgrades.
The same logic applies. I make a point of buying my Linux distributions because I want to ensure a continued flow of features and upgrades from the company I buy them from. If a company I worked for made extensive use of a particular distribution's products, I'd ask that they'd sponsor a developer or buy support from one of the Linux companies out there.
I refuse to buy software made by a company that seems to feel they need a monopoly to succeed. The monopoly model of copyrights and patents is fundamentally flawed.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
But see, he's probably RIGHT.
Lots of people worship RMS.
- The art of letting other people do what you want.
Why does it seem that in order to create "free" software, you have to give up so many freedoms?
I think you (and most others) misunderstand RMS's goals when he advocates the use of GNU/Linux. This isn't about personal recognition for him- it is about spreading the understanding that without the philosophy of GNU, Linux would not have happened. Look at all the newbies who come to Linux and know who Linus is but don't understand thing one about free speech v. free beer. If they were told up front "you are installing GNU/Linux" they might have at least some curiousity to understand what GNU is and what GNU stands for. They might be more willing to stand up for principles and more willing to fight against the creeping corporatism infecting open source. Instead, because they are told merely that they are using "Linux" they never seek to understand what "free" is and ought to mean. That is what Stallman wishes would happen, and that is why he insists on using GNU/Linux. And that's why I do, too, especially when I'm around people who I know don't understand the libre v. gratis. It must be hard for Stallman to see things come this close to being a situation where the world really is safe for libre software, but it isn't because people are too dense to see the importance of words.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I agree. He's just being dinosauric and obstinate. Really, he doesn't know "much about Open Source"? He's probably had this debate a thousand times. Later in the article he shows some significant knowledge particularly on intricate license issues that differ between OSM and FSM.
Yes, he's been a major contributor but his time is passed. It's time to ignore this guy now.
StickBoy
--- "The problem is not that the world is full of fools, it's that lightning isn't being distributed correctly." -- Mar
As a proud geek, I have no desire to take advice from someone who doesn't know what "console" means. I mean, even if you're not into games at all, how could you be into computers and not know the meaning of the this word? There are two alternatives: 1: You're being a prick and pretending to not know what it means. or 2: Your input about the world of computers/society etc. (what you read, what web sites you view, people you converse with, etc) is so closed that you haven't come across it. Both alternatives immediately would disqualify him from answering such a question, IMNSHO. Am I missing an alternative above? I don't think so. I guess maybe 3: He has heard it, but cares so little about such earthly concerns that he didn't inquire as to it's meaning. (or he did and forgot it) Again, such a lack of curiousity would DQ him from my list of people who's opinion about such matters I give a rat's ass about.... Whatever, moderate away...
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Our definition of free software is *more strict* than the definition of open source.
excuse me while i bang my head against the wall.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
With free software, the amortization is in the source itself. There is a large body of paid-for code already out there that can be freely reused. In some cases, the needed changes amount to a minor revision and some glue.
That works out great for the people who add custom tweaks to existing applications. It doesn't work well for someone planning on developing a new application from scratch. The people doing 1% of the work end up getting 99% of the payments.
There's also the question of whether customizations are even useful to have "freed". Some of these will involve bug fixes and the addition of generic features, but a lot of customization work involves stuff that is of no use to anyone but the customer though.
On the other side of the transaction, I know that I would much rather be hired to make the changes than to re-implement apache from scratch. I find 'solving' a solved problem to be a drudgery while solving new problems is interesting.
So you think all unsolved problems can be solved by adding tweaks to existing software projects?
While the concept of matrix is nice and clear, it made whole discussion unreadable in light mode in my 800x600 NS6PR3 (discussion become 10% large than window so I have to scroll to read each line's end).
---
Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
Frankly, I don't understand what Jorrit Tyberghein got out of this exchange. He really didn't get any clear answers from Richard Stallman.
The most amazing thing to me is, that the definition of Open Source on the GNU site is foggy to say the least. Even the explanation why the LGPL license is that much worse than the GPL license leaves much open space for clarification.
I am disappointed about the GNU site, because it lacks clear structure, logic and definitions. I go to the opensource.org site, read it and compare it with what the Free Software site writes, and have a lot of difficulties to understand what the big fuss is all about. Some very faint differences (mostly about the LGPL as far as I can see).
It seems quite awkward to me that the community discusses over three (?) years Open Source software and Free Software and is unable to come up with clear language and clear definitions with regards to their differences. It is also a surprise to me to observe RMS explaining a term with the term itself. He doesn't really participate in the exchange of arguments, but repeats a term's definition almost like a robot without using new language. He does not seem to make an effort to clarify. Why ?
Concerning RMS' morality, I certainly would not deny him all the best intentions, but it remains to be seen if the effects of Free Software will be the ones he thought would come out of it.
Certainly (as compared and in a fight against monopolies of proprietary software) the Free Software movement has initiated to deliver the first cracks into the global proprietary software companies.
In addition Free Software gives developers and users a lot of freedom for free and guarentees those freedoms for the generations of software and software developers to come. Thank you, Free Software Foundation, I mean it. Many - including me - are very grateful for Free Software.
But it makes me wonder that apparently the "Library" LGPL has been around before it became the "lesser" LGPL and before it became center piece for arguements of why Open Source software is not as desirable or useful as Free Software. I am new to it and might not understand it well enough, but so don't others.
