Slashdot Mirror
Stallman To Respond To Mundie Tuesday
Sheetrock writes: "According to a press release from the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman will be delivering a speech entitled "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" at the New York University campus at 10:00AM on Tuesday, May 29, 2001. This speech is expected to counterbalance the one given at the university earlier this month by Craig Mundie of Microsoft (entitled "The Commercial Software Model"). Hopefully, this will get OGGed like some of RMS's other speeches so that those of us who can't attend will still get to listen to his rebuttal." Both Free and Open to the public.
Do you even know what distill means? Very ironic...
People know how to deal with spin and commercial bull. The educated among them know how to deal with intellectualism and the abstract arguments that go with. But someone who really believes something -- that's rather unusual, and people don't know how to deal with it at all.
The audience will empathize to a degree, as they would for anyone they listened to. It's like trying the idea on for size. But they will feel nervous, because believing something just because of the rightness of it is something that makes you vulnerable. If you are just pragmatic, then you can change your mind and admit no real defeat. Pragmatism is very palatable. Open Source is a pragmatic approach. But to say something is right implies something else is wrong. That actually means something. That has implications. That might lead somewhere you don't expect. It doesn't fit with the postmodernism so many of us have internalized.
It makes them uncomfortable. It is completely uncool. Entirely unmodern. People will dismiss him as a fanatic, which is just the word for anyone considerably less cynical than you are. It's too bad, really.
Your concept of freedom is a rather empty one. Freedom in a societal sense means the restriction of individuals' ability to restrict others.
A free society restricts individuals' ability to hold slaves, for instance. In fact, one step further -- we restricts anyone from even voluntarily making themselves the slave of another! And that is not trivial -- voluntary slavery is historically rather common. So why won't we let people do it? It's their life to give away, isn't it?
Well, you can figure that out for yourself. But don't mistake your naive notion of freedom with a real freedom for a society. And RMS believes too strongly to create a fragile and disempowered freedom -- let BSDers do that.
Try that one again? The Linux kernel is GPL (with the binary module exception, admittedly). The core utilities in the vast majority of Linux distribution are all GPL.
The point is moot, since RMS doesn't claim to speak for Open Source.
RMS is the leader of the free software movement, which long (better than 10 years) predates the term "open source". He's arguing a very specific position -- that freedom is important in its own right, independent of any business advantages that may come from the use of open source. He's not trying to argue from a business perspective, and should not be judged on that basis.
Read the license page on the FSF's web site. It lists a very large number of licenses, which it groups into "GPL-compatible", free but not compatible with the GPL, and non-free, and gives specific reasons why each is placed in each category, and recommends reasons for choosing particular licenses. While I doubt that RMS will go into deep discussion of this at his talk -- that would be appropriate for a presentation at a conference, not a general lecture -- his position demonstrates extensive thought, certainly not "one size fits all". Again, as for the issue of money, that's not what he's trying to address.
However, I could make a very strong case that in fact the GPL is one of the best licenses that a business could use in licensing its free source output. The reason, interestingly enough, is that the GPL is probably the strongest widely-accepted license there is for protecting program source against proprietary use by someone else. It's interesting that the situations where the FSF recommends use of the LGPL -- a weaker license -- are those where the software in question is a commodity implementation of a standard, such as libc. The parallels between software that a business would typically try to keep closed and sell for money and GPL'ed software, and software that a business would freely give away and LGPL'ed software, are significant. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html quite clearly notes that the purpose of the GPL is to build up a significant portfolio of IP that may be used freely by anyone so long as they agree to put any derived distributed work under the same conditions.
As I noted above, RMS's position is in fact quite nuanced; the LGPL itself is a compromise of sorts, and he even agrees with the decision to LGPL Ogg Vorbis, on the grounds that uptake of a free alternative to MP3 is of sufficient importance that even the existence of proprietary programs using Ogg Vorbis will benefit the free community.
Microsoft, dare you send in Gates himself?
