Slashdot Mirror
RMS Says Free Software Is Good
NYU Information Systems chairman Mike Uretsky and NYU computer science professor Edmond Schonberg briefly introduced Stallman to a standing-room-only crowd at NYU's Courant Mathematical Institute.
Stallman drew laughter and applause during Uretsky's introduction by calling out "I do Free software, Open Source is a different crowd" when Uretsky made a reference to Open Source software. Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal of Mundie's speech advocating Microsoft's current "shared source" initiative, Stallman's speech presented both an overview of the Free software movement -- several times emphasizing how it differs from the more pragmatic Open Source movement -- and a defense of Free software at several levels. Though peppered with jokes and historical asides, the bulk of Stallman's talk was devoted to explaining the benefits of Free software and comparing community-based, non-proprietary software development to the "deliberately inflicted waste" of proprietary software.
The publicity that Mundie's speech has stirred up around software licensing is obviously not forgotten, though. Stallman began by saying "I'd like to thank Microsoft for providng me the opportunity to use this platform. For the last few weeks I've felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere, but all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because Microsoft describes our license as an 'Open Source' license." Stallman emphasized at several points that the approach he and GNU project have is at its core philosophical, not merely pragmatic.
Beginning with cooking rather than computers, Stallman pointed out the advantages of being able to share functional documents in the form of recipes. He pointed that while nearly everyone cooks, "unless you're great, you probably use recipes. You've probably had the experience of getting a recipe from a friend -- and unless you're a total neophyte, you probably have also had the experience of changing the recipe. If you've made changes and you make it for your friends, and they like it, you can write down your changes for them." Imagine, he said, if recipes were packaged in black boxes, unavailable for inspection.
Stallman named the qualities he uses to define Free software. He began with "freedom zero" -- the freedom to run the software for any purpose -- noting, "If you're not even free to run the software for anything you want, it's a pretty damn restrictive license."
He went on to describe three additional freedoms which distinguish Free from proprietary software: the right to change software to suit user needs; to redistribute the software; and to publish improved versions.
These freedoms are absent in proprietary software, Stallman said, and cited what he said was his first taste to the evils of non-disclosure statements, which took place while he was working as an operating system developer at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Stallman knew of a computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University with a copy of the Xerox source, and asked for a copy in order to add this feature. He found his request was denied, because his fellow academic had signed a non-disclosure agreement.
"He had refused to cooperate with just about the the entire population of the planet Earth, because he had signed an non-disclosure agreement. This was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim -- my lab and I were the victims. The lesson it taught me is that NDAs have victims, they aren't harmless."
Toward the close of his speech, Stallman pointedly applied the advantages of Free software to businesses, giving examples of ways in which a community of more than 100,000 developers leads to more robust and maintainable software, all issues of price aside.
Describing his experiences after releasing GNU-Emacs in 1984, Stallman said "I got a msg that said 'I think I saw a bug, and here's a fix.'" Others emailed him with new feature requests and bug reports, and in many cases, the code to implement an improved version, "until they were pouring in on my so fast that just making use of the information I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem."
The iterative, inclusive software development process resulted in constantly improving code for the GNU Project's various pieces of software, said Stallman. "What people began to note around 1990 was that our SW was better -- it was more powerful than the proprietary alternatives."
Since that time (before the Linux kernel was developed and employed alongside many GNU utilities), Free and Open Source software has increased dramatically in use and public acceptance.
Citing the large number of companies now paying to develop Free software, and that the majority of pages on the World Wide Web are served with Apache running on GNU/Linux systems, Stallman scoffed at claims that the GPL was unfriendly to business. "Microsoft says that busineses can't get along with the GPL. So if businesses don't include IBM, and HP, and Sun, then maybe they're right."
Addressing one persistent myth, Stallman said "It's not true, sometimes I wish it was true, that if a company uses GPL in any project, that the whole project has to be GPLd. If programs operate at arms' length from each other, then they're legally separate, in general."
Again, though, Stallman was careful to point out that the advantages and intent of Free software had more to do with ethics and social good in a variety of fields than any particular bottom line. Closed software, he said, "causes psychosocial harm which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation. Progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. Nowadays you see scientists act as if they're in gangs at war with other little gangs of scientists ... we're all held back." And not just scientists -- of anyone who uses computers in the workplace, Stallman said that in the absence of a broad right to modify and improve the software they use, "Their lives and jobs are going to be frustrating -- people protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. When this happens, it's bad for those people and for society as a whole."
This sounds like flamebait, but I really am interested. Sure, there are cases where proprietary software is better (technically) than all the Free alternatives, but in my experience that is the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps your software is one of the exceptions. But even in these cases someone eventually will write a Free alternative that is technically superior to your product.
It is true, you may lose if you make your software Free. But even if you keep your software proprietary, I suspect you (and all other proprietary software makers) will be defeated by Free Software somewhere down the road anyway.
So, like it or not, the GPL will get you -- one way or another.
Free Software has victims too. It's intent is to undermine the commercial software world, and put thousands of programmers out of work. What makes one kind of victimization OK and the other not?
In other words, if you are prepared to sacrifice performance you can mix GPL and non-GPL code.
Exactly who does that hurt, Mr Stallman, except for the users of such products?
just like when you get a cold sore virus, it stays inside your body for life. It's a little bit disruptive and annoying, but far from harmful or life-threatening. When the GPL first came up, it did nothing to MS, when the Linux craze came up 3 years ago, MS took notice and reacted and now have resumed full speed ahead. The notion that the GPL model will do anything is laughable, considering how many companies are making money on GPL software (a handful at most), but propietery closed sourced is here to stay, and there is really nothing inherently evil or wrong with it.
According to the ZDNet EWeek story, Microsoft emailed reporters suggested questions to ask Stallman about the GPL:: "Stallman also had retorts to some of the suggested GPL-related questions forwarded to some reporters by Microsoft before Stallman's address. Microsoft's list, distributed via e-mail, called into question what Microsoft presented as ambiguities in some of the licensing terms and conditions outlined in the new Free Software Foundation Frequently Asked Questions document." www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,276634 1,00.html
...but can anyone please tell me how a company such as mine, which has invested over $3 million in R&D, can possibly hope to recoup even 10% of this money by releasing the code under the GPL? We use third party software which costs thousands of dollars per month in developer fees, and also have to cover numerous training trips.
I guess this sounds like flamebait, but I really am interested. We develop software for a very small niche market (~500 possible installations).
When the rubber hits the road, what do I tell the stock holders in the Annual General Meeting?
The argument was indeed that. Read it straight from Microsoft:
If our world were to suddenly switch to the utopia of horseless carriages, which provide travel and faster delivery of goods and services to the common man, how many people would be out of paying jobs?
What of the blacksmiths who make horseshoes? And the tanners who make reins and tackle? Are we not dooming them to a life of poverty?
And this "electricity" thing. Won't this kill off the lucrative whaling industry? What price is progress! Down with Free Software! Join the amish!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
You _cannot_ produce sharing, cooperation, society, on the grounds of direct self-benefit and greed. Actually I think the crux of the biscuit here is greed: it seems quite reasonable that you can have a gentle self-benefit through sharing and cooperation, but you can't have greed. It is always possible to take and refuse to give, and thereby to get a temporary, isolated advantage, and greed mandates that you MUST take every advantage, that you can't pass up any chance at personal gain. Otherwise it wouldn't be greed, just only need.
