Slashdot Mirror
Freedom or Power?
mpawlo writes: "As reported by Gnuheter, a new essay published by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman carries the title "Freedom or Power?". The authors state something that we might have suspected from essays from Kuhn and Stallman before, but now is a little more clear, if still ambiguous: "However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom." The essay is interesting in the light of an earlier essay published by Eric S Raymond. ... Tim O'Reilly started the debate with his weblog of July 28, 2001: My definition of freedom zero."
Ed. note - FWIW, Stallman and Kuhn are right. Not necessarily in their advocacy of the GPL, but certainly in their description of whether licensing is freedom for the developer or power over others. All licensing stems from copyright law, a completely man-made creation whose sole purpose is to give the writer of creative works artificial power over what others do with those works. If you take the canonical description of freedom ("Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins") and apply it to software, it's pretty clear that true freedom would not let one person control what another does with software.
all the same, freedom == knowledge == power. Power == freedom.
I have the Freedom/Power to license a piece of code, I have the **RIGHT** to license a piece of code. some people don't understnad that, I won't say names but you know who they are **COUGH** DMCA **COUGH**, SSCA **COUGH***
Sig you!
ends where my face begins.
The fundamental problem with anarchism lies in this statement. Open Source's GPL itself requires a heirarchy to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy.
You need a body of people who act similarly to the RIAA or whomever, investigating people's GPL licenses and behaviors with Open Source software and its derivatives.
Of course, the "GPL police" would wind up chasing large corporations or developers who wish to appropriate GPL'd tech in closed source projects. This would make them rather ineffective, due to the financial disparities between the OSS movement and corporations.
So, OSS is going to have to do what M$ does, and that is buy into the government through a lobbying system.
Goat sex free since 2001
true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids.
Not able to license however I want? Get real.
Look. I'll be the first to advocate the use of free/oss software. Stuff that the community can use and build upon. In fact, in more than just software, I'm in favor of nothing really stopping people from doing things for the common good.
However. If I write software, with my time, and my effort, then nobody is going to tell ME under what terms I may let someone else use it. Period.
I'm not a fan of over-broad IP law, but I'm also not an advocate of ditching it altogether.
I'm not totally opposed to communism.. but that's basically what Stallman wants. Communist hippie software (literally). Great. Good for him. Communies can be fantastic in the right circumstances, with the right group of people.
But the majority of the world is based upon power. Supply and demand, money, greed, etc.
I don't understand RMS's obsession with powerless freedom.
Any freedom that means something is, in some way, an expression of power.
The freedom to own my own home and house my family is meaningless unless I can exercise the power to keep others out.
The freedom to speak out against the government is empty unless there is power to prevent government censorship.
The GPL's guarantees of freedom to take, use, modify and distribute source code are meaningless without the power to enforce them.
Freedom without power is no freedom at all.
The authors state something that we might have suspected from essays from Kuhn and Stallman before, but now is a little more clear, if still ambiguous: "However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."
And forcing me to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval is an attempt to assert what?
Could it be...?
Power?
I'm impressed. That single-sentence excerpt, by itself, says more about its author than Mao's entire Little Red Book did.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
What is freedom if not power?
Hmmm... Seems to me that the scenario being described is more restrictive than the current situation. Right now, we all have the freedom to choose open source solutions or to stay with closed source solutions. I'm not sure I am happy with someone exercising their power over the software industry and removing that choice by dictating that all software needs to be free.
This whole thing has decayed into a huge circle-jerk. We agree to disagree. Pick up your football and go home.
Who appointed Stallman God? In his own way he is just as bad as Bill Gates, for they are both trying to dictate the terms under which we can distribute the software we write, or use the software we use that has been written by others.
I reject both of them for trying to control what I do with the code I write. When I write something, _I_ should have control under the provisions it is licensed under.
When I use software from others I have to make a choice about what license provisions I will agree to. These days I have a lot of choices. I like it that way.
I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions in this regard - and I cannot stomach the idea of others trying to make them for me.
What is the icon that slashdot uses for GNU meant to be? To me it looks like a goat with a security blanket sucking his/her/it's thumb.
Really this isn't a piss take, i do want to know.
(Yes, I'm that bored right now)
Alex W
In the US Constitution, Copyrights and Patents exist to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If, due to any circumstances, they do not do that, they have no reason to exist.
It seems that some debate is needed to insure that those mechanisms still serve their original purpose. When a licence is used just to ensure a continuing flow of profits, without any new works being created, the Copyright or Patent is, technically, forfeit.
A joke about gays should be either (-1, offtopic) or (+1, funny). Only fags think fag jokes are flamebait.
Rather than debate over the types of licences developers are allowed to choose for the software they write, we should instead look at whether it is OK to prevent developers from writing software.
As currently set up I can apply for a license [read Patent] that prevents others from using an idea. This is a much more fundamental issue that the debate over what rights a developer is willing to grant users in a software license. After all, there is nothing to prevent other software developers from producing a competing product providing we solve the patent issue.
At that point, if you do not like the fact that Eric releases some software with a proprietary license, anyone is free to create a competitive product and GPL it. Then the users can decide. Right now, with patents, creating a compatible clone can be impossible.
Author, "Software Craftsmanship The New Imperative" Addison-Wesley (C) 2002
I think RMS and the FSF are going to start losing ground, because they're going to fall into the trap of many politicians who want to change the world: they're going to offend the moderates.
I'm speaking as a USian, of course. As everyone knows, despite the media's obsession with polarized (right and left) politics, the US population is really a vast pool of people with relatively moderate views. Sure, some of them are sharply polarized about *issues* (abortion rights, the economy, whatever), but by and large, they're in the middle of the political spectrum. The first thing a candidate does is hit up his support of the issues while trying to not appear too far to one side, lest he offend the moderates.
There are a lot of people who like the GPL, because it prevents proprietary lock-in and helps create a sense of empowerment and community. The problem, I feel, is that once you put the GPL in your code, you're putting it (and yourself) into the "camp" of the FSF. You're now essentially signing on to the RMS/FSF game plan, even if all you wanted was to see your code not get folded into a proprietary product, and let as many people as possible play with things.
MS kept saying, once you start down the path of the GPL, there's no going back. I hate to say it, but maybe they're right. For all their talk about a software "ecosystem", contrasted against stuff like this, it makes me think they (MS) might have been right after all.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
So the user's freedom (power) is more important that the freedom (power) of the person who works on the program?
o_O
after having read this essay, the author strikes me as a person who would order a sandwich for lunch without lettuce, gets a sandwich with lettuce, would proceed to eat it, then demand not to be charged for the sandwich, as he did not order lettuce on it.
---------
Fuck you, motherfucker. Fuck yous to: Rob "Taco-Snotter" Malda, Homos, Kowboi Kneel, and RMS.
Freedom itself is a man made entity too Michael, you jackass.
Try not to sound to stupid next time.
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
This is just plain stupid. Everything anyone does affects others in some sense. Who it mainly affects is a matter of opinion.
In essence, Stallman & Kuhn are saying "you do not have the right to tell others what to do with your software". However, by making that statement themselves, they are asserting that very right for themselves. Do as I say, not as I do.
These statements are no better than Microsoft's leverage with the OEMs forcing them to not change the boot loaders; not included non-MS software and other non-competitive measures.
All other things being equal, GPL software should win out over proprietary licenses on cost and ease of administration (license tracking, etc.) alone. We only need a level playing field -- not one tipped one way or the other by Microsoft OR the FSF.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Dear God, give me the power to be free or give me the freedom to have power, whatever comes first.
/. Gods first, if they give me the freedom to tell you.
God: What do you want to do with your power?
Me: I want to defend my freedom.
God: What do you want to do with your freedom?
Me: Hmm, I have an idea, but I better ask the
If code is law, as Professor Lawrence Lessig (of Stanford Law School) has stated, then the real question we face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.
Code is a means to describe information flow in a system. Currently binary in some sort of chip confection.
To the extent both code and law describe systems, the analogy is not complete hogwash. Law seems to pertain to socio-economic interactions, whereas software is bounded by imagination, if not taste.
Attempting to say ( code == law ) seems to be in questionable taste.
10 year prediction:
The Free Software movement results in a market spectrum with adequate, free stuff meeting modest requirements, and higher performance, proprietary stuff for those with pesos and performance requirements.
We still enjoy the polar opposites of Stallman and Gates, but neither extreme can eradicate the other.
Gates is still the poster child for Blatant Monopolists'R'Us.
Stallman sounds more like Karl Marx.
