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.
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.
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.)
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
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
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"
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?
--
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
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.
The text above is practically his point. I don't see any pedantic about this piece. It's very clear and concise and I agree with it.
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>
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.
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]
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.
Yes, but it didn't answer Jorrit's question at all, and even though it was very concise and to the point. Jorrit wasn't asking a philosophical question. It was simply "Will this work under the LGPL or not", which is pretty much a Yes/No/Maybe type of question. I think Richard was just barking to hear his head rattle there...
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>>
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?
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
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.
Here's one explanation of what clean-room reverse engineering really is.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I think it is a very clear, noble and realistic point of view. Sony has manufactured a playstation. Why would they force you to sign an NDA to develop for it? Why shouldn't they make the consessions, open up their API and allow people to develop freely for their closed platform.
This problem happens all the time in Linux. How many times have linux drivers had to reverse-engineer drivers becuause the manufacturers are not willing to share their product information.
It is absurd. If you are not free to have the information about how to use a product, you should not buy the product. Never mind signing an NDA and tainting your codebase to expand the market for the uncoopertative manufacturer
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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