Those of us who are normal people with normal need, but who are not obliged or accustomed to operate on a basis of greed, have an easier time indulging in sharing and cooperation- historically this has led to great benefits in science and industry. You can zoom down the road a hell of a lot quicker if you don't feel compelled to dig it up each step of the way and take it with you so nobody else can have it... or maybe just no slower, but you have more company when you leave the road there for other people to follow you on...
bleh, metaphor madness. All I'm trying to say is that fixating on the economic benefit is wrong because it allows an underlying assumption, greed, to go unquestioned. And cooperation and sharing may be better at furthering knowledge and science, but nobody ever claimed they were better at furthering greed. If a person's gotta have greed, if they insist on being able to _impede_ others as well as furthering themselves, they really shouldn't be messing around with Free software at all as it will only frustrate them. They should be true to their beliefs and go act on them, for instance writing a commercial web browser to defeat IE, or an OS to unseat Windows, or a word processor to replace Word. That would be fairly useful.
Those of us who are ready to give up greed and settle for just furthering our own goals, will instead choose to ignore all that, and write Free software to share amongst ourselves. We may never get rich but at least we can take care of ourselves. At bottom, GNU _is_ a philosophical argument, and no sort of economic or pragmatic argument. The fact that aspects of free software are competitive in realworld situations with proprietary software is just gravy. People don't always choose things based on rigid estimation of immediate benefits.
It amazes me that nobody who introduces RMS ever seems to be familiar with him, his work, or his positions. This has to be at least the fifth or sixth time I've either seen or heard about an introducer who was corrected (sometimes rather testily) by RMS that "i do free software damnit, not open source!" That's sometimes followed by a decently-long explanation of how "this [confusion] is an error we must work hard to correct" and how open source is not about freedom.
Now regardless of what you think of RMS's position on this matter, one should at least have the courtesy to introduce him as a "Free Software advocate," and a founder of the "Free Software movement" since that's what he calls himself. And you'd have to be very uninformed to not know that's what he calls himself, which leads me to believe that the people doing the introductions are unfamiliar with him and his work, and didn't bother to do even such simple research as reading fsf.org.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think Microsoft's real fear is that the U.S. government will start using more Linux.
For the government, switching to Linux and Star Office can mean a real cost savings over Windows and Office. They're a big enough customer that a name manufacturer would set up Linux machines in bulk, or provide ones without an OS, for less than the cost of a Windows/Office machine. The government could code what it needs (we've already seen the NSA doing this) or fund the fixes it needs for less than the cost of many, many Windows licenses and the paperwork to keep track of them. Multiple similar machines mean they only need to solve configuration hassles once.
That's one of the two ways I see Linux with the chance to make a real inroad on the desktop.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Anyway, RMS wrote more than Emacs. He was the first author of gcc, which even the BSD folks somehow manage to use despite the license. He wrote ls for GNU's fileutils, for instance. His name is also on a lot of other little programs that he wrote out of idealistic dedication, not because they were interesting. If you don't notice active development from him, it's probably because he hasn't written much in a number of years due to RSI, from my understanding.
And anyway, who looks at code and thinks "bloat"? You look at programs and think "bloat", which is probably all you've looked at in Emacs... if you look a bloated program's code you think "cruft". Get your terms straight!
A question... if our world were to suddenly switch to the idyllic utopia of free software comletely, for every job, and it were developed collaboratively, instead of competitively, how many people would be out of paying jobs? The only paying work in the field that I can identify would be the solutions providers, the people who take existing tools, and adapt them to work for a particular company's needs. As far as I can tell, that's not enough to buy the bacon for the existing base of computer scientists/software engineers
now, considering the case where we just talk about making the world free [speech] and not necessarily free [beer], that might create the kind of world that we're actually looking for, but I think we blur the distinction way too much.
Inconceivable!
Actually, most high class restaurants publish their recipes. The trick with amazing food isn't the recipe, but the cooking process itself and the quality of the ingredients (restaurant grade butter makes just about anything taste heavily ;-).
sigs are a waste of space
A new product or service that disrupts an industry and eventually wins most of the market share.
The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in 1997 to describe new technical inventions that distrupt the established industries and economic patterns and cause existing, dominating companies to be replaced by new players based on the new inventions. Yet the distruptive inventions do not have to be technical. Can the GNU GPL, a 12-year-old software license and a hack on the copyright law, also be called a distruptive technology? It seems so. Microsoft is the most successful example of the proprietary software business model and dominates today's software market. Microsoft's recent attack on the GPL shows the attempt of an established player to try to suppress something new, up and coming. Except this time, the new player does not play by the rules. Instead, through viral-like propagation properties, the GPL establishes a new social model where software is passed freely and shared. The GPL distrupts the proprietary business model by social engineering, building a new way of life based on freedom and cooperation. Microsoft can assimilate anything following the proprietary business model but will have problem dealing with the social model of Free Software.
As the GPLed software domain further expands, the proprietary business model is graduately pushed aside. How will the Borg assimilate the virus inherently incompatible with the Borg's nature? Will the virus distrupt and ultimately destory the Borg?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Everyone knew that RMS was going to be critical of Microsoft, but I personally didn't expect him to lay into Ransom Love.
Here's how eWeek is reporting it. To whet your appetite here's a direct quote from the article:
I've decided that I'm no longer happy being CIO of Sodablue.org. I'm giving myself a promotion to CEO.
Now that I'm CEO and don't have to worry about technical issues I just want to point out that our website runs off Windows 2000. It's a really cool new thing this web stuff, and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe you can do that on Linux.
Anyway, my new CIO(aka the neighbors dog) tells me that most commercial building access systems he's encountered run off a small PC in the security office using DOS or Windows. Actually a surprising number of them are still old 386 computers running DOS because it's not that demanding of an application.
McDonald's Secret Sauce is Thousand Island Dressing.
:)
damn, I hope I didn't ruin the surprise for you.
What happens if your product breaks or is only available on an obsolete system and your company is out of business? They will have to find another solution. If they had the source and knowledge, they could continue using it long after your company has ceased operations. I guess it goes back to the 'Give a fish/Teach how to fish' parable.
Besides, given the amount of money you've spent on it and the size of the market, the cost of your product would have to be enormous to just break even. If a business is going to lay out that amount of cash, they're still going to want some form of support.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Cygnus was profitable for several years before being bought by RedHat. I'm sure there are other small consulting firms around the world that do this too.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
This only works when dealing with B2B contracts. The model falls flat any time you try to live off of service fees in a B2C relationship,
IBM makes tons of money with B2B support contracts and consulting. That's where RedHat makes a lot of their money too. The software needs of a business is much different than the needs of Joe Sixpack. Because of this, they hire someone to create custom solutions that never leave the business. This is done by B2B consulting firms and/or in house developers (most of the programmers in the world fall into this category). This is the market where using free software and selling service (support, customization, training, etc.) has a lot of potential. Businesses are willing to pay for this sort of service. Just ask any SAP or PeopleSoft consultant.
Microsoft's "Software as a service" model is probably more accurately described as the "Your data is our hostage" model. You pay the ransom, and you get to use your data until the subscription runs out. Then you pay again. They're going to this because the biggest obstacle to keeping sales revenue up is the perception by their customers that the version of the software they currently use is good enough for what they need it for.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
60% of the webservers in the Netcraft survey run Apache but this makes no claim for the OS. This would be 84% of the Apache sites are running Linux. Since Apache ships standard on MacOS X and runs without flaw on Solaris, FreeBSD, and damn near any other Unix varient, I find this number an exaggeration at best or more of Stallman's bullshit at worst.
I think I'll approximate my groan with a low frequency sine wave in either case....
For the non-engineers out there, the typical RMS approximation assumes the input is a sine wave. (At least, as I recall.) That means that the approximation works for measuring things like wall current (aka. "the mains" for you non-'merkins), but not for more complicated signals, such as audio or noise or what-have-you.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
I was there too, and while I have no transcript or direct quotes, I do have four pages of notes which could be turned into some 20 .. 50 KB of HTML if desired.