See you in 10.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
To me, RMS resembles nothing so much as those deluded protesters.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
The editorial note is fundamentally misguided. Some freedoms are also powers. By opposing other people's freedom to choose licenses, Stallman is also pushing for *his* power.
You can't just draw a line and say "these freedoms are really freedoms, others aren't". Free speech is the power to hurt people's feelings; freedom of association is the power to form unions. If we allow people to choose terms for their software, they can, indeed, do so. This doesn't mean it's not a form of freedom; it just means that Stallman is dogmatic, rather than philosophical, about freedom. The freedoms he wants are the only ones he will recognize; this is no different from other people who recognize only those freedoms their dogma encourages.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Or should the RIAA and MPAA and all their friends be allowed to write licenses that are contrary to the public interest.
I'm not sure I agree with Stallman about all which licenses are contrary to the public interest, but I agree they exist, and you should not have the "freedom" to use copyright law to enforce them....
There is that outside the scope of patents, what is not patentable and therefore cannot be restrained from freedom of use by anyone.
The problem with software, abstraction manipulation mechanics, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we create and use abstractions, is that it has not yet been honestly established, verified and publicly taught, made out as common knowledge and common sense.
As such there is much that is currently protected by Intellectual Property Law in regards to Software which should not be.
For genuine computer science to establish such things, genuine software engineering would also become much better established as well as the line between what is and is not IP protectable in software.
Once these this identifications happen, I really don't think there will be any conflict between what people like RMS, ER, T o'R, and the many other IP interested parties would agree upon.
It's like we are living in the age of witches and magicians with their magic spells, all of which eventually vanished away completely when chemical engineering established chemical mega-plants. Only with software we haven't gotten away from the crystal balls, majic wands, and boomsticks.
.
.
not everyone who reads or posts to /. is in the US ... so, in this context at least, the contents of our constitution are not an absolute
I have no problem with neither of the above mentioned licences, but I reject anybody's claim that I should not have the right to choose license for software I write. RMS is doing a disservice to open source community which can more than stand on its own merits. After all, it was the VOLUNTARY will of developers to assign GNU licences to their software which made open source what it is right now. Instead of just stopping and seeing how far FSF got, and how influential GNU licensed software has become, RMS will once again allienate open source lurkers and old hats alike.
Software is damn expensive to create and maintain, but as long as a given company doesn't employ software patents, DMCA and like, I don't have a problem with proprietary licenses. They have their right to exist just as does BSD license.
--
"its things like these that make me want to become a tree farmer" - Chad H.
I've always considered Perl's Artistic license to be in the truest spirit of freedom.
End of story. Nothing to see here.
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
Does Mr. Stallman also feel that Nintendo, Sega, and Sony software for propietary game consoles should fall under a GPL-like license? If so, I would have to laugh at such a rediculous notion existing.
---------
Fuck you, motherfucker. Fuck yous to: Rob "Taco-Snotter" Malda, Homos, Kowboi Kneel, and RMS.
GNU wants to give you freedom.
Nobody has the freedom to do things that are harmful to others. Nobody complains about not having the "freedom" to kill people, because that's not a freedom people have.
Similarly, GNU grants you every freedom except one - you can't take freedom away from other people by relicensing the software with restrictive conditions that don't give the people the same freedom you had.
To take freedom away from people, (i.e. not giving them the freedom that you had) is not a freedom - it's an issue of power. Just as taking someone's life or property away from them is not a freedom, taking someone's freedom away from them is also not a freedom with respect to software.
So it's not that GNU is "denying" you the freedom to license as you see fit, they just want to deny you the ability to take freedom away from other people, which itself isn't a freedom.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Almost everyone of the "RMS should mind his own business" posts here ignores the key argument that he makes. That freedom cannot be limited only to the producer, but also must be extended to the consumer (the code user here). This cannot simply be a bad choice one vs bad choice two, but needs to extend to some of the realities of the world. While it may be simple to say, "well, I have the freedom to make my own software" (which for obvious reasons isn't true for the vast majority of people) is false becase of the power pattents grant.
They are arbitrary, not some divine (or as Rand would say, nature) given right. Say we live in a world where the software producer has total "freedom" to do what he or she would like. O'Riley and ERS would say that no one should have the "power" to take their right to this property away from them. What if the software or hardware pioneers had placed a pattent on a logic gate, or the word proccessor, or the browser, or any number of other broad areas like this. Think of how it would impact the rest of society, this untaped knowledge and technology that is now held from the public behind the iron bars of pattent and property. Sure, in theory I have the ability to say, I don't want to use product ABC with license requirements XYZ, but in pratice no such ability exists, as I must also sustain myself physically (food shelter, etc come to mind).
The reality is that our actions inharently effect others, and the (IMHO) simple way of looking at property, code in this case, as comming with a absolute freedom/power to decide how others use it not only makes little sense philosophically, but also pratically.
(sorry for the typos by the way)
I'd like to point out a distinction that many people may have missed - the FSF's position is that they will NOT advocate for the use of proprietary licenses in software. Is this the same thing as advocating AGAINST proprietary licenses? Maybe not.
The FSF, like anyone else, isn't obligated by law or conscience to stand for anything, or stand against anything, unless they elect to do so. Nor have they come out and said (to my knowledge) "we will try to enact anti-proprietary-license legislation". All they are saying, at least as far as this article goes, is "we will not stand up in support of this thing".
If RMS and company want to exercise their freedom of speech (in America, anyway) and not support something, why is anyone complaining?
I have special skills (as do many here), I can transform code into working, useful applications, libraries, patches, whatever. It's what I do to sustain myself in an employment capacity.
So, if I write some code at home, for myself, I can't even decide to keep it a secret. I have to release it and it has to be released under the GNU license because otherwise I'll be infringing on the freedoms of others in my power hungry quest for world domination. Yeah, right.
Where's my freedom now ? It's strange that I might want to sell some of my software and give others away, and even write some just for my own pleasure. That's freedom, the freedom of choice, and quite frankly, RMS's infringing my rights to choose far more than Bill Gates has ever tried to do.
So RMS, what do I do to live ? Sweep streets during the day, and write code all night so I preserve the freedom of others.
You've lost the plot buddy. Give the game away.
RMS,
/. community agree with you, people/corporations ought to open up certain projects, as open source is good for the customer - but the notion that somehow software developers are somehow morally obligated to GPL their work is completely nuts.
:)
Please review Locke. People have property rights. If I put my efforts into thing X I have property rights to thing X and thus it is morally permissible for me, not you to decide how to distribute X, if at all.
I, and many others here in the
The ideals behind socialisms, either those of government or those of software, do not work. Without the ability to distribute property (of which software is a type) as one sees fit, one loses much economic incentive to develop in the first place.
Please RMS, check your ego just a little bit and town down the sensationalism, its starting to get rather tired.
Besides, some of my code is far to ugly to ever be open-sourced
Cordially,
Andrew Murray University of Washington
GPL prevents me from helping my neighbor in some cases.
For example, let's assume that I live in the middle of nowhere where there are no communication networks available. I have a GPL program which I have modified (fixed bugs, added small features), but I have lost the sources and have only a binary. My neighbor wants to have that program too, but I can't legally give my binaries to him because of GPL.
Zima, or XEMU?
If you think at all like me, then your answers are yes, yes, no. I think that if you buy a toy, then you should be able to take it apart and see what else you can make it do. If you buy Windows, you should be able to sell it to someone else after you are done using it. Quoting a paragraph from a book should be fair use.
And yet the Tivo usage agreement says something about no reverse engineering or disassembling. Microsoft does not let you sell copies of Windows, even if you no longer use it. The third example is a right of consumers that is respected by volumes of law. How are they all similar? In every case the author releases their work under a restrictive license. In all three cases I think the restriction should not be legally binding. This means that I think that creators should not be allowed to release their work under any license they choose. I think there are restrictions that should not be enforced, and license "agreements" that I believe do not mean anything. This is what RMS is saying.
We could equally say that freedom zero is the choice whether to rob or not to rob that convenience store across the street, and that criminals and non-criminals alike are exercising that freedom in different ways.
The underlying substrate for all human behavior is the freedom to do anything, from donating one's time to worthwy humanitarian causes to commanding troops into heinous acts of genocide. Is that range of choices part of freedom zero?
Or maybe the real freedom zero substrate is simply the laws of physics.
Stallman's definition is superior because it doesn't regress into absurd starting points; freedom is defined as a very high level intelligent behavior rooted in certain ethical principles, and that's that. That freedom is supported by lower level freedoms which allow the intelligent substrate to make choices, but these freedoms are not interesting, because these lower freedoms support all human activity alike.