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, Today
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
M$ thinks its OS & apps are important. They really aren't.
M$ gets away with closed source because its not "bet the farm," "screw this up and somebody gets killed," stuff. Its closed source because its trivial.
When businesses pay real money, like a mil down and $10k per seat with MIS & DBA support on top of that, they get the source code.
They sign non-disclosures and non-competition agreements out the wazoo but they get the source.
You don't even think of selling software at this level without the source. You'd be shown the door.
M$ doesn't even show up on the expenditure budget at this level.
The best thing to do with M$ & Bill Gates is laugh at him or maybe pity him in his delusion.
Nobody uses M$ products where there's any lives at stake or where there's any liability. Closed source is jack-off products for minor functionaries.
People who can turn off their machines and go home to their lives in distant cities, get home to their lives because the equipment that they use to get make the trip has nothing to do with M$, from the car they drive to the airport, to the traffic lights along the way, to the air traffic control system, to the airframes they ride in, to the program that figured out the mix of airplane food meal ingredients on their little plastic plate, to the program that controlled the refinery that made the plastic, to the one that controlled the extruder.
Anywhere that matters, M$ AIN'T there.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I don't think everyone here realizes the capacity that RMS has for making himself look like a complete raving lunatic whenever he's out in public. Well, in private, too, but that's a different subject. Oh man, I haven't even heard this yet (obviously), but chalk this round up to Microsoft. You guys just better hope RMS doesn't set your little movement back a couple of years in the process! :)
Cheers,
When a company (any) speaks of compeating products, services, philosophys or anything not conforming to the companys own needs the consummer should reguard anything said as the same tone and quality of a political canidate refering to other canidates for the same office.
Like a political canidate the words may be true. Or they may be lies.
What matters is there is a reason for the commentary. It wasn't done in the publics best intrests but the companys own intrests.
Usually it is one of two reasons. You should do some research to identify the correct reason for the company or entity in question.
Most of the time it's probably becouse the item in question is more successful and the speaker is losing to it. Or that the speaker and the topic item are very close. In short the speaker dose not have a clear lead over the topic item and needs to bring to light the benifits of the speaker over the topic item that the public is probably unaware of.
If the speaker however has a clear lead over the topic item there is annother reason.
The most likely othe reason is the topic item is vastly suppereor to the item the speaker represents.
The speaker fears the topic item could in a head to head battle crush the item the speaker represents.
In every case the speaker fears the item he supports may suffer at the hands of the topic item. Normally this is justifyed by pure numbers. But occasionally this fear is due more to the fact that the topic item is vastly supereor to the item the speaker represents.
Microsoft has over 75% marketshare...
Linux has less than 10% marketshare...
Why is Microsoft conserned about Linux?
I don't actually exist.
GPL is a subset of open source; it is not equivalent to open source. It looks to me as though RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source.
That seems incredibly unlikely.
First, he's more likely to say that GPL is not just open source, that Free Software is something different to Open Source due to its emphasis on freedom, not just on the practicalities of source availability. You may or may not agree with the distinctions he makes, but to say that he will argue that "GPL=Open Source" is totally out of line with his position.
Secondly, the FSF have never claimed that the GPL is all there is to Free Software, and I wouldn't expect Richard Stallman to try to claim this now. They do like the GPL especially of course, after all it's their creation and is aimed at achieving their goals, but they identify a wide range of licences as being "Free" licences.
The subject of Free Software is obviously an important one to Richard Stallman and I would expect he'll cover the subject thoroughly. Obviously his own biases and prejudices will be very much in evidence but I doubt he'll simplify the way you sem to think he will.
Yea, I know all you guys are not happy about Mundie's mouth-spoutings, and I don't blame you if you disagree with him and want to argue against his points in a public forum. I think that would make a great debate.
Just don't let RMS do it. For the love of god.