BTW, the article that was posted is pretty accurate and has some details that will not be part of my writeup.
I exapect to be writing this up this evening. If you want a link when it is ready, please send me email. I will send the link directly to all the mail me, and if I get enough requests I will post that link as a reply to this.
I submitted the following "story" earlier this evening, apperently just a little too late. Someone else beat me to it and was on the queue (210 items long) when I submitted mine.
What an incredible movie.
Yeah I get it. How's that working out for you?
What?
Being clever.
Reading on though:
Now that's good. It's a nice little metaphor than non-geek buisness type folk can actually understand. It'll make a hell of a lot more sense than trying to explain "free as in free beer" to a PHB.
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
RMS believes that the creation of proprietary software has negative externalities. He will, even, admit that they're smaller than, say, dumping PCB's in the rivers. But still, it is a valid reason to tell companies not to do that thing.
Besides, freedom of speech. He's got the right to tell about anyone, not to do just about anything. Another beautiful thing about America.
Of course. But, why on Earth would he not say that?
I'll admit that after having read the whole thing (and no I haven't really read much of the other similar stories that have been posted on the subject) that there are good points in it.
I feel like I'm in school. "Do insert-3rd-grade-task-here." 2 days later: repeat.
It is just a little ridiculous. Why do we keep beating the horse?
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Not so -- great chefs often give away their recipies. Emeril tells you how to make essence, Paul Proudhomme publishes the Turducken recipie, but McDonalds jealously guards the Secret Sauce. The difference is in the experience and skill of the great chef to improvise, adjust and flow with differences in the raw product, or the patience and precision that brings it together (which is what makes them great).
Sure, there are reasons to be proprietary, but there's a model where you pay the chef for preparing the food well, and there's a model where you pay for the formula regardless of the quality of the product. I prefer the former :-), and I agree that the latter is only sometimes worth while.
Can you separate the knowledge from the product? If so, you can possibly GPL the source for the product, make the data format for the knowledge base an open spec, and then license the data separately. Your customers (and anyone they passed the code on to) would have the code under the GPL, but the data that the code worked with would be owned by you and licensed to them for their use with a standard commercial license.
This is something that probably would not fly with the die-hard GPL crowd. <shrug> Despite that, it's one way to address your situation.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
There is no reason to waste an amazing amount of money reinvinting the wheel every time one needs a new text editor or just because one is trying to circumvent someone else's IP. What a waste
Can you please explain to me then Gnome & KDE for starters? And how about FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. HURD? OpenOffice vs. Emacs? Mozilla vs. Konqueror? MySQL and PostGres?
etc. etc. etc.
Source is available and people still go and make their own incredibly complicated software rather than join into an existing enclave... Or are you just calling Linus an idiot for not developing something based off of AT&T's source code...?
Imagine, he said, if recipes were packaged in black boxes, unavailable for nspection.
Maybe someone needs to explain to RMS that not all recipes are available to public inspection. See: Coca-Cola formula, KFC seven herbs and spices formula.
He went on to describe three additional freedoms which distinguish Free from proprietary software: the right to change software to suit user needs; to redistribute the software; and to publish improved versions.
But then it takes away the right to keep the changes to yourself. So much for freedom.
Citing the large number of companies now paying to develop Free software.
Did he also happen to cite the fact that so many of these companies are going tits up lately?
Cheers,
That would be horrible. Software should only be paid for by the people that use it or value it. That isn't all taxpayers. If I don't use KDE, I don't want to pay for it. Having government pay for more things is just another way to guarantee that your money and my money gets wasted without accountability as gets skimmed many times by shadowy beaurocrats, with whatever that gets through the strainer, spent on stuff that we may or may not want.
The way to fund Free Software is for someone, who wants the software, to pay to have it written. This revenue model is almost exactly identical to contract programming, which is quite proven and mature.
Wanna make money writing Free Software? Do the same thing a bunch of people are already doing now: Find someone who wants a program, and send 'em a bid. My paychecks for the last 15 years have been about half-supported by that type of revenue. The difference (between what I do and what you want) is that instead of just giving a the customer a binary, give 'em the source and a GPL too. Of course, that means they won't necessarily be locked into rehiring you when they want mods later (that's where the other half of my paychecks come from ;-) but that's the price of your user's freedom. Either impress them with your work so they'll come back for maintenance, or increase your rates for the initial work.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Okay, let's examine this for a moment. The phrase "combine what they blieve to be separate applications with GPL code" means that if they choose to incorporate GPL code into a tool that's distributed with a larger project, they could potentially be required to open up the code to the larger project (depending on how that tool is used, obviously). As well, it also has the more obvious meaning of including GPL'ed code in a project requires that project be GPL'ed. This is bad, and you can be sure that the listed examples (Sun, HP, IBM) do not do this on fear of being forced to give away their cash cows.
Following from the comment you quoted, the exammples of Sun, HP, and IBM surely carefully check that their own GPL'ed projects are not contaminating their proprietary code (then again, as I'm not employed by any of those companies, I couldn't tell you for sure).
This only works when dealing with B2B contracts. The model falls flat any time you try to live off of service fees in a B2C relationship, because most customers are simply unwilling to pay the necessary fees for service many of them consider (justly or not) useless. Would you pay $500 for a two or three year support contract for Microsoft Office, if Office were given to you for free? Would you even be willing to pay $15/mo for the same thing?
Too many people would answer "no" to those questions. Thus, to make money (allowing you to then make more software and also to be around to support what you've already written), you sell your software (which is your most valuable property because it's where the greatest number of man-hours are spent, unless you take the view that a person's time is worthless) and "give away" (or sell for a trivial price, for those people that are afraid that they'll "get what they pay for") your support services for a set amount of time (generally, two generations of a product is long enough, at which point anyone using 2+ generations old versions should upgrade).
Now, Microsoft is moving towards a "Software as a service" model, but that model revolves more around the software rather than the support (you get "free" upgrades for the duration of your subscription, for example). This will work because customers get something of perceptible value for their dollars -- in other words, they don't get the software until they've paid the subscription fee. Giving away software to sell support can't be as successful, because the customers get the valuable portion (the software) for free, and have little incentive to then pay for help (which you can often find for free online, or get cheaply in the form of a book).
How many people do you realistically expect to contribute fixes back to a project? One out of every thousand? One out of every ten thousand? One out of every ten? Certainly the ratio depends on the userbase. For instance, "users" of something like gtk (by which I mean the developers using the library) are probably more likely to submit bug fixes than users of StarOffice, for multiple reasons (fewer, more technically-inclined folk using the library, developers vs. Joe Sixpack, complexity of the project, so on).
I'm not denying that it happens. I'm just saying that when most people use that argument, they're being very idealistic. They're applying lessons learned from the linux kernel (for example) to an office suite (for another example). I really doubt the effect would be any greater than that gained from beta programs (which Microsoft actively runs, with great feedback from the beta users).
Oh, and in most cases, the shrinkwrapped software you buy is not beta-quality code. There are exceptions, like the PC gaming industry where deadlines are tight and publishers want a quick ROI, but overall most well-designed commercial applications are of higher quality than what you'll find in ~75% of the freshmeat entries or sourceforge projects.
The argument was not that businesses can't get along with the GPL. It was that businesses can't prosper by relying solely on the GPL. The example given by Microsoft was giving away your most valuable property (your software), and then hoping to make money on the marginal business of supporting that software. IBM, HP, and Sun do not follow that pattern. They're large enough to be able to finance some GPL'ed projects, but they're not giving away their cash cows. Solaris is not GPL'ed, HP-UX is not GPL'ed (if you could really consider HP-UX a cash cow any more), Java is not GPL'ed, WorldSphere is not GPL'ed, and so on. And while you might argue that these companies support linux, which is a direct competitor to their own unices, they're making their money on the hardware, not the software. That's like calling Apple out for supporting MkLinux back in the day because it competed with Mac OS -- They still sold hardware either way, so they were happy.