Stallman comes across as a lunatic with the "my way or you are evil" type mentality.
Stallman is a tried and true Marxist who puts value only on physical labor and does not believe that intellectual capital should be permitted to have any value. His rationalization about "power" is laughable but does make me feel _better_ about using Microsoft software. My reply to Stallbaby would be: JUST BECAUSE __YOU DECIDE__ TO USE MY SOFTWARE DOESN'T MEAN __I HAVE TO__ MOVE MY BIG FAT WHITE BUTT TO GIVE YOU THE SOURCE. YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHETHER YOU GET THE SOURCE OR NOT; IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH.
Free software (if you want to make money then become a slave, err, consultant running down projects)! Free music (if you want to make money, go on a tour)! Free video (one paid showing and that's it -- actors - no more residuals for you)! Join the revolution now to FREE the masses!!! What a hoot!
The guys at Microsoft are probably laughing their asses off with that article.
You seem to forget that there are incentives outside the economic realm. For example, people of great wealth becoming Philanthropists. Once people's own well-being is asured, they _often_ become part of what is known as a gift culture (as ESR notes in Cathedral), where the more one gives away, in their labor, property, or whatever, the more value one gets. That is the basis of a truly socialist government.
Ending software intellectual property protection won't help the cause. If free software fails when it has to compete with closed-source programs, it will only bring mediocrity if closed-source software is done away with. I know that RMS stands on principle and doesn't care, but it is not worth doing away with property rights for the convenience of the small number of programmers interested in seeing the source.
One thing i don't understand from reading the writing in question is who is being forced to obay "proprietary" software restrictions?
The way i see it is if you do not like the fact that you have no control over the software you use, where control == (browse the soruce | modify the source | redistribute the source), then don't use that software. Either look for an alternative or come up with an alternative yourself (Note that writing software yourself is an alternative).
I use GPL software cause i choose to do so. I do not feel that Micro$oft or any other "proprietary software company" is imposing their will on me.
My parents on the other hand use proprietary software because they choose to do so. They are not satisfied with any alternatives available out there and are comfortable acepting the restrictions imposed on them by the software they choose to use. (Though I'm working on them... ;-)
The only single problem with GPL in my opinion is the "freedom" it gives the recepient of the software to redistribute it. This "freedom" renders GPL license useless for use by a software programmer who depends on income generated by his work.
People say that GPL doesn't mean it has to be for free. True, it doesn't. But say an developer writes code and sells the software for $10,000 w/GPL licensing. The first person that pays for the software and receives all the rights granted to him (or her) by GPL is allowed to redistribute this software for free, and to anyone he (or she) pleases.
You see that this reduces the incentive for another person purchasing the software at the price the developer set for the software he hopes to sell and keep his family fed.
I think the problem is that the cost to reproduce software is next to nothing while cost to reproduce any other commodities essential for life is not!
So a software programmer's work could be reporduced in large quantities in a very short time at low cost once the hard work of the programmer is done. However, the work of a farmer raising cattle or harvesting crops would take just as much effort and money to reproduce as the first time.
--sidster
Play lotto? Try http://www.alottofun.com/
What I think I see in the article is an arguement for greater social accountability. Although I'm not as radicalized to the point of out right bans I think there is a value social message in this essay. Through freedom of involvement one promotes the development of a community to properly debate and develop the implications of an idea. Software is an example of this as you cannot debate its merits without access to its code. Without this right one does not have a strong community and does not promote civil involvement.
I see this especially clear in representive democracies as there closed nature leads to little political participation. Where in the Free Software/Open Source community, with an open forum one has a very strong level of debate. This is fundamental for a proper democracy.
Now what I see in this article is that Kuhn and Stallman is an argument that one has to ensure that there is a proper forum for civil debate. By defining the licenses of software you are defining their role in the public forum. They are against non-free licenses because they hinder social growth, which is an argument you could say about many governments and countries. They do not provide the tools or encourage proper debate.
Anyways that my two cents. I hope it makes sense.
This argument by RMS is essentially about power -- HIS power. Bill Gates wants to force you to give him money in exchange for software. RMS wants to force you to give him the source code with any software you write.
Both arguments are essentially about the person doing the arguing, not the person on the other end of the transaction.
The right to choose the license under which you will release the work you do is probably the most fundamental freedom of all. Being forced to give away source code, whether you like it or not, is essentially forced bondage.
The GPL as written is an amazing document, one that does an excellent job of balancing freedoms for all parties involved in software distribution. But it doesn't suit all purposes or all situations. Trying to force it into all transactions is an abrogation of freedoms, not an extension.
By licensing his code with the GPL, RMS is excercising power to force other people to use the GPL. And to force everybody else to not use power-invoking licenses, he would have to exercise even more power.
It just hit me the other day that there's more GNU stuff on a Linux box than there is Microsoft stuff on a Windows box. Sometimes I even long to return to the anarchy of MS-DOS, with each piece of software from a different person. Sounds to me like RMS is becoming the Bill Gates of the Open Source world...
Would this be a free license? Besides the obvious point that the license would become completely free at some point in the future, there's the practical matter that it will not affect RMS's ability to use my code in any way - the alternative to the RMS-free license is that I don't let anyone see the code (or not without explicit compensation in terms of salary or licensing fees). The only people affected are the 6,127,317,984 people who are neither RMS nor I.
What's the alternative? Is anyone seriously suggesting that I must publish all code I write? If so, why are programmers different from, oh, lawyers? (They must represent anyone who demands their services, without compensation.) Or doctors and dentists? Or taxi drivers. Or anyone else in the service sector?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If people shouldn't have the freedom to choose whatever license they want, does that mean RMS will have to choose for us? How do I know what license to use if I can't just choose any one? Why does it matter which license you choose - if someone doesn't like what license you've chosen, they can always choose not to use your software. I believe that is one of the basic principals of freedom, is it not?
Freedom as being described in these articles, isn't the same freedom many of us are accustomed to. Rather, it is being declared in a very atypical self-censored form.
This freedom is more clearly labeled Freedom 0, as O'Reilly does in his original article. A limited freedom in the sense that it is a freedom of choice to be exercised; a freedom of choosing and not a freedom of acting.
Most governments have established freedom for their citizens insofar as that freedom does not interfere with that same freedom in others. But as a whole, we have really failed to analyze the types of freedom this empowers us with, and the freedoms we are limited to.
It would appear RMS is reembracing this application of freedom, in only the strictest sense.
"The freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins" as another reader so eloquently put it. It would appear Freedom 0 is only an attempt to analyze where exactly our faces begin; where exactly do we limit the freedoms we have previously, commonly accepted. And perhaps moreso, a new obersavation asserting that our faces are far closer to the swinging fists than we previously accepted. And so, as a new standard to be raised in the light of the digital age, where new freedoms are discovered, but still under the threshold of out-dated control, in a realm that continuously promises new freedoms.
It is impossible to make that same examination-the assertion of only Freedom 0-in a Democratic Capitalistic society, such as the US, because of the many contradictions it would bring to light. Capitalism cannot suceed without the unipmeded effort to exploit the resources of the masses for personal gain.
The very freedom RMS espouses is contraindicative of a capitalist society. And in my opinion, only in the borderless benevolent anarchy of the internet can such a freedom be exhorted, as it now is.
It cannot apply to our physical world, at least not in the way commonly accepted by the various World Powers. But in the indefinite information space that is shared by all does this concept deserve its greatest relevance.
Freedom 0 can not work without common acceptance. It would be hypocritical of this limited freedom to be forced upon ourselves, without all parties first declaring a willingness to be limited by it.
So in the sense that this new formula for freedom is an expression of power itself, it is my personal opinion, that under willing acceptance it is not so.
As has been previously recounted, freedom is only an idea, an abstraction that has no basis for our real world interactions, but rather only on our choosing of them.
It is only under common acceptance of freedom, that we can govern in its name.
So too, is this also with Freedom 0.
One must withold their right to freely define freedom, to afford the benefits its acceptance can provide.
So the very concept of freedom itself is quite paradoxical, or at least contradicting, there is no question of that. It is only in its acceptance by many, does freedom really materialize in an expressable shape.
And I, for one, am all for Freedom 0
A software license is simply a contract. If the contract says, "in exchange for the use of this software, I agree not to give copies of it away" or whatever, that's not fundamentally different from a contract that says, "in exchange for the use of this software and source code, I agree to publish any changes I make to it".
In no case are you coerced into agreeing to a software license (and if you were, then the crime against freedom would be the coercion, not the license). If RMS says he's opposed to the freedom to choose a "restrictive" license (as if the GPL weren't restrictive...), then what he means to say is that he's opposed to unlimited freedom of contract.