I have to say, RMS does NOT share a mindset with most people, and he fights vigorously for what he believes in. While you might consider him inspiring, he's the last person you want to do a public debate to argue your opinions. Because he doesn't necessarily share your opinions... I find that his opinions are very extreme, in some cases off the deep end (this is a guy who would be Amish if someone held a patent on electricity). Some of his ideas are good, and some of his work has been extraordinary... but if you let him argue for your opinions, I guarantee he is going to make all of you look like extreme free software orthodox fundamentalists.
Simply put, his arguments are not balanced or flexible enough to safely engage in a debate with Microsoft in a public forum - he would lose solely on the basis that normal people would get freaked out at the intensity and seriousness of his thoughts and actions. I mean, after all, this guy needs his speech encoded in OGG cause he hates MP3s... how does he expect normal people to relate to him on any level if he wants them to discard MP3s as well? He may be a very accomplished man in his own belief system, but most people don't think on his level.
If you really want a good debate, we should find someone in the business world... someone in the role of a potential MS customer... who strongly advocates Linux, can argue and speak in public pretty well, and who doesn't sound like a zealot... and get them to argue our point. I think someone with that point of view would have the best ammunition and reasoning to counteract the FUD coming out of MS (since MS-FUD is always geared toward businesses, sort of like "You won't get fired for choosing IBM").
Say what you will about RMS, but he's a geek like you and me. Geeks don't lie in the name of artistic licence. They'd rather spend an hour explaining the technical distinctions than dumb it down.
So I find it next to impossible that RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source. In fact, knowing RMS, he won't even mention "open source" except to distinguish it from "free software".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I see that this is upposed to be funny but it's also wrong.
Software has always been created to serve people, not the other way around. Someof us may work in conditions that are the other way around but it's wrong headed thinking.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Some people sacrifice their life for what they believe in. Now, IHMO, that's just plain stupid, but putting money over your ideals is sick.
Having said that, if you define normal as average, you're probably right. Which is very unfortunate.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
I think that Mundie's speech might even have been aimed at destroying the productivity of the Free Software movement. Think about it this way: while MS allocates a few execs to trash Free Software (and really, what else are execs good for?) about a million coders who work on Free Software each write their own 2000 word point-by-point rebuttal of what was more or less an obvious troll in the first place.
Interestingly enough, I think the Slashdot "community" is a very close metaphor to this situation. There are several rather skilled trolls that frequent this site who write essentially inflammatory or unpopular opinions in their comments for the sole purpose of getting exactly the kind of rebuttals that MS is getting now.
--
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Seriously, evangelization is just a waste of time and resources. I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again: Free Software is NEVER in a competition to survive. The only reason that people start to get into this competitive mentality is that they work in big corporations for a living and are thus stuck in that mindset. Besides, evangelization makes it easier to tell who the real hackers are. Just make a list of all the people that you think are good coders, and cross off all the ones who'd rather blow hot air about Free Software than code.
--
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
- Richard M. Stallman, May 29th 2001, New York.
I think you may have put your finger on something. I have heard rumors that MS keeps their marketing people in a cage, and only feeds them once a day. This not only keeps them hungry but reduces the time devoted to independent thought.
I would probably take MS spokesmen more seriously if it didn't seem like you had to put on hip boots every time you got close to them.
I don't mind giving a company a second chance, but they used up theirs a long time ago. They are going to have to make a lot of changes before I give them a chance again.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
With all due respect to RMS, from the tone of the writings of his that I have read, he is NOT the speaker you want to speak to businesses and convince them to trust OSS.
Mr. Stallman's way of thinking seems very much anti-business at the personal level (as in he considers immoral to be selfish/greedy and benefit from it), and to convince business people you would need someone who speaks the same language as them. Talk to them about how "information wants to be free" and closed-source is immoral and they're going to hear "communism!".
If you send RMS in a tour to talk to business people, it would only take a couple of weeks before they start talking over each others' heads and Stallman "cofirms" Microsofts' FUD about OSS being handled by communists and what-not.