<flamebait>RMS is not some messiah. He's not a good businessman, and he's also not that great of a programmer (ever looked at the emacs code? bloat bloat bloat). He's just a man, with an over-ambitious vision and the ego to back it up.</flamebait>
TruRMS software only runs on Digital equipment.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
RMS: Free Software Good,
Dog Bites Man, Sky Blue
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Don't forget that Microsoft does give away (some) of its valuable IP, such as IE.
cpeterso
----------
:-)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
which is exceeded by a 747 filled with 70GB DAT tapes.
Bingo!
One very important reason people won't be in a hurry to flock to Microsoft's new subscription business model: Users will still inevitably get buggy software in the shrinkwrap, whether it's real or Virtual Shrinkwrap(tm).
Bottom line: users are still having to pay for the privilege of beta testing their stuff.
At least open source software affords users the chance to fix the bugs themselves and then contribute the fixes to the community of users
in a timely fashion. For that, I WOULD certainly be willing to pay a maintenance fee to the authors who contributed to the code.
GPL is about culture, about the way you want to live. Suppose you had a choice to program a closed source application and an open source one, what would you choose ? Or, if you just wanted to use it ?
Since the idea is to maximize the benefits to all taxpayers, it would make sense to give them the source code, and it would help to reduce maintenance and development costs. Therefore, an important condition would be to make it Open Source... and actually the GPL would be a good candidate for a license.
Whether the billions of dollars go to the FSF, IBM, or Microsoft doesn't matter. The developed software goes to the community, GLPed and everything
No, putting it into the PUBLIC DOMAIN would be the ideal license. Namely because if the Government is funding it, it is MANDATED to do so by law.
If my tax money goes into creating something, I want to get the fruits of that labor no matter how I choose to do so -- and if that means rolling that code into a proprietary product, so be it. I paid for it - I get to use it. NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
But you can never be assured that the waiter did not spit on your food (cos you pissed him off), that the fish is five days old, and that the hollendaise dressing was made this morning and has been sitting under a heat lamp for 6 hours (a recipe for illness).
Yes, you can.
You know how?
1. You check to see if lots of people are eating in the restaurant. (Bad news travels fast; this assumes that the place opened more than a couple of months ago, so the honeymoon effect is over).
2. You get to know the chef. This process starts by having a meal. If you enjoy it, you ask if you could speak to the chef after the kitchen has closed. (They'll usually sit, chat and have a drink or two at the bar if they don't have to be anywhere else).
3. Ask people. The wait staff will tell you honestly and truthfully if you ask them to. Tip heavily.
4. If a place treats you well, return to it, and tip well.
There you go - guaranteed recipe for success.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Open source programers are noble fools who get themselves taken advantage of when in actuality should be the ones lavished in money
If you read the GNU manifesto, that's the whole point. RMS wants programmers to be seen as little more than store clerks. Try reading it some time.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
IMO we should concern ourselves with trying to reduce the vast differences in income, not increase them. This is not only the ethical Right Thing to do, it is smart for yourself in the long term too.
Society is built upon cooperation, and large differences of income undermine that. Unless our society changes, it is heading for disaster (police state and/or revolution and/or civil war). More and more people are parasites on society today (day traders e.g.) who do not contribute anything and yet expects not only to get fed but to get rich! Loathsome. IMHO such people ought to be shot.
Actually, society is built on a blend of cooperation and competition, with a good dose of selfishness.
Let me put it to you this way:
If you want to reduce the vast differences in income, then presumably it's a good thing to give people welfare?
Now... the question is this: if you're making everyone economically equal, then why would anyone do anything but sit around on their asses all day and live off their welfare check?
So you'd have people who work their asses off paying for those who do nothing, ending up with people who get bupkiss for their hard toil, versus people who get plenty for doing nothing.
Does this seem right, fair or 'morally and ethically correct' to you?
Certainly, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. But unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Personally, I view this as a good thing; a perfect world would quickly become a stagnant one. Heck, I'm all for giving people a leg-up when they've fallen on hard times -- and schmuck that I am, I even give money to people on the street on the offchance that one time in twenty it'll actually go to someone deserving of it. But if you go down the 'equal share for one and all' route, you'll end up with leeches -- and frankly, I ain't willing to pay for them.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Your business model is aimed around selling software. The truly successful computer companies (other than Microsoft) have all been services companies. What a GNU world would say is, "Don't sell the software, lease your expertise in the software." In other words, support, customize, redesign the software, and let your customers help. Run the best *software* shop you can, because that's how you compete.
Does that mean your aunts are the Sisters of Mercy?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think you (or perhaps RMS) hit it on the head.
The question isn't: why would a company in the business of producing proprietary software embrace GPL? Self evidently, they cannot, except in a limited way.
It isn't from the perspective of the would be future Microsofts, but of the GMs and Citibanks of the world. The question is -- why would you pay millions of dollars for the privilege of having your precious IP converted and stored in a secret format that you have no rights to and for which you may be forced to pay tribute if you wish to have future access to?
I'm pretty neutral on the Free/proprietary software issue. I think free software is great, but if propietary developers can deliver enough added value to justify their existence -- fine. However, from my fairly neutral vantage point, it is very clear that Microsoft's argument is essentially circular: In a nutshell, they say we need proprietary software because proprietary software developers can't live without it.
My own view is that proprietary software is like any other monopoly -- useful when it attracts investment to areas of high risk or of public interest but limited profitability. Otherwise it serves no useful function. For that reason, I would like to see a situation where all source code is automatically licensed without restrictions to buyers after a limited period, perhaps seven years. If you can't innovate enough in seven years to justify your ongoing existence, you should go away and do something else. This would, not coincidentally, allow users unfettered access to their legacy documents. Many a group has discovered the futility of trying to read an MSBACKUP file with a later version of MSBACKUP.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, is Richard Stallman an approximation or is he True RMS?
Yes, yes, I can hear you groaning...
So what is this? First "Fight Club" post or something?
But you can never be assured that the waiter did not spit on your food (cos you pissed him off), that the fish is five days old, and that the hollendaise dressing was made this morning and has been sitting under a heat lamp for 6 hours (a recipe for illness).
If you cook yourself you can pick and choosee the freshest and most flavorful ingredients and can control the degree of cleanliness of your own kitchen.
War is necrophilia.
You're right. It is a troll, and you caught me. Some of what you said had some point, but most of it was poorly thought out, or just plain false.
If you're not yourself a coder, then the "If I don't like it I can change it" arguement carries no weight.
I'm not a sufficiently skilled coder to make a difference in most applications, yet that argument carries weight with me. Why? Because it means that so can someone else, and since people in general aren't all that different, it is very likely that someone who is a skilled coder feels the same way and will decide to change it.
Add to that the fact that in general Open Source[1] projects tend to be more likely to fix bugs and add requeste features. Closed source alternatives tend to only add things if a "significant" protion of the user base wants it.
But the bulk of open source projects are still distributed as "here's a tarball with the source, have fun."
That hasn't been my expierence. I have seen a few programs distributed in a tarball only method, but those were either extreme alpha, (for coders, not for average users), predating Linux and designed for most unices, or fairly simple programs, designed for greatest portability.
The rest of your argument tends to fall apart since the assertion that most linux software is in a tarball only distribution. I myself haven't seen anything that was totally unavilable in RPM format in quite some time.
Also note that having rpms available should in no way exclude the available of source files. They are valuble to make Open Source work.
why do I want to have 15 different editors to pick from if they are all more complicated than I want?