I won't even expound on my personal feelings on the matter, I just think RMS should say what he means.
It could be a marketing scheme: release some sort of crippleware under the GPL or some other open-source license, then sell the truly powerful version. The tuxracer guys are trying to do this, and, for a more "professional" example, check www.diffpack.com
So you don't advocate the freedom of choosing a license which is really power. This means that a freedom advocate has the power to choose the license for us?
Quite hypocritical.
Promotes an us vs. them attitude.
Seeks control while claiming otherwise.
Uses (incomprehensible to outsiders) terminology to encourage bonding and reliance between members.
Repetition of mantras, designed to prevent critical thinking.
Close-minded refusal to consider other viewpoints.
Creates an enemy, portrayed as evil as often as possible.
No wonder you're paranoid. You don't understand anything about XP activation. First off, installing software will not affect your activation status. Only installing/replacing hardware can do that (and you have to replace something like six different pieces before you need to reactivate). Also, you can reinstall as many times as you like. You can reactivate up to 10 times, at which point you'll need to call Microsoft on the 11th reactivation. You do not need to buy a new license, nor do anything but tell them you're reactivating, and it's done. Finally, if you bought XP for business use, why didn't your business by a license pack? Buying XP licenses in bulk (5+ licenses, I believe) allows you to not have to bother with activating the system. Perhaps you should research these things a bit more before you start in with the paranoia, eh?
Let's face it - the average person who reads Slashdot is pretty smart - ie that's any of you guys reading this right now.. hence "News for nerds."
So the Slashdot readers have long seen that what Stallman has to say, is, to put it colloquially, a load of shit.
Bill Gates would never receive this kind of attention, so why should Stallman? They are pretty much both the same, except Stallman hides behind a wall of protection - that is something most of us here respect and have many have put a lot of time and effort into - free software, which, he claims to have created, although it hardly would have taken a huge amount of brainstorming to come up with the idea of sharing around code. It's just he set about "properly" documenting a license.
Now he abuses the respect he earned by coming up with outrageous opinions on free software, and has somehow turned the whole thing into a large political debate - exactly what we didn't want.
To be honest, I think he is really enjoying the Slashdot and IT media attention he's been getting so much of, so every few months he'll make another controversial statement/essay to try and boost the attention to free software (specifically GNU).
Why doesn't he use the time (and it would be a lot of time) wasted on these essays doing what he started out to do - *gasp* write free code...
This latest errr "piece" he has written is just another example of his hypocrisy - isn't it just a statement of his power?
No this is not a troll, I am in fact I greatly admire the efforts of the thousands of open-source contributors, but I just think Stallman has got too carried away. But I'm sure most of you can see that... Just my A$0.04
It seems to me that the big argument here is about ownership and property rights, which everyone has strong opinions about, pro and con. However, maybe there is another approach that will make some sense to everyone. Maybe we should think of developers as guardians of their code instead of owners.
The analogy is that of a parent to a child. I don't own my child; she is free to live her own life. But I do have power over her. I gave birth to her and I have the responsibility to raise her until she is old enough to live on her own. As long as I am her guardian, I have the right, in fact the obligation, to make choices that affect her life. I decide what kind of education to give her, what morals to teach her, etc. And it's my right and obligation to protect her in her interactions with others. I set these limits because I want her to become a good, productive,giving member of society.
My code can be like my child (how many developers think of their code as their "baby"?) I created it and I put effort into improving it. I want it to become useful to others. Might I then also have the right to be its guardian and maintain custody of it when I release it into the world? Do I have the freedom to choose how I want others to use it? What do you think?
So we have no rights to decide over the fruits of our own labor? What are we, slaves?
One thing that horrifies me about both anarchists and communists is their penchant for power, for totalitarianism, dictatorship. They want to decide centrally what's best for everyone. No variety allowed. Everything must be uniform. Everyone must comply with their restrictive notions.
Socialism has a few great ideas and ideals. Why are they always perverted?
Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
"Take it, do with it as you please, feel free to not release your modifications to the world." - Sounds like total freedom to me.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the GPL is a great idea, but when it comes to giving power to the coder you just can't beat the BSD licence. Do any of the other licences out there offer the same flexibility of use?
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
but they have a copyright on the document you read to find that out. :)
So I as a software developer MUST give everything I do away because to not do so would be an "anti-free" action. What about the document I just read about freedom? It seems that this document is copywritten?
How can one be serious in writing a document that states the evils of intellectual property and then claim that document as intellectual propert by slapping a Copyright on it?
And what do you think when BSDLed code has a GPL slapped on it in the name of 'freedom'?
That situation is exactly what your rail against....someone adding more restrictions.
My friend is a carpenter. He can feed his children, and look after his sick mother.
I am a software developer. Under the GNU/Government (or is that GNUverment?), I am no longer able to feed my children, or look after my sick mother.
Or are all software developers paid by the state? Will the same apply to musicians, since it's just more IP?
So, the only private industry is now industry involved in producing tangibles?
Ok, so now we're back to the 18th century, when intellectual pursuits were the privilege of the upper/ruling class (only the GNUverment can employ IP creators), while private industry meant these same people owning factories full of cheap labour.
Or is RMS missing the essential second part of his master plan, which is to apply the same rules to tangibles? In which case we have a very strong element of communism. This isn't Marxism on its own, of course, because he's not talking of redistribution, need and ability, just of Forced Free software.
Which is a bold statement to make when you're living in the USA, especially in these times; but seriously.. if he believes it, he should just *say* it. Perhaps he's a Marxist but knows it would be a PR nightmare to admit it.. perhaps he's just a strong socialist that believes central control of the means of production should encompass "all software", not that I've ever met a socialist who thinks Quake 3 Arena should be government-controlled... I don't know...
The GPL is so laden with restrictions to call it "free" is simply ridiculous.
I gave the same (yes, yes, no) as you did, yet I couldn't agree even a tiny bit on your logic.
The flaw is, at the time I "buy" the product, if I know for sure this product I can't have the commonly "fair use" principles applied, yet I decide to "buy" it, essentially I agree the conditions set forth in the contract. I might not like it, but I still am better off from this deal. I can also not taking the product at all.
If I do not know the product is not under the commonly applicable "fair use" principles at the time I buy it, that's another issue. But it does not relate to the freedom.
If a seller and user could not choose what kind of contract to carry out business, that's the lost of outmost freedom.
A sig is redundant.
What is freedom without choice?
Stallman is a software facist. His views make the GPL a virus. Next thing he will decree a jihad on developers and users of non-GPL software. Bin Laden and Stallman aren't that different when you think about it.
I don't particularly care for the wording used here. IMO, what they call "freedom" is actually power given to the end-user of the software, and "power" is power given to the producer of said software. From the looks of it, these two would rather have all power rest with the consumer and none with the producer.
"Freedom" is a bit of an amorphous concept, pretty hard for most people to define. In this case "freedom" should be defined as "free from the abuses of other peoples' power." The consumer should have some freedom to do with the software as they see fit, and the producer should also have similar freedoms. The trick is balancing the two against each other and making sure they both have equal representation in deciding how the software is used.
(Sounds an awful lot like political theory, don't it?)
The whole freedom vs. power debate is entirely relative to the position of the observer. To the folks at, say, Microsoft, an OEM license is viewed as Microsoft's "freedom" to distribute their software as they (and perhaps the market) see fit. Being human, they can't help but see the consumer as someone who should give selflessly of themselves to continue to support the producer. Take that last sentence, flip-flop "producer" and "consumer," and you have GNU's viewpoint.
It's the 21st century. We know that concentrating power entirely with the wealthy resource owners is just as bad as concentrating power entirely with the consumers. We've had over two centuries of wars and tens (if not hundreds) of millions of deaths over this. We should know by now that the best solution is a compromise. The only question that SHOULD remain is where the best compromise lies (something that nation-states are still debating).
At any rate, this whole "power vs. freedom" line in my opinion ranks right up there with "freedom to innovate." It's called "propoganda." Treat it as such.
it's a vicious cycle because if one is not making any economic gains as a lower-rung member of the socialist society, then one never becomes part of the gift culture. Thus, you have the same old aristocracy.
Socialism would work if people were inherently good. Sadly, we're self-absorbed bastards (me included).
If I understand correctly, you actually don't have property rights with regards to software. That's the whole point of copyrights and patents - you don't own ideas, the public does, but you are granted a limited monopoly for a short period of time as an incentive. Remember, software is not really a physical thing like a car or a piece of beef jerky - its a bunch of information.
