Stallman And Bero Interviewed

Juraj Bednar writes: "I have done two interviews: one with Bero from RedHat and one with Richard Stallman, the GNU and FSF founder. I usually write in my native language, but since these interviews were done in English, I asked myself why not to share them" Readers may want to also visit Bero's shared-source.com, and bookmark it as a FUD antidote.

Comments

Re:Free Software, Intellectual Property & Freedom

[osgeek]

The land and its wheath should be divided as an inheritance to be passed to our children and their children. What we do with our piece of the pie is up to us. Demand freedom! Always!

So, how is this division of land being decided, kind of a divide the area of the earth by the number of people on it and we each get a slice of that size?

• Do I get to keep my slice for as long as I live?
• Can I give my kids only my slice, or can I give them pieces of other peoples' slices as well?
• Will there be some sort of redivision of the earth at some point?
• If my next-door neighbor breeds like a fucking rabbit and has like 26 kids on his slice, do they all have to make do with less?
• Can I trade my slice to someone else for some other type of goods or service?
• If I can do whatever I want with my slice and I give it away, where do I sleep? Am I fucked?
• I'm really into PCBs, can I pollute the hell out of my slice?
• If I die and I don't have kids, who gets my slice?

Re:Free Software, Intellectual Property & Freedom

[Alpha State]

There is value in the capitalist system, I'm sure most people would agree. To me the value is this: in the capitalist system if I contribute to society by producing something of value, I make money. If I am intelligent and work hard I can make a very good living, even become "rich". Those who are too lazy to contribute do not make money. Thus there is a very high incentive to do something worthwhile. Of course, this is in theory and there are plenty of holes in the system, but it does work.

If there is no intellectual property, the capitalist system will not work for it. Thus there will be no incentive to work on IP and loafers will get a free ride. I do not believe this really appplies to free software because it is produced by cooperation between people who need the software, I write a program because I want to use it and share it because I wish to, and it may make the program better.

There are other ways to provide incentive for IP, such as the above, or commissioned work, or street performer protocols, etc. But they won't work for every kind of IP, and there will be big problems in integrating with the capitalist system.

I agree that IP laws are becoming more draconian, but before the relatively recent WIPO treaties and associated laws there was a fairly good balance between the needs of IP producers and consumers. What will happen when this balance is disturbed? I predict that IP consumers (ie. the general public) will become more and more willing to break the restrictively laws. It could end messily unless the laws are changed, just like most regimes who have sought to enslave their citizens.

Who is to write software, then?

[bwalling]

I'm serious about this - I'm not trying to be a troll.

If software is to be free, then who can we expect to write it. Obviously, I have a need for a paycheck. Since I have this need, I have an employer. In order for my employer to pay me, I have to contribute to their revenue.

Is it reasonable for companies to only make money from services, and to offer the software for free? Are there companies who are successfully doing this? (Yes I saw the RedHat Quarterly report, but that was a little number fudging - they still lost money). Do we just have to wait out a certain transition period before the idea of Free Software pervasively existing is realistic?

Re:RMS phoned it in

[stevens]

But it looks like Stallman just copied and pasted some boilerplate.

Well, he wasn't asked a question he hasn't answered five hundred times. I'll bet I could find decent answers to every question in that interview on the fsf website.

If you want novel and thoughtful responses, ask novel and thoughtful questions.

This is a common flaw in thinking.

[dmaxwell]

There is a certain prevalent mentality that assumes the only significant motivation for doing anything is the desire to make money. There are a great many craftsmen (and women, I know) who would not say money is their prime reason to be doing what they are doing. Most of the best art falls in this category. The stuff made primarily for BIG SALES tends to suck. Britney Spears anybody?

Some people write this stuff because it is fun to run their own code. Others do it because the software in ancillary to their true goals. The Apache web server came about this way. Apache wasn't developed to make Webserver Inc a pile of money. Some webadmins needed a httpd daemon that was reliable and featureful. The original Linux kernel that Linus made available to his fellow hackers wasn't going to make anybody mounds of cash: it would barely boot a 386. The additions from volunteers was what made it valuable.

I'll agree that anybody who wants to make money trying to sell something that is free is on a fools errand. However there is nothing wrong in taking something free and using it as part of something larger that is sold. The school district that I work for uses a product called the Firebox. It is not marketed strictly as a Linux box. It is sold as an easily configured firewall and proxy server. The middle school tech guy loves that thing. Oh yeah, and they pay the guy who works on iptables. IBM and SUN are hardware companies and are all for anything that helps them sell hardware. Incidentally, the bulk of RedHat's profit doesn't come from selling the boxed distro. They also sell customization and consulting services.

Open source only fails to make sense to those who sell boxed software. It is a moneymaking or moneysaving opportunity for others with different models. Think about independent music for a monent. With the RIAA gone there wouldn't be many pop music multimillionaires. There would be and ARE a lot of people who earn honest livings writing and performing. The same is true of open source. No one will be a multibillionaire selling it but it will enable many others to earn decent livings.

Re:danced around the communism question

[Chagrin]

There is a huge gap between communism and socialism. The GNU manifesto follows much more closely to socialism.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

I don't see where we have any authoritarian parties holding power, so please don't compare the GNU movement to the Soviet system of government.