So what if you do have more software than you need. Use what you can, and let the rest sit. It's about choice. At my university there are student use computer labs. Over 90% of the software available is only useful to a very small minority of the users. There is dietary software, numerous stastical packages, and things for subjects I've never heard of. I have yet to see anyone complain because extra software was there.
Linux incluses so many different versions of the same thing because different people like different things, and shouldn't be held back simply because a very few are confused by choice (that number is going up because of exposure to microsoft software however). A reasonably intelligent person will ignore things they aren't interested in. Joe user will probably find gedit in his menus, and just use that. So what if far more powerful tools are available. Just because you have the choice doesn't mean you have to learn to use every piece of software presented to you.
The latest version of Linux-Mandrake (8.0) comes with three different FTP servers. Er, why?
Because it gives choice, that's why. Joe user isn't going to care about FTP servers anyway. Just because they are there doesn't mean that you are forced to use them. If you are just setting up a home system it would be wise not to have FTP installed anyway, now many distributions enable all sorts of services that shouldn't be, and I have no idea why. It would be far better to ask the user what he wants rather than sucking cycles for something that won't be used, and that will reduce security.
Configuration, while vastly improved over earlier versions, is still scattered over a half dozen configuration utilities, and that's just the graphical ones. Why? Welcome to the Bazar.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
Nonsense. You can have a subroutine that executes (via fork()/exec(), or system()) a GPLed program. You just can't create a subroutine that is a derivative of a GPLed program without GPLing that subroutine.
Say it with me now: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
How did we get from "I can't run the program" to "I can't link the library"?
Anyway, static linking most defintely makes your code derivative - you're including the object file in your program! If I write a book that include verbatim the text of another book, even if the footnotes in my work only refer to a fraction of the included book you can bet that that will count as derivative.
Linking is only an issue if it falls under "copying, distributing, or modifying" the code in question; static linking would imply copying and distributing, dynamic linking would not.
Dynaminc linking would be ok since you are not creating a derivative work, only making references. Note that the GPL does not say anything about linking in its conditions, and its "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section mentions only "incorporating".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I had the luck of asking RMS the final question of the day. I'm not sure if I took advantage of the opportunity though. My question was: "If there was a button that would make the government force software companies to open and free all software, would you press it?" He answered "yes", and afterwards, I wondered if it was a dumb question. But my intention was to see if he would use the government and force against others the way he sees software companies currently using the legal system against users. And apparently he would, but I guess it makes sense, if he thinks that the system shouldn't exist anyway. This line of thinking leads to the destruction of copyrights and patent. Many think that money, and even physical property are contrivances that are used to subjigate the common man; should we get rid of that too? In limiting his scope to software, RMS allows himself to actually get things done, but if I take his ideas further, they seem to contradict how our society works as a whole. Maybe these ideas should be taken further. Maybe they have already. I haven't really read Marx or other populist authors.
I like the idea of the GPL, and I love and appreciate all the software that RMS and crew has provided, but I'm not sure if I can stand with his ideals yet, untill they are applied to a larger scope.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Yeah!
- You buy a frozen pizza, which, in your opinion, does not have enough cheese and spice on it. However, it's illegal for you to modify your pizza (well, it's not really yours) by adding cheese and oregano. Oh, and God forbid you ever share your pizza (modified or otherwise) with your friends!
> If my receipe were "GPLed", she would then not be allowed to serve her modified dish to anyone without telling them the entire receipe.
Not entirely.. you don't actually have to distribute the recipe with the dish, you have to provide a good way for people to get your recipe, like a stack of papers on the corner of the table, at a cost no higher than the medium (=the paper its printed on). If they're not interested in the source, the GPL doesn't force you to stuff it down their throats. (try a distro from the cover of some magazine.. they usually don't include sources)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Then Elaine found the recipes in drawer/cabinet that the Soup Nazi had given Kramer..
And ruined him by announcing the recipes to all the customers (in revenge for suspending her soup privileges).
NO SOUP FOR YOU! So lets open source that sucker..
Henceforth, let MS be known as the Code Nazi
Find and share links to celebrity profiles on MySpace! http://www.myspacecelebrities.com
And now people will qoute him and his Open Sauce analogie ;)
...but can anyone please tell me how a company such as mine, which has invested over $3 million in R&D, can possibly hope to recoup even 10% of this money by releasing the code under the GPL?
True but he only reason why you had to spend that money yourself is because you were hoping to take adavantage of existing IP laws. If these laws did not exist in the first place, you would not done so. Others in society would have gotten together and paid you to do it. If there is a need for something for the common good, society sould get together to make it happen. There is no reason to waste an amazing amount of money reinvinting the wheel every time one needs a new text editor or just because one is trying to circumvent someone else's IP. What a waste!
Just imagine if the quick sort algorithm was patented by its inventor. It would have done much more harm than good. Imagine if the technology behind the WWW was patented. This is one of the minor promise of free software: it eliminates the waste in human effort. It also encourages cooperation and good will among people. The world could surely use a little bit of that lately.
It is a lie that government funded projects cannot be efficient. After all, we have roads, highways, bridges, etc... The bidding system is not perfect but it works and sometimes it works spectacularly well.
The question is not if they can be efficient but what is the percentage of these projects that end up being complete fuckups as compared to number of such failed ventures in a private sector.
.com debacle was not a shining example of the successes of capitalism. Still, I believe in free market society, one where the wealth of the earth is an inheritance right for everybody. This way everyone gets to compete on a fair basis.
You'd be suprised at the number of companies who go belly up every year. The
After all, everyone knows how Soviet state run economy ended up after 50 years of head on competition with US free market style society.
As far as I know, the Soviets had agencies who managed things directly. Is not the state the sole employer in a Marxist system? I doubt that they had a bidding system like the US.
Again, though, Stallman was careful to point out that the advantages and intent of Free software had more to do with ethics and social good in a variety of fields than any particular bottom line. Closed software, he said, "causes psychosocial harm which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation. Progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. Nowadays you see scientists act as if they're in gangs at war with other little gangs of scientists ... we're all held back."
I takes a tremendous amount of time an effort to write good software. I am not sure if RMS has addressed this issue but I think it's worth thinking about. In a labor-based economy where one's livelihood is dependent on one's labor, it is not easy to create free software without a source of income. I believe that free software should be subsidized by the government because it is as beneficial to society as roads and telephone lines. After all art is subsidized.
But we should not wait for government subsidies. You can support your favorite artist/inventor/programmer/organization by writing them a personal check now! All philanthropists and charitable organizations should take notice. The FSF should be the recipients of billions of dollars in subsidies and support from the government and industry.
Isn't the cooking process a part of the recipe? The recipe is not just a list of ingredients, it is also an explanation of what to do with them.
----------
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Altough what you say is right, I think you're taking the metaphor a little too far. What's your equivalent to "freshest and most flavourful ingredients" in Free Software vs. Closed Source?
The software is run the same way every time by the CPU, while different cooks make different quality meals out of same recipes. So, I think this metaphor doesn't go any further than RMS has taken it.
----------
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
MS's IP approach is perfect for microsft at the expense of everyone else (want to measure that expense? just add up your software expenditure)
That's what every business is about -- doing something, and other people paying for it. M$ is evil, but not because they're charging people for their work. Almost everybody is the world would be evil, according to that argument.
----------
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Oh please, of course Root Mean Squared thinks that free software is good. Without free software, we wouldn't be able to easily do our statistics! Imagine doing our statistics with Excel, or some other M$ product. Gasp!
How to Download YouTube Videos
Actually, society is built on a blend of cooperation and competition, with a good dose of selfishness.
True. However, in any stable society the cooperation part must be predominant; otherwise it would just decay into dog-eat-dog chaos, something that perhaps is happening today.
If you want to reduce the vast differences in income, then presumably it's a good thing to give people welfare?