Until we learn that Communist Hippies are smelly and therefore a turn off, our fate in the battle vs. Microsoft is sealed.
Maybe I'm just a capitalist pig, and maybe I haven't read the finee print of all the licenses, but here's my take.
I'm against the GPL. It *restricts* the ways upon which a great public domain code base can be built. And imposing restrictions is not what code should be about, IMO. I like the BSD and X-Window licenses, because they do not impose the same restrictions (as I understand them).
If I base some *commercial* code upon BSD or X-Windows licenses, and add some incremental value, I can charge for it, without giving away the farm. (Software development, in general, *is* a business, by which people make a living, not a public foundation or a research project. It's this assumption of GPL that makes me worry it won't crawl far beyond the Universities and foundations, and into the real business world, where it must, to gain any measure of acceptance.)
Now, if everyone thinks what I did to extend the given software was so wonderful, but *should* be free, they're free to clone my *ideas* and *designs* of the extensions, to extend the free code base. Just a SMOP. (Small matter of programming; design is the hard part.) Everyone benefits. Honestly, the alternative is that I just won't bother to build upon that code base to start with. There are *many* GPL'd projects I would have otherwised taken further, but for the forceful, and yes, virus, license. Some of these would have had useful and powerful *concepts* that could have been cloned for free. (And I would undoubtedly have given back *some* portions of code, and all of the conepts, to the public domain). But not under the GPL, where I lose *all* of my competitive advantage for my creations.
Under a BSD-like or X-Window like license, I can commercial extend a good thing, bolstering Unix, Linux, X-Windows, BSD, and the power of applications on those platforms. I think that's more conducive to the success of non-Microsoft platforms in the world.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Funny thing is that the "free" software that Stallman so advocates is so inextricably intertwined with the IP laws he seems to hate. For example, the GPL could not exist without strict intellectual property laws. For example, with no IP you would have no power to insist all derivatives of your work must be bundled with source code. Without IP laws IBM, Microsoft, etc could use your source code with no credit or disclosure. The only thing that gives you the power to control how your source is used or disclosed is your ownership of that source. If your own source code was not legally considered property then the GPL could not exist.
You Americentric prick. Many countries subsribe to the belief that creators have a moral right, droit morale, to their work that is beyond even copyright. The US doesn't, but many cultures, the French first, I believe, believe that when someone creates something they have a moral claim to it.
Eric Raymond's essay asks an interesting question:
"if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?"
He considers the answers "no" and "yes" in turn, and in either case does not draw a favorable conclusion about the FSF's position. Many posts here appear to agree with him, that the FSF wants to impose power of its own over other people.
But there is another way of considering the question which leads to a different conclusion. I am not attempting to speak for the FSF, though by and large I agree with them, and with michael's editorial comment above.
In the case of the "no" answer, ESR's riposte is '...that will mean they [the FSF] do recognize a right for developers to choose licenses as they will without being killed, jailed, or threatened for choosing the "wrong" one.' Yet the choice which ESR and apparently many slashdot posters support is only meaningful in a certain kind of context.
This is the context where, should the developer choose a proprietary license, the power of the State is available against transgressors of the license. The context where people are well aware that they might, as ESR puts it, be "killed, jailed, or threatened" for failing to abide by restrictions of their use of information.
This is of course the state of affairs we are in today; where for example every person viewing a DVD (in the USA) is routinely threatened with the FBI for copyright violation; where Dmitry Skylarov is apparently being made an example of to make sure that everyone understands the consequences of "bucking the system".
When you look at it this way, the question becomes rather strange. It would be peculiar to ban proprietary licenses but leave intact the machinery of coercion on which they depend. If the machinery were not available, proprietary licenses would most likely wither, since everyone would know that such licenses could be ignored with impunity. (The same applies to the GPL, since it depends on enforcement of copyright law.) One can therefore answer "no" to ESR's question without supporting any restrictions on the use of information.
Is there any way to support the freedom of choosing proprietary licenses without supporting the means by which people can be "killed, jailed, or threatened" for breaking them?
Nick
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
This just doesn't sit well with me at all. I don't demand that the people who create software I use release under the GPL over whatever license it is currently using. I *will* look for alternatives, with my priorities being cost and opensource, in that order. Remember, this is a 'free software' group speaking, not the 'open source' group; big difference. A manifest destiny declaring all software should be GPL'ed should be met with serious opposition.
My code, that I work on, is mine. I owe to no one the work that was involved. (Code produced for an employer is different. For now, I mean code I do on my spare time.) *If*, and this is a big If, if I distribute my code in any form to anyone, it is entirely at my descretion. I own my work, and I'll do with it what I please. I am very happy to abide by the GPL in gpl'ed code. The reason is it's *their* code I'm using. These are *their* conditions they want the code used for, and I will keep my end of the bargain in return for their generosity in providing for everyone. If I don't like it, I don't *have* to use their code.
No one, not even RMS, is going to tell John Carmack that Doom 3 *has* to be released under the GPL. However, if RMS wants to spout that His Immenence Carmack is taking advantage of power, he would cause more harm than good. John Carmack knows the value of the GPL, and has shown this many many times over, with the release of Wolf3d and Doom source code, followed by the GPL of the Doom and Quake source. This has done tremendous things for the home brew gaming community, and while he can't measure in dollars the good he has done, I hope he has even a close approximation of the help he has provided in the releasing GPL. I will follow to the letter every section of the GPL in any work I do based on John's released software; not out of fear for lawyers, but out of respect for John's contribution. His gift.
No one has the right to say what we can or cannot do with our 'art', code in this case. RMS can spout anything he likes, but the moment he decides that my release of SuperWhizBangTurbo MUST be GPL'd is the exact moment his freedom to swing ends at my nose.
RMS, we appreciate what you've done, and what you fail to realize is the sheer enormity of code released daily under the GPL. However, what your proposing is not 'increasing the freedoms of computer users everywhere', you are 'taking away the rights of programmers everywhere'. We do, have been, and will continue to release under the GPL at every opportunity. However, we will find something else in protest if any effort is made to force us to do so. Even if its for the greater good, we are stubborn individuals, and will resist any effort to force us into submission.
Toodles
Toodles D. Clown
This seems to be the underlying (black & white) assumption to this little rant. What about the power to help people? Or the freedom to hurt people?
...) - which is the reason that companies employ software developers. This power can be abused, but that doesn't make it bad ...
Writing software gives you power (if it's good s/w
We Don't Want Your Software Industry, We Just Want the World
/.'ers response is to ardently
/.'ers who follow the MS gossip
(Let Anarchy Ring)
Hooray for S & K! As usual, the standard
defend the "right" to copyright. Anybody have the guts around here to
seriously question the "right" to private property in the first place?
At base that is what S & K do here. Once land was viewed as something
many people could do many things with, and which animals had a right to
inhabit; today it is generally viewed as something the owner can do what
they please with, and nobody else even has a right to walk through. As a
result we are all more impoverished. Now not only our land, our natural
resources, our air, mountains, oceans, rivers. etc. are owned and
controlled by a small elite, but creative ideas.
The basic model on which GPL is based is academia; people are entirely
free to quote, cite, reference and use each others' writing and ideas.
I'm in atomic physics and all of the work I've done and my colleagues have
done is entirely free and open; yet somehow, we keep working, moving
forward and being productive. As a community we learn, develop and share
our ideas, and we prosper incredibly from this exchange. And we are
decades ahead of industry in every technological frontier. On top of
that, we do it all on pennies compared to what industry routinely spends
to do vastly simpler stuff. Most of our money actually comes out of odd
corners of education funding.
One can easily make the claim that industry would lose its raison d'etre
if patents disappeared, but I'm sorry, this is bullshit. If a company is
big enough, they make whatever they want regardless of who owns the patent
and bulldoze whoever tries to sue them.
know what I am talking about. The only real advantage is gained through
industrial secrets, which don't usually last very long, and have nothing
to do with patent law. Patent law does not defend the weakling inventor
in his garage from the big company. It is a slegehammer that big
companies use to demolish their competition. Patents have nothing to do
with freedom, no more than copyrights or landownership.
Instead of meekly defending the coroporations that are ruining our music
with copyright law, and plastering all the rest of our culture with
advertisements, let's stand up and take credit for the incredible success
that free software has been, and travel on to spread freedom to other
parts of our society. Why not bring the kind of freedom OS programmers
enjoy to medicine, agriculture, publishing, music, land use? The robbery
of our minds, culture and resources has enslaved us and is enslaving more
of the world, more deeply, every year. In the words of someone, we don't
want your software industry, we just want the world.