That OTOH I think is not acceptable after all these years. RMS' leadership demands honest, direct answers.
When it comes to make a decision for a developer to make proprietary software versus Free Software software, RMS has to accept this question:
How will all those developers make a living with their work ? I consider this a valid, moral and important question.
It's not convincing at all for a major movement like the Free Software movement to shy away from the responsibility to answer this question. It's not enough to say he isn't against Free Software developers to get paid for their work. He knows that the question is not if they should or should not get paid, but if and who will pay them.
Can a small, one to three men software development company afford to make a living by writing Free Software, packaging it, providing technical and consultant support services, writing books and selling 'geek's accessories' ?
I do believe, for the time being, many find ways of making a living, but ultimately all what happens is one small software company, developing Free Software, merging with other larger ones, finally ending up just in a couple of very large companies. That trend might be even much stronger in the end for the companies trying to develop Free Software than for companies producing proprietary software.
RMS' words often sound as if those people who need to make a living and accept to work on "almost-free" projects have failed "morally". I overpaint, but that's the way RMS's words cross over to me. And usually I do listen.
I for once think it is a bit "immoral" to imply that those who don't understand the intricacies of Free Software versus Open Source software and have valid reasons to search for "almost-free" solutions for their projects, are considered less moral than those who find ways to make a living with "hundred-percent-free" software.
That's why I take the freedom to retire from this freedom business, because freely spoken, it looks surreal to me.
I agree with you completely. Just wasn't sure what you were saying.
I went to the Crystalspace website and read through the whole interchange with rms (and on a full stomach, too). Good Lord! rms wastes the first 2-3 emails with his typical "how many angels can dance on a pinhead" rant on "free" vs. "open" software instead of addressing the guy's inquiry.
Face it, rms is the wrong person to help decide this issue:
If you want pragmatic, real-world advise on this, I'd suggest contacting someone in the Open Software movement like ESR :)
>truth no longer matters
If "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." was not being displayed, it was in violation.
(from a legally defensable POV, the UofC lost its rights along time ago to clause 3. Microsoft not following clase 3 and then UofC not suing is an example. If you don;t enforce your rights, you loose them.)
I'm not the one requestiong the reperation for the past sin of the FSF/RMS, I'm just pointing out the post about the sin that occured.
Now, if you have some proof that the original poster is incorrect, then by all means post it. In fact, I look forward to your 'proof' that the request for an apology from "pseudonym" for violation of clause #3 is incorrect.
Until such time you can provide proof there were no clause 3 violations, I'll go by the statement and CONTIUNE to point out how the positioning of RMS as some kind of moral absolutist WRT software licensing is hyprocritcal.
If anyone has trouble with the truth, it is the GPL-is-morally-correct crowd when they can't follow others license restrictions.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
not what will appease some egomaniac with a cult following.
Excellent! By directing the argument away from whether morality has anything to do with software, you've managed to avoid the sticky question of whether RMS is right.
Freedom does come with the GNU label. It also comes with other labels. RMS is not forcing you to choose the GNU path-- he just wants people to choose the right path. The path to Freedom.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Why do you keep saying this?
I was a minor character in David Edding's "The Belgariad" who was most notably famous as a folk hero of the Asturians.
Elgon
Given that most CPU's would have some kind of firmware that is most likely proprietary, the Free Software Movement might have a job being able to actually build a fully free system according to their tenets of faith.
Or put another way, how can one realistically build a completely free computer system. There are most likely many components of a modern computer system that would have proprietary software built in, or that have been designed with proprietary software.
I think the whole issue is a bit of a giggle really.
I think you're missing the point. There aren't many free software developers paid to write free software. Most of the people who write free software do it without pay. The few who are paid are the famous ones.
There is some truth to that, but it's not absolute. I doubt many people know who I am, or what I look like, but I get paid to write Free Software.
That's an excellent (albeit obvious) idea. The question is, how do you accomplish this? The typical suggestion is "work for hire" type things... but who's going to hire a developer to write some code, unless they (the buyer) can turn around and charge others to use that code?
People who want to offer a service and need a guarantee that the software will continue to meet their business needs (what business doesn't at least want a guarantee?)
As a developer, I am willing to offer a lower cost to a customer that will accept GPL. My costs are considerably lowered by being free to re-use the entire body of GPL code as needed, I don't have the frustration of having to re-write the same old thing time and again, keeping track of a flurry of NDA and non-compete agreements, archiving code in case the customer needs/wants support later but having to keep it secured against release, etc.
With commercial software, the large costs of development are ammortized over all of the paying users. So each user only pays a piece of the price for development. With free software and open source, ammortization schemes don't work, because any of the first few people to get a copy can then sell the exact same product but at a far lower price, and with higher profits (since they have near zero costs, while the company that paid for the development has relatively high costs).
With free software, the amortization is in the source itself. There is a large body of paid-for code already out there that can be freely reused. In some cases, the needed changes amount to a minor revision and some glue.
Customers with specialized needs really win the game. Suppose you needed most of what Apache offers but a couple of specialized functions as well. Would you rather pay me to reinvent the wheel and write a new apache with the added features, or would you prefer to pay me to make a few modifications to Apache?
On the other side of the transaction, I know that I would much rather be hired to make the changes than to re-implement apache from scratch. I find 'solving' a solved problem to be a drudgery while solving new problems is interesting.