In a way, yes, but I wouldn't call it welfare. I would call it "citizen salary"; something you get for just being a citizen.
Now... the question is this: if you're making everyone economically equal, then why would anyone do anything but sit around on their asses all day and live off their welfare check?
Sooner or later the would perhaps get bored with that and start doing something... ;-) But seriously, I don't propose making everyone totally economically equal. Some people are more industrious or skilled and I think they deserve more than a lazy bum. However, I think the inequatilities should be vastly smaller than now.
Someone working 60 hour-weeks obviously deserves more than someone working 30 hours only. Someone with long and expensive eduacation or very special skills deserve more per hour than someone without too. What I am against is the magnitude of it. Let's say max hourly pay could be some 5 times that of unskilled labor. No one can sustain working more than 80 hours/week. So, there is no way anyone could deserve having an income more than 10 times that of 40 h/week normal people. And even that should be very rare.
So you'd have people who work their asses off paying for those who do nothing, ending up with people who get bupkiss for their hard toil, versus people who get plenty for doing nothing.
Does this seem right, fair or 'morally and ethically correct' to you?
As I said, in my scenario, working hard would still get you more money than not doing it, just not millions. And besides, there are incentives besides money - fame, pride in a job well done, doing something just because you love doing it, you name it.
Now, today we have this "lottery" world where you have a very slim chance at striking it rich (better if your parents are rich), but where it is quite likely you will end up with chicken shit despite all your hard work. A world where you basically need money to get money, where the rich get richer without doing anything useful and the poor more and more impoverished and marginalized. Does this seem right, fair or 'morally and ethically correct' to you?
Certainly, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. But unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.
I know. But that is no reason not trying to make it at least somewhat better.
/Dervak
Open source programers are noble fools who get themselves taken advantage of when in actuality should be the ones lavished in money.
No one should be lavished in money. Not businessmen, not artists, not programmers, open source or otherwise, not anyone. Every cent of the unnecessary wealth of the rich is taken from the poor. Economics is a zero-sum game.
Do you think you somehow deserve a sports car and a SUV, vacations at luxury hotels, meals at expensive restaurants every day and a million-dollar home just because you happen to be a programmer? Do you think your work is so much more worth than that of the guys and gals who wait on you and do the shit work for you? I have news for you: It is not.
And in a fair world, you would not get away with it. But of course, the laws are written by the rich, for the rich.
IMO we should concern ourselves with trying to reduce the vast differences in income, not increase them. This is not only the ethical Right Thing to do, it is smart for yourself in the long term too.
Society is built upon cooperation, and large differences of income undermine that. Unless our society changes, it is heading for disaster (police state and/or revolution and/or civil war). More and more people are parasites on society today (day traders e.g.) who do not contribute anything and yet expects not only to get fed but to get rich! Loathsome. IMHO such people ought to be shot.
Accumulating money and possessions for yourself only should not be the purpose of life. Making a better world should. I applaud RMS for his uncompromising stand in this.
/Dervak
Stalman said "freedom zero" -- the freedom to run the software for any purpose is the most basic right. This is in contradiction to the GPL which says that I can't run the program as a subroutine unless I open source my code. Thus, he is arguing that the correct liscense is the LGPL.
The existance of a free (and cheap) alternative will force proprietary software vendors to produce better products, and to improve them often. On the other hand, proprietary software vendors may use open source as a gigantic R&D department (they connot exclusively sell GPL software, but they can reuse ideas, they can link their product with LGPL(and similarly licensed) software ; and they can use free OSes as platform for products aimed to vertical markets.
Maybe a trifle on the optimistic side, but we are already seing some of it.
Ciao
----
FB
Bill Gates: Commercial Software is Good
Linus Torvalds: Open Source Sofware is Good
Craig Mundie: Free Software is Bad
Oh please. This is like posting a headline saying that Linux is better than Windows. Next time, try to tell us something we don't know.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Does anybody have a copy of the questions forwarded to reporters by Microsoft? I'm curious - since eWeek alludes to them - what they contain.
"Free software is good" Gee, that sounds like what you'd expect from the Stallman doll!. "Pull it's string and listen to one of 8 witty sayings!" Mind you, I like free software, mainly because it means I don't have to pay for it...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Perhaps one day the software world will reflect this (I personally doubt it).
There is a world of difference between reading a bpook which tells you how to drive a car and winning a grand-prix.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Among them the fact that the text of a recipe can be copyright but the underlying methods can not be.
There is a lot of precident for recipe copyright which fits quite well (eg that you can't copyright just a trivial expression of a well known recipe becuase there is not significant work in creating it, but you can if you have clearly put effort into making the text special).
Applying it to software would give us something between the current situation and what the `no-ipr' extreme position would like, which is probably healthy.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Anyone can hire a programmer.
Not everyone can or wants to fix their own car, but the availability of workshop manuals etc. means you can hire someone to do so if you don't lik ethe local official dealer or they go out of business.
To take the recipe example again (even if it is somewhat innacurate, since software is infinately replicable at zero effort, food is not.
But recipes are. It's the text, not the results of applying the text which are the issue. If you use the software to drive a robot arm which makes lunch, then the lunch is not replicable but the software still is.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
realaudio is a patented closed source format! what the fuck is wrong with you? Everyone should delete all the audio (even .wav) files and immediately switch to ogg!
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You want evidence that free software and open source can change the world?
Theres these boxs used for computing thats on nearly everyones desk these days, there called computers. Also known as PCs. If it wasn't for a group of clever paople that where able to get the bios code without violating the liscense, ALL pcs would say IBM and cost 10,000.
Ever here of the internet? its this little thing thats been in the news lately..
this is true with all technology, open is better. it promotes competition, and allows for real innovation. Take radio for example. what if the modulation know how was locked up under IP protection?
If the US moved to open source software it would save Billions of dollars annually, which could go for education, which could lead to a cure for cancer, or back to the tax payers, some of whom could donate it it causes to help put an end to world hunger.
lets say for argue ment that Open source would not have any inpact in and of its self. what about all the harm to society that closed system has done. In the UK, if you don't have a MS closed source system, you can not participate in the government online. Basically saying you can't have a say in your government without giving us money. thatt extortation and a violation of free speech.
we don't want to reshape the world according to out will, we want everbody to have a choice in how they want computers to work in there world.
Free software, and open source, is about the big picture. Not your life, not my life, not our desire to make a buck, but the ability to free up resources and allow people to make choices, and isn't having a choice really the most basic right of all?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I thought that Xerox was a company, not a feature. Perhaps you are referring to Interpress, which is a Page Description Language that pre-dates Postscript and was considered by many to be superior. The problem was that Xerox kept the specifications secret, so nobody but them could support it. The rest is history.
Personally, I feel RMS touches on an important issue here. People don't care because dollars are traded for loss of emotional attachment. Everything is a tradeoff, and when businessmen speak, they don't worry about the non-dollar tradeoffs - which are slowly de-humanizing mainstream culture.
- You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!
---
It's not what the GPL will do TO you. It's what the GPL will do FOR you.
Use Open source as much as you can. There might be GPL or other OSS alternatives to the $oftware you're currently using to develop. As you fix things in the tools you're using, publish those fixes to the OSS community.
If you're $3 million behind already, be greedy with your own licenses, don't open anything you don't have to. Hire a lawyer if you need to, but make sure you use the OSS licenses appropriately. Once you're ahead instead of behind, think about OSSing your old stuff to keep the competition on it's toes. (moving on to the next product)
As for making money with new OSS, experiment on a small scale. Try it with a sub product see how customers like it and if you still get enough related service money and/or fame to make it worth your while.