Let's be honest, too, about what we're asking; Stallman took a few months
off, lived off his savings and started a non-profit organization, he
wasn't Jesus on the Cross or anything. We're not all going to starve if
we throw our lot in with free, open projects. Compared to most of the
world, Linux programmers who live in their parents' basements and collect
Star Trek DVD's have it easy.
PEACE LOVE FREEDOM ANARCHY
The people in the village were real poor, so none of the children had any toys. But this one little boy had gotten an old enema bag and filled it with rocks, and he would go around and whap the other children across the face with it. Man, I think my heart almost broke. Later the boy came up and offered to give me the toy. This was too much! I reached out my hand, but then he ran away. I chased him down and took the enema bag. He cried a little, but that's the way of these people.
The freedom to do what I want with my creations is just that -- a freedom.
If I want to write software that I then shred, that's my right. Stallman would force me to give it away.
Screw Stallman.
Taking this argument from the perspective of a developer of a new project, freedom and power are a bit blurred. My freedom to choose a licence is due to the power provided by copyright laws, etc.
However, from the perspective of a user, this is much clearer cut. If I've just received the source code of a project distributed under a "free" licence, then I must abide by the conditions of that licence when I make further copies or product derivative works.
In this case, my freedom to do what I want with the code is restricted.. I don't have the right to decide on which licence I distribute the work under. The developer has used their power over me to restrict my freedom to choose a licence.
But imagine what would happen if I did have the freedom to choose a licence.. I could take software under a "free" licence and distribute it under a "closed" licence. Obviously, this is not what the original developer wanted when they released their code. The developer has consciously used their power, provided by the copyright laws, to restrict my freedom.
Andrew Scott
If it's something you need a compiler to use, it probably should be licensed under the LGPL. Otherwise, unless it's really unique, it's likely to become abandonware.
Do you have the power to be free?
...power....to impose their "freedoms" with their guns.
Let's see a few basic "Freedoms":
1/ The right to have guns
That's a basic freedom for most Americans, and in particular for ESR. Now I ask you: Does your gun gives you more power or more freedom ?
Native Americans where more free before the wasp came into
2/ Free speech
Again, a freedom americans believe in a lot. And so the freedom of the medias. But again see we refer to the media as a Power.
Basically what should we do with powers ?
Choice 1: Nobody should have it. So everybody is free. Right. That's call anarchism. That's great but I don't think anrachism will allow society to develop new technologies.
So it doesn't work, in our societies we need some kind of power to manage the stuff. Thats choice 2. But There again we have choices:
2a: The power is given to the "collective", not to individuals. Thats comunism. And we know he doesnt work. I guess the main reason is that in the end the collective is managed by a bunch of individuals.
So here come the last solution:2b: give the power to individuals.
The only problem is that to seize a bit of power you need one thing: KNOWLEDGE. You need to be educated.
If you know how to make guns, you have power. If you know how to make money you have power. If you know who to make software you have power.
So it comes to this:
Knowledge gives you power gives you freedom.
The only other way is "nobody knows so everybody is free" (You have to read Rousseau to understand that)
But then you are free to do what animals do, and not much more because you don't know the rest.
bottom line: "SOCIETY IS BASED ON POWER"
But hopefully thats doesn't preclude Justice or Freedom if the peoples who have the Power are nice.
But I've got to reply here - I can't mod everybody down !!!
What is this attitude? I didn't totally get RMS' argument, sure, but ESR's really made the case final.
I can only recommend that you read the article by ESR before you start agreeing with him !!!
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
That's right, bullshit.
You are all crying that RMS is taking away your choice as to what license to chose. You want to chose the license for your code, whatever it may be.
I do understand that.
But why are you all advocating the GPL? The GPL forces you to use itself if you alter the program and redistribute it, even if you nearly changed the whole thing. It provides exactly the lock-in that RMS advocates in his article.
If all programs were GPL'ed and we Linux had 95% market share, I would be forced to use the GPL if I wanted to release a program because I sure as hell would link to some library.
Anybody who is against these views by the FSF should use a BSD style license and definitely not the GPL.
There are times when I may not want to give someone the right to redistribute my code, or modify it, or even to view it in its entirety. I may not like this myself, but in the real world it sometimes happens. (E.g., maybe my application requires a commercially produced third-party CD for its operation. Think of a game, or a data-intensive application. I don't have the right to redistribute that disc, nor can I confer it to others.)
Right now I can weigh the overall benefits and decide that partial disclosure is better than none. E.g., maybe I can publish a p-code interpreter even if I can't publish the p-code or its source.
But under an absolutist approach, I can't publish anything. The p-code is no real loss, since I couldn't distribute it anyway, but now nobody gets to see the interpreter either.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
...so as to guarantee that libiberty and justice for all I heard so much about in my high school Government class? It didn't make much sense to me then, but this latest essay by Stallman sure makes it sound like a great idea.
I must disagree with you© The GNU/Linux world is the main segment of the free/open software movement that cares at all about Bill Gates, profit margins, and viable business models© The Linux community has a very deeply ingrained hatred of anything Microsoft, beyond that of anybody else ¥excepting a few Macintosh zealots© Take the website as a prime example© Rarely does a day go by without Slashdot posting some article about how Microsoft is going to implant microchips in your hand ¥or, optionally, your forehead, whichever is a more convienient location for you to be followed up with the sacrificing by fire of all of your firstborn sons© Even the icon for Microsoft stories on Slashdot is absurdly telling of the general sentiment, a ``Borg Bill Gates'', instead of the Windows logo, or something else more officially Microsoft©
They stand for freedom, they stand for high quality software, and they got GNU/Linux to where it is today© Or maybe you'd like to try running Linux without the GNU system© Good luck©
The quality of Linux is, in my opinion, not really all that impressive, except when it is put in comparison to the quality of Windows© While it might be challenging to run Linux without GNU ¥especially since the Linux kernel itself is under the GPL, if I remember correctly, It is not at all chllenging to run Unix without a single piece of GNU software©
They are trying to prevent people from doing one thing, and that is taking freedom away from others© But taking freedom away from others is no more a "right" or a "freedom" than taking people's property from them or their lives© Nobody complains that their inability to rob people is "the government taking their freedoms away from them"©
I seriously dislike the GNU GPL specifically because it takes away freedom from others© Under the GNU GPL, you don't have the freedom to mix closed-source software in ¥at least not very easily, and you most definitely don't have the freedom to mix it into closed-source software© But the main reason that I dislike the GNU GPL is because it breeds a lack of respect for the developers© Too many people feel entitled to the software, and ignore one vital point about the software: The developer does have the right to dictate how you use the software, and if you don't like the terms, you don't have to use the software© It is the developer's labor which created the software, and just as I am not entitled to free use of the labors of anybody else, they are not entitled to my labors© That is why I prefer the BSD-style licencing© It emphasises the fact that I am providing the software as a gift, and the only reason you are getting to use it is because I am a nice guy© You have no entitlement whatsoever to my work© Also, since the software can be packaged by anybody into a closed system, with no other constraint than giving me credit, any misguided plans to get rich from the gift ¥leading to all of the failed Linux companies don't get in the way of developing a better work©
Best Slashdot comment ever
Doesn't the FSF want the power to keep me from using GPL'd code in my truly free public domain software?
Property:
When you "distribute" property doesn't that means you transfert property rights?
How does property apply to software?
When you copy and sell your software, does the buyer has property rights on the new copy?
If you had a "replicator" and you were able to clone Pentium IV as easily as you clone software, how would the property right apply?
I'm not really sure what this guy's agenda is, reading through this manifesto BS I get one thing out of it.
freedom for users.
starving developers.
another small detail, the GPL has never been tested in court, so say you do talk a bunch of developers into basically eating their shoes so they can write 'free' software. Then some asshole comes along and swipes it, neat, you think stallman would pony up the cash to fight it? fuck no, he'd just say how 'wrong' it is, and continue to advocate his hippy bullshit.
I will write free software when I get a free house and free sex and free hamburgers.
till then, mr stallman, suck my commerical developin dick.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
IMO, any exchange that doesn't represent a value for value transaction is inherently harmfull to both parties. If I choose to give code I wrote to another, gratis, that's great. As long as I can honestly say that I'm getting a fair trade, that is. My "payment" may be in the ego stroke of seeing someone else getting value from my work, the gratitude of that other person, or even just the relief of seeing that I didn't waste my time creating the software.