Actually, I suspect that was the whole point of Microsoft's FUD. Or at the very least, to point PHBs to most of the Slashdot posts on the Mundie article and say "See? They want to banish copyrights and IP laws! They want to destroy corporations! They're radicals that accept no compromises!".
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
This post will probably just get lost in all the noise, but here we go anyway.
To me, this clash of the titans represents the modern day equivelant of Washington and friends telling the British to go stick an egg up their nose. Those original Americans (no offence meant to Native Americans) left an opressive government to start their own that made more sense for the common man. A direct analogy can be made between Microsoft in it's current form and the sovereignty in 18th century England. [ you will use our sotware vs. you will worship our god ]
This monopoly will be tackled someday. I believe with all my heart that if anyone can lead such a rebellion, it is Richard Stallman. Such a battle will inevitably crush some peoples fortunes, and create new fortunes. The GNU GPL ensures that no one entity in the Free Software future possess all power. This scares the bejesus out of Microsoft, and with good reason.
Sorry for the rant, but this is the reason I volunteer my time to work with the Free Software Foundation, and watch Free Developers with interest.
--daveWell, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
No, the real reason is to ensure that free software developers spend so much time writing rebuttals that they cease to get any real work done...
You can read more by reading my 10,000 word piece: The Mundie Speech: Why he's wrong and just trying to stop free software developers from getting any work done.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Beware the man who quotes philosophers without offering a proper analysis.
... er I mean embrace and extend technicians ... but that is a different rant). Since the debates are being played out in the political arena, the challenges must be answered in the political arena. And if the OSS movement is not represented by someone who is passionate, then Microsoft will have won before the debate begins.
I do not believe that he can possibly be as full of tripe as the Microsoft representative. Someone has to challenge ms's bold statements that creatively interpret reality. Making assertive statements that are false will not turn those statements into truth, but it will make those who are impressionable believe the statements to be true. It needs to be balanced by another prospective.
I would say that 'beware anyone who plays in the political field' would be more apt. And that is where this is being played. Not by the FSF or the open source community, but by the biggest sotware company. Microsoft. I believe that the consequences of not replying are far more dangerous than ignoring it. If it is not responded to, the masses will see it as an acquiescence to the MS dogma, an acceptance of their words as the gospel. And, I believe that that would be the most dangerous path to follow, if you are interested in the future of OSS(or free softaware), or interested in the future of the industry (software/os). To address the later, Do you want there to be only one voice in the debate over software? I think that given the MS politicians tendency to creatively interpret reality, that would be a very bad thing. As for the future of the open source model (and free software), MS is trying to kill everything that is not MS. They are afraid of the legitimacy that the movements have acquired, and it is their desire that they be shunned by the public. If it is shunned, there will be less resources available for it. Resources that help to maintain things like, say, slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat, linux.org, and any of a number of other valuable resources for the open source and free software communities.
What group does not have it's extremists? All groups have their extremists and the visible people. Many of them end up spouting the same rhetoric and dogma until it is possible to predict exactly what they will say. This is not new, nor does it invalidate the movement that they represent. Those who defend what they believe exist in the realm of politics. The art of politics includes speaking to the dirty unwashed masses, and trying to convince them of your argument. As these people are unlikely to respond to a dry technical debate, or to unemotionally charged rundown of the pro's and con's, dogma and rhetoric have become the tool of politicians. And microsoft is most definitely politically aware (not to mention marketing aware and the saboteurs,
And, in more general terms, I take it from your very negative charged (and way oversimplified) statement about dragging on into lunacy that you believe that the extremists do not serve a purpose. I would theorize that they do, and that this purpose is to keep in check the extremists of the other side. By providing extreme arguments on both sides of an argument, an observer is given the opportunity to evaluate what is valid from both sides (rather than only hearing one side of the argument).
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
There is only one problem. Mundie's speech was done while student were still on campus. The school is now closed for the summer (commencement was last week). Who is going to listen to Stallman's speech?