If someone tries to tell you what you "owe" the open source community, laugh in their face. The only reason to open source code is to get more people using it, and to make other peoples lives better. Understanding why this is beneficial is difficult for many individuals and most corporations. But in the long run, believe me, it's the best policy. (I'm talking about helping others, not expecting them to help you!!)
They aren't evil because they charge, they're evil because they are trying to limit our ability to choose alternatives to they're products. And then they have the gall to tell us it's all for the best.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Our company's most precious assets, or even IP, are not software.
MS's IP approach is perfect for microsft at the expense of everyone else (want to measure that expense? just add up your software expenditure)
For businesses that use computers to help them do other things, things that are actually what makes us money, good quality public domain software is a godsend. Some stuff we modify, under the terms of the GPL but those mods aren't crucial to our competitive advantage and we're happy for them to be incorporated into the next version. It saves us the time of remodifying the next version.
Don't confuse what's good for Bill Gates with what's good for you.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
What an earth-shattering headline!!
Reminds me of the Simpsons where Rod and Todd print a paper with the headlne "Playtime is Fun".
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I remember someone, somewhere, once making the eye-opening remark that software can be compared to mathematical formulas, albeit very long and complex ones. Considering it in this light, it's as clear as day why software should be open, free, unprotectable by IP rights and so on: it certainly IS intellectual, but it sure as smeg can't honestly, seriously be held as property! In a sense, it's not so much a creation as it is a "formula" - or "recipe" if you will - waiting to be discovered.
Despite this, it is necessary to make some clarifications: the above holds true when comparing coding to math research, ie., comparing commercial software coders, writing software for companies for business-oriented ends, to university professors. That's where the difference lies: coders are better compared to applied engineers implementing that knowledge to serve business ends, and not to people who make it their profession to discover the underlying fundamentals of the field itself. Of course, with software, the distinction is blurred somewhat, it's not so clear-cut. In addition (unintended pun alert), mathematics is a natural, pure science, while programming exists of course only because CPUs do.
Where it is meaningful to make the distinction is when discussing how they are supposed to be paid for their work: professors/researchers are funded by their respective institution; engineers are "funded" by businesses. So, the question begs to be asked, who should be paying software "researchers"? The analogy breaks down further here since with GPL projects, even though used in business, are often written by a community who have nothing to do with the company in question. I guess the most logical answer here is to only consider the core team of organizers - the Mozilla team for instance.
Well, I don't really have an answer, I simply wanted to make this point, and possibly bring another perspective/analogy to the issue (heh, like we don't have enough of 'em.. beer, socialism, goodwill/altruism, enough eyeballs/scratch an itch, etc...).
--
Revolutionaries, schmevolutionaries..what are they going to revolt against when anarchy becomes regime du jour?
Who in the world is RMS to define what the community is.
--
Or you go to an expensive restaurant, pay an exhorbitant amount of money, eat the best dish you have ever tasted in your life and still have no idea how it was made, maybe not even what it was.
Recipes can be propietary, expensive, and for good reason. Good luck trying to get that famous chef to tell the secret ingredient.
The lesson? If you're paying for prepared, closed-recipe food, and you're paying big money, it better be good. Really good, to be worth it.
Win9x is the OS version of the Hungry Man dinner.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Here is a link to some Real Audio:
RMS Speech
I posted a real audio file on here already. You may want to check it out.
I can only hope that people will be able to understand his perspective, because whether he is right or not, I think that Free Software/GNU needs to at least be a part of software philosophy in the future.
open/'non'restricted source and whats alike will be a part of the future software philosophy, no doubt about it. so will closed/restricted source.
here is my little view on the matter which I base my business on as well as my idealistic beliefs:
systems/formats will mainly be based on the free/open princip for everyone to have freedom and oportunity.
solutions will mainly be based on the cost princip in order to generate a sufficient steady income in order to have the fundamental economy to provide what the customer specifically needs and to secure your employees and yourself. in addition to that you have to come to an understanding with your customers who wishes to incorporate special features - you give them the ability to do this. - there are reasons business wise why not to do it, but there are also reasons human wise why to do it. - and the goodwill pays back in customer satisfaction which again pays back business wise.
this will be the case until we reach star trek reality.
but you guýs just keep fighting as you please. the activity is business wise good for community sites making a living on the users participation. no offense /. I am pleased to participate as well.
The way we do things in my business, because of my and now also my associates philosophy, is that we make use of the systems as a platform on which we can deploy our solutions. we partially sell these solutions, others we give for free as appetizers so people can get the basics covered and get started. From the income generated, mainly based on the solutions we sell, we return some to the projects and people behind the development of the systems that we are dependent ón so these can improve and become more widespread in society.
welcome to the reality/the future/now guys.. its about cooperation. extremes can never exist without the other. they cover each their need and support each others reason for existing.
guess this was about time I spoke from inside the outside - should you agree with me, try to find my email and say hi.
if professionals can't differ from the hobbyists, wherein is then the professionality?!
I respect both the open source way as well as the 'microsoft' way. but i've had enough of the microsoft monopoly and had so for the last many years which brought me to where i am today, just as the level at which open source is today.
best regards
casper andersen
sophistic systems
should you wish you contact me for ideas in these matters. lectures. strategic partnerships and what else you can think of, mail any of the sophistic email addresses found on the url in the header of this posting.
So I guess all you slashbot doomsayers were wrong. RMS was exactly the right person to deliver that speech. He didn't drag it into a point by point debate, he emphasized those things that are important to free software developers, exactly on the same playing field as Mundie. I really hope this catches the attention of the "Open Source" community. Free software is a philosophy and a choice, not a bright idea to get your source code used.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Remember, people, if you're too stoned to operate heavy machinery, you shouldn't be posting on Slashdot either.
-- Dave Touretzky, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst
RMS replied using philosphical arguments. The origional arguments offered by Microsoft were based on economic arguments...the bottom line. Instead of focusing on the philsophy of open source, hit Microsoft where it hurts. Point out that the economy will benefit from not having half of their IT costs be gobbled up by licensing. So we lose a monopolistic company in the process. Who cares? The bottom line is that the money that's saved from licensing can go into expansion, lower prices, or whatever.
That will give the economy a better boost that keeping Microsoft around for philanthropic reasons.
anyone know where to get a transcript of RMS's speech?
weather you like RMS or not, this is history in the making folks.
Is that Microsoft could easily be successful by opening the source to their code. It would go like this: 1) They release their code, they GPL it. 2) No longer selling their software, they sell technical support. Since their software is currently bloated, buggy, and insecure, they make a fortune charging for tech support. 3) People slowly begin improving MS's GPL'd software 4) As the software is improved, they change their focus from supporting their software, to providing custom computing solutions for businesses. (*GASP* PROVIDING A SERVICE, who'da thought eh?) This is the business model that many of the original dos-based software companies were modeled on. It worked then, it can work again. 5) Christ returns to the earth and blesses Microsoft for seeing the error of it's ways, and repenting.
Go Lakers!
In news today, Bill Gates, upon hearing RMS reply promptly said "Oh!" and vanished in a puff of smoke. The smoke, of course, was blue, tinged with streaks of red.
In related news, all multinational corporations trying to extend and embrace their software and hardware patents and copyrights promptly decided to throw in the towel, and relinquish all rights to the public good.
As a result, previous estimates of GDP growth for the world have been quintupled for the forthcoming year, due to the increase in useful knowledge for the world's citizenry.
Refusing to comment at press time are holders of patents for biological innovations in gene therapy.
(c) 2001 All Of The Above (TM)
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Apparently, RMS mentioned some pretty nasty (regardless if they are true) stuff about caldera:
"Caldera's not a free software company at all. They are just a parasite. Who in the world is Ransom Love to have any ideas about what's good for our community?"
with your examples, they would be obsolete because the products they made where obsolete. The only thing that would change in the developer's life is the fact they wouldnt be getting paid for it. Which is exactly why 'free software' is always going to be a minor niche. God forbid it take over.