Now, if I find that I'm giving my software away, but getting no return, there's a problem. It doesn't matter why I'm making the "sacrifice"; it only matters that it is harmfull. Regardless whether I do it because I'm pathetic enough to give in to "peer pressure", or if I'm forced to by Stallman's brown shirts someday in the future when we all get the great pleasure of living in rms's "utopia", it's causing me harm. And, when the other person gets "something for nothing", it fundamentally causes them harm; by not requiring them to return value for value, they are weakend. They become a little less autonomous, a little less independant, and, frankly, a little less free.
I've got nothing against the idea of free software ; in fact I do my best to use nothing else. However, I always do my best to make it a value for value proposition. Sometimes I pay for the free software, sometimes I offer bug fixes, sometimes I only offer bug reports (though I try to make them usefull) and sometimes I only return the value through praise and promotion; regardless, I do my best to hold up my end of the transaction.
Stallman and Co. are trying to rob me of my freedom by making me dependant upon others. By them preventing me of placing value on my creations, the would rob me of the ability to enter honestly into transactions with other. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need is bullshit. From each according to their will, to each according to their ability to match value for value. That works in the real world, and is healthy for all involved. Bottom line: enlightened self interest is good.
Bah. This whole argument tires me. Stallman can think and do what he wants, and I certainly appreciate his "gifts". However, I reject his moral superiority, and I reject (and will defend myself against) his attempts at stealing from me the fundamental right to trade value for value with others.
Sorry RMS, life is just not so simple. You can't make a programmer use the license you would like, since you can't actually make someone write a program. (Barring coercion...do you propose that all programmers should be slaves?)
So for instance, you can't actually make me do anything with the code I have just been labouring over. Not that it would actually be useful to anyone else anyway but just supposing someone did want it...I can make any sort of contract I like with them. We would both then be bound by the terms of the contract. Or I can keep it to myself.
This plan is not actually communist, since at least Marx did propose "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (OK, it didn't work out that way in practice) But this plan seems to expect the programmer to work for nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a fine thing to write open soure software and give it away. But whoever has put the effort into writing it surely must have the right to decide what to do with it. Including the right to accept money for the work ifthe opportunity offers.
I just can't resist posting this.
I misread the above at first. What I read was:
:)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
So here these two gentlemen are arguing that it is immoral for you to excersize this right. And here is the contradiction. At the very end of their own piece they do in fact excersize the very right they wish to deny. To wit Copyright © 2001 ....
If this weren't so sad it would be amusing. If these two really truly believed that copyrights are bad, they would not have imposed their will by using this legal method which they rail against.
You, dear reader, are allowed to copy and distribute their entire article.... AS LONG AS (some conditions). That is, they are excersizing their freedom to choose the manner of distribution and dissemination. By doing things in this manner, they have imposed a particular condition upon you, that is your responsibility to fulfill.
So explain to me how this is freedom?
If I chose (which I have not, this is a purely hypothetical gedanken experiment) to reproduce their work in its entirety, and give a different attribution, ignoring the plagaristic side of it for the moment, they would be perfectly within their rights to sue me for damages. That is, THEY and only THEY as original creators of the work have the right to decide upon the mode/method/etc of dissemination/distribution/diffusion. They had the option of writing something like the following "We grant unlimited, perpetual license to freely disseminate this work. No conditions apply to the use of this work."
That dear reader, is freedom. When ever you want to see what a person or group really stand for, watch what they do, not what they say. Kuhn and Stallman hide behind the copyright law here, the very one that they criticize as giving power to the creators of a work (be it code, or text, or whatnot else). They excersize this power in the last 2 lines of their note. They are perfectly in their rights to do so. They have a right and a responsibility to defend their rights.
What they ought to stop doing is criticizing others for doing exactly what they are doing. If they truly believed in freedom, they would excersize this freedom. They chose to excercize their "power" instead. And that is within their rights to do so. As it should be with everyone. Maybe it is time for them to stop complaining.
Ganz genau: without access to the source code, the best you can hope for is a free forall -- really nothing to write home about.
[BTW, mckelveyf, I am not trivializing your point with this pun. The serious take on it is seriously meant, too. But it's 4AM, I've been doing battle with GDB for many hours now, and it's getting hard for me to keep a straight face while reading all the dogma (elsewhere) in this discussion.]
Read RMS' article. He defines the two terms, and while I'm not sure he's got his definitions right, they're the ones that are relevant for discussing his arguments.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
If code is law, as Professor Lawrence Lessig (of Stanford Law School) has stated, then the real question we face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few?
If they really felt so strongly about elitism, why do they feel the need to mention that Lessig is from Stanford Law School?
More please!
RMS even wants the GNOME project to not mention proprietary software as a matter of policy. If that isn't an attempt at censorship for political reasons I don't know what is.... It's actions such as these that "moderates" may find offensive.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
So, if we don't have the choice of how we release our software, if a "free" license is required (which as many have pointed out, can therefor not be "free") who is going to front the millions of dollars that get sunk into developing a modern commercial game? What about all of the money that goes into the research for scientific programs, etc.? The bottom line is the cost of duplication isn't the only cost involved. It costs very little to copy Titanic, but it cost something like $200 million to MAKE Titanic. The same goes for software, and to a lesser extent music.
At the start of his essay he states : "The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." -- William Hazlitt
We're 6 billion people on the planet, if I cared about others more than I care about myself, I'll probably be dead by now. The only people I care about is me, my family and my friends. That's it.
Nice use of a Red Dwarf quote (I love the macho Rimmer ;-) but did you post that from, say, Win2K using IE? If so, WTF is up with the copyright symbols? Did MS finally change from CR/LF to something else? Is that Unicode for "Enter"? What is going on, Ye Gods Above?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Or is social progress irrelevant? Is there some legal precept paramount to the greater social good?
The ends do not justify the means. If we sacrifice all our individual freedom - because that's the logical endpoint of what you suggest - to the 'greater social good', then where will we be? We'll have a wonderful 'society', a wonderful, flourishing, ABSTRACT CONCEPT.
People are what matter in this world. If RMS had a chance to inflict his ideas fully upon the world, we would face oblivion of the indivudal.
-rahl
Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
In other words, he can make any changes he wants, and your software automatically assumes that license. I.E. He starts working for 'PC Corp' and he changes the license so that 'PC Corp' may legally use the source for any GPL'd project without releaseing the modifications.
That's just one example... There are more just like it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So, say we had no IP laws. I think companies would resort to unfair competition laws to prevent their competitors from doing many things that today fall under the ambit of copyright, trademark, and patent law. The IP laws may be an outgrowth of the received wisdom of the founding fathers, but they reflect the notion that one has a right to prevent others from engaging in a dishonest rivalry in trade or commerce with oneself.
At least to me, it's clear that modifying the software of another and redistributing it, without their permission, is an attempt to pass off the goods or business of one person as that of another. If a person grants you the right to redistribute it, then unfair competition is obviously not an issue. But asserting that freedom requires creators to surrender their right to compete fairly in the marketplace is misplaced hyperbole.
Well screw the politics. GNU is offering you freedom in your software. Nobody's forcing you to take it. If you'd rather have the shackles of proprietary software, go use the proprietary software, and you may just find out why everybody's been talking about GNU/Linux for so long.
I find it rather funny that, looking past your rhetoric, your last paragraph - intended to be an ultimatum of sorts - is actually the right solution. Freedom to choose. People should be able to choose free software OR proprietary for their own computers - isn't that something that affects 'them' most? What could RMS's defense be if he took this freedom away from them in the name of a different freedom, that to modify their own software? The only conclusion is that he's choosing for them again. No matter how you look at this, RMS is taking away individual freedoms for his warped ideas of same.
You had it right, at the end. Nobody should force anyone to take 'freedom in [their] software'. Don't forget - to be 'free', or not to be 'free', is also a choice that free people get to make.
-rahl
Reality is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced fantasy.
Your simple post is attractive for its conciseness, but you conflate the power to take away freedoms and the power to protect freedom. They are different.
The distinction is actually rather obvious. You have the freedom to do anything you like except take away freedoms. You are being too simplistic with your notion of "power"- It's not that all power is bad, but rather that power when used to take away important freedoms is bad.
The GPL takes away no more freedom than is necessary to preserve freedom, and in a world where no one is able to take away your freedom to use information (i.e., a world without copyright), the GPL becomes unenforcable, you're right- but also unnecessary. I can only guess that those shouting loudest about how the GPL takes away freedoms must be paid by microsoft, because the only freedom it takes away is your right to keep someone else from having the same freedoms you have, and the only beneficiaries of such a system would be those who want to take the work of the community and make it exclusively their own.