-
And what happens when we have robots that understand real speech and you teach your robot to "weed the garden" by explaining how to find weeds vs plants and how to pull weeds and how to throw the weeds into the compost pile. Then code == speech is even more clear. And what happens when people have neural implants in their brains so teaching people in school is "programming a computer"? Will you be sued for telling someone how to do something?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
I suppose Linux was a no-brainer for us. All of the people on the executive board are technical people (either engineers or CS majors). Also, as a smaller, private corporation, we didn't have a lot of money to cover startup costs...and starting a company of any kind ain't cheap.
At any rate, we (credit: IT people) were able to configure Linux to allow us to create a secure system to allow swipe card access to our building. This, among other things, would not have been possible under Windows. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.This is a rather small example, but the idea is there: Linux is a cheap and, more importantly, mallable solution for us. I know the IT people love it, since things can be tailored. Sorry I can't specify, but I'm not a coder...that's how I got the CEO job.So I'm out here, telling other CEO's that I meet that making the switch is, in the long run, definately worth it. Our case was easier, since we started with Linux originally. My thought, however, is that this is also a trend; if the word about Linux spreads and is used by startup companies, EVENTUALLY Linux will be much more mainstream. Or, perhaps, we're the exception and have a crew of people on the EB that all have technical/coding/etc know-how (to some extent) and Linux will never catch on with startups.
Well, that's my two cents on the Free Source/Business issue. Hope it helps to some extent. End Sermon.Nelson Mandella says Apartheid is bad.
Dr. Ruth thinks sex is good.
And Larry Ellison thinks that having a shitload of money just might not be that bad.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
George W. Bush announced that he is, in fact, a redneck hick.
RMS likes Free Software - why is this news to me?
Cue The Sun...
Of course it was predictable. 90% of Slashdot is. - including your comment
What were you expecting/hoping?
I read it to see how he makes his comparisons. It was too bad he didn't try to make a point by point rebuttle. That could be a good read.
I liked the receipe anology but of course many people eat fast food all the time. Kentucky Fried Chicken doesn't publish their receipe. People wanting food and lacking the skills and/or time can enjoy fried chicken without going through the process of cooking the bird themselves. Sure they might get something a bit better if they cooked it themselves, but if you don't have the same equipment, you can't get the same thing.
Most Computer users aren't even aware that they can get any alternative to Closed Source Software just the same way that people who have never tasted a free range chicken haven't a clue what they are missing.
What Stallman said about the recipes awakens some interesting thoughts. IMHO, it's a brilliant metaphor for the open source situation.
- You get a recipe from an online database, go to the store and buy (or order online from the comfort of your own toilet seat) the ingredients. You cook and improvise. You eat. You enjoy. Next time, you improve your skills and the resulting meal by improvising even more.
- You buy a finished heat-and-eat meal in the store, witch may or may not be protected by several patents and trademark protections, you nuke it, eat it, burp and discard. You'll never know exactly what you just ate, and it's difficult to make improvements the next time you want something to eat.
.../Bosse
Looks like a fish, drives like a fish, steers like a cow.
"Free Software has victims too. It's intent is to undermine the commercial software world, and put thousands of programmers out of work. What makes one kind of victimization OK and the other not? "
Please, name some _victims_ of Free Software. The intent of Free Software is not to eliminate competition and programmer jobs, but rather insure that users of Free Software have an alternative to right-restricting, expensive software. I fail to see how companies like Redhat, Sun, IBM, HP, SuSE, Mandrake, and Linuxcare manage to _not_ employ people for Linux and GPL-related work. Also, NDAs and software licenses are very different.
Its a strange victim that _uses_ software and all of a sudden destroys himself and 'thousands of programmer jobs.'
"I haven't heard much from SCO lately. Sure they had competition from Novell and Microsoft, but the similarity to *BSD and Linux give you pretty much no reason to buy new SCO software when you expand your already-SCO system. "
SCO was purchased for a nice sum by Caldera, a company that has done pretty well using GPL'ed software. And... whats your point? Why _should_ you buy SCO if there are better and cheaper alternatives? You just made a great argument for why Linux, BSD, and Free Software are good for consumers.
...the Pope has come out against masturbation.
I love this non-news. Craig Mundi says that Open Source is bad (oh my!) And Richard Stallman follows up saying it is good (egads!)
At least it makes for good spectator sport.
Invisible Agent
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
RMS says free software is good?
Gee... That came right out of the blue, didn't it?
Next thing you know, Greenpeace will say something crazy like 'global warming is bad'...
--
I quote from an article in the Financial Times Deutschland. This is my own translation from the German so all disclaimers apply:
he then goes on to say: This is a senior person in Microsoft (Germany is not a small marketplace, saying that MS must take Linux seriously. The latter statement is a good admission why MS head-office seems to have problems to come up with sensible statements.Next thing to quote Computerwoche David Turner, Lead programmer of MS's .NET commented on the open source availability of SOUP that:
What does this mean? Well MS seems to be tacitly accepting that Linux has already made serious inroads at SMEs and must be taken seriously as a given fact here. That GPL/Open Source is popular, particularly in Germany and Europe so it can not be ignored. It si certain that they will try their usual policy of embrace and extend and I hope that the OS/FSF can help fight this, then we are talking about a real alternative to MS which they can not just fight with disinformation as in Mundie et al.I once heard Robert Dewar pointing out that neither copyright nor patent should be treated as property; that they are rather privillages that are granted for the sake of public benefit. I don't know if Stallman has the same position, but what he said reminded me of this.
To my mind open source is not only a good thing, but a necessary one. Having software running on a machine, especially a business machine, that you can't break down and peruse at will - software that you have to trust doesn't have backdoors or built-in incompatibilities with the software of a competitor to that vendor, or that doesn't collect information on what you're doing on that machine and send it off to the vendor surreptitiously - is rather bad practice. This especially in light of how many times I've caught a piece of software trying to contact the vendor company over the internet when it had no business doing so.
So I see the value of open source, if only for the sake of security in my business and personal life and for my own peace of mind.
Free software, however, while quite nice is not something I equate with anything as grand as personal freedoms, universal democracy, or human rights. Equating free software with philosophical questions concerning the human condition is nonsensical. Unless you're a fanatic able to connect the dots without respect to reality-checks, the idea that free software somehow promotes freedom overall for the human race is just damned silly. Where is the evidence? Where other than in rhetoric can one find proof that this is so?
I seriously doubt that free software of any kind will promote the general welfare of the human race in any measurable sense. Open source software, however, directly promotes the welfare of the consumer by allowing the consumer to see exactly what it is that he or she is getting and how it operates on his or her system. If there are security holes, backdoors, or badly written chunks of code the consumer can discover these and dump the sods silly enough to write this trash in the first place.
Open source keeps companies honest and competitive. If the (hopefully competent) IT department of a company can review the code of two similar products it'll be able to determine precisely - not by guesswork - which is the better product. Same for the savvy consumer.
Promoting open source would allow everyone, once and for all, to compare the code of Linux and Windows and see just which OS is the better. Making both OS's free doesn't further any viable economic model beyond what open source does (except for those who don't like to pay for services rendered), and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the advancement of human rights in any way, shape or form.
Open source is necessary. Free software is nifty, but it isn't at all required. It won't cure cancer, end world hunger, or result in the democratic overthrow of tin-pot dictatorships. And why should it? Isn't Linux (and no, I *won't* call it GNU/Linux) cool enough without also having to be the tool of a small but vocal group of technoreligious fanatics bent on reshaping the world according to their will?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
In related news, Ron Popeil, inventor of Mr. Microphone, says that infomercial are good! :)