Your "right to defend my home" example presumes you have an exclusive right to the object you are protecting. Intellectual property doesn't work this way though- the government grants you a temporary monopoly, it is not yours by right but rather because the framers of the constitution thought it would be a good bargain that would maximize social benefit. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Your "censorship" example raises a good point. Everyone has the right to say that certain things ought not be said, but no one has the right to *keep people from saying those things*. Where is the freedom to censor? It is incompatible with free speech, and free speech is a fundamental right, so it trumps the "freedom to censor". Similarly, the freedom to take away other people's right to use software is incompatible with the freedom to use and modify software for any purpose.
No wishing for more wishes. -the djinni
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
From now on anyone calling Stallman an asshole on Slashdot will no longer be modded as a "Troll" but as "Insightful". Does this guy have a GOD complex or what? He stuff HIS open source movement when his brain is -- below the waistline. Thank God for the BSD license, now that is real freedom.
Not content with convincing others to use the GPL, Richard Stallman begins to get impatient and wants to start forcing people to use the GPL.
In another year he'll be advocating revolution against our government.
His priorities are so fucking out of whack if he keeps trying to equate software with freedom. I vote we send Stallman to Afghanistan to live for a year and report back to us on what freedom means.
What you are describing is Mac OS X. Apple in one year has surpassed Linux as the #1 Unix Desktop. Linux will never be to the desktop what Mac OS X is. You are absolutely right, Linux is built for the server not the desktop.
From this essay we can see that RMS holds a more fundemental view that everyone is skirting around but not really attacking directly. It is a particular view on what Freedom is, this is implicit in his being so it's hardly worth moaning on about sneaky redefinition on his part, actually no he wants to be our bearded master etc. etc. He is stating that the FSF reject the notion that software authors should be allowed to choose their own license for software. He makes no apologies that the FSF is a radical group, and the GPL is the most vocal expression, under current copyright law, of their ideals, and a bridge for authors to place their software into that world of quite specific ideals. But the ideals that the GPL represents are not best served by copyright law, and this essay reaches beyond copyright to an even more overtly political stance: that computer software is too important to be protected by copyright, which makes it "too" easy for authors to restrict what people do with their code. This is based on Lessig's maxim that "code is law"; as I understand it, he means that computer software regulates the pace and rules of modern living to such a degree that it thoroughly regulates our lives in many of the same ways that the government and police force would. Lessig concludes his book with a suggestion that the Y2K fears might have been allayed if software was treated as fundamentally as law, and at least deposited with a government agency in case of crisis; I think this is the direction that Stallman is leaning in. That is to say the very act of creating a piece of software that anybody, anywhere might use carries a public responsibility for its effects, and part of this responsibility must involve people who use it not being helpless to change it if the circumstances require: whether this be fixing a bug or removing an unneeded piece of functionality.
I've certainly formed some new conclusions as a result of this essay; but in general I agree that he's making his position more extreme by explicitly rejecting the current structure of (C) law with regard to software.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
Power and freedom are very hardy words that stand in much abuse yet stand again for the next debate. You can argue all you want about Freedom and Power and yet find you are arguing about nothing at all. If you can have wars against drugs and wars against terrorism, you can have the Freedom to have Power and the Power of Freedom. You can argue endless rhetoric on how the Power to not give other people the Freedom to have Power over other people's Freedom and then find the next reply to that is another twist on words that seems equally correct.
So to avoid this in a talk about software licenses, I ask you to believe only in real things. The words Power and Freedom don't decide arguments. We're talking about the words "software" and "can do" which are real. What can you do with your software and why can or can't you? And are the reasons just?
Yes...I suppose "just" is another trap in unreality. But its an opinion that I can't say how you answer. I guess Stallman has been asking you to ask yourself a question for a long time now. Is it okay to be fined for pirating software. Or should I say sharing software. Uh! the English language is such a mess. Don't trust your language to win arguments. You must depend on the reasoning of the reader to know what it is you are really talking about and not simply respond to rhetoric on vague words. The readers who do this are most probably not the same people who win arguments or who become President.
George Orwell warned us about this as well. He said "Political language [...] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This is about political language but it applies equally here.
My opinion is this. I think RMS has a problem with tripping over the rhetoric. The token "Free Software" is definitely an abuse of the word. But I am certain there is something real here. You all can imagine how bad it can be where software is owned. What power can an owner not have when he can write in the beginning of the software "You will be fined if you don't follow my rules". And this is software we can't do without.
But however you believe, believe only in real things. Honesty is greater than wit.
is wholly incorrect. The Open Source movement began years after the Free Software movement began. The goals of both movements are dramatically different. One must understand the underlying ethics of a movement to understand a movement; the ethics that make the Free Software movement what it is are purposefully not present in the Open Source movement. You are expressing a lack of respect and incorrect authorship to credit the GNU GPL as a work of the Open Source movement. For more on this topic please see the Usenet thread starting with this article where precisely this problem was recently discussed at some length. Another valuable source of information are RMS' speeches. He explains clearly why the Open Source movement is not his movement. Please take the time to understand the ethics and history of the Free Software movement so you will not make this crediting mistake again.
No. The Free Software movement and the GNU GPL were made to give people certain freedoms in software. Fighting hierarchies (whatever that means) conveys a profound misunderstanding of what the Free Software movement, the concept of copyleft (key to understanding the GNU GPL) or the GNU GPL are all about.
I've long considered that his notion of what "free" means is a little beyond the mainstream, but this clearly spells out that what he has in mind is something insidious. He's clearly trying to redefine what freedom means in an attempt to promote a radical, downright socialist agenda.
The claim that individual software authors don't have the freedom to choose what software license they release under is absurd. Trying to claim that to excercise the right to decide how one's labor is exploited as "power" is absurd. That's called freedom. Users don't have the right to decide how the fruits of a programmers labor are to be used. They do have the right to choose not to use the software in question.
I've long questioned the idea that the GPL promotes some kind of freedom. It clearly is an attempt to plant some kind of social virus which compels the actions of others. But as radical as that is, RMS clearly wishes he could go further and restrict the rights of others to sell the fruits of their labors in a fair and equal market system. I question whether those really interested in creating meaningful software really which to put that yoke on their shoulders and tow the plow of Stallman's vision.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
A lame strawman counter argument. Nobody is forcing you to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval. The FSF lays out their arguments on why you should want to use the GNU GPL (or possibly the GNU LGPL, but only as a part of a strategy) and in so doing tries to encourage you to understand and agree with the ethics of the Free Software movement. As RMS says in his speeches, it is up to you to decide what licensing you choose for your own code.
Just to squelch another lame counterargument: If you make the decision to derive your code from GPL'd code you should be compelled to abide by the terms of the GPL. You could have chosen to write the code from scratch for yourself, but you did not.
This is probably posted too late to get much notice, but I think the point made by Stallman is not quite right. Choosing a license may be exercising power, but by advocating that no one choose any license but his own, he is putting you under his power (the optional "any later version" clause in the GPL that is the source of such conflict).
I think it sounds a bit ridiculous for him to say "I believe in the freedom to do anything you want with your software, except choose any license but my own".
Depending on how you define power, every design decision you make - from language to compilers to licenses - is exercising some form of power. You can explicitly exclude some users (using nonstandard GNU compiler extensions) or write code that can be used anywhere.
Stallman is NOT the god he believes himself to be. He seems to be more like a homeless man that knows how to code. Far too many people listen to his rantings.
We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
Philosphy exercise: define the difference between "freedom" and "the power of self-determination."
Stallman et al are playing linguistic hockey here, drawing distinctions that don't exist. They'd have you have you give up this freedom because it's a power and therefore bad, but you can't annihilate power - you'd only be giving it up to them.
So, no thanks, I'll retain the power over my code. And retain the freedom to decide what happens to it. It's the same thing.
"By your silly definition, Mr. Editor, true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids."
How can it be "True Freedom" if, by doing so, you take away the right and freedom of others to live peacefully???
You hit the issue on the head. Problems always start when people start arguing about "freedom" and "rights". An "egoless" position is impossible to argue though. Much like the question "what is art?" We all recognize it when we see ourselves in it. But don't when others are.
...is because they force my hand too much, too often. I feel disempowered when I use MS products. I never thought I'd say this, but the GPL is starting to feel that way too. But I like the concept of the license itself -- that if someone takes my code, I can require them to publish their changes. I just don't like these people foisting the GPL on "code owners" (yes, I believe in ownership). I don't mean this as a troll, but as a real question in light of the circumstances: are there licenses similar to the GPL that are not in any way associated with these people?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
This 'new' essay is a lightly edited version of a response to O'Reilly's original blog entry (linked to at the bottom of said blog entry, BTW), which is dated 8/15/01. What's more, it's already been discussed on Slashdot before, because that's what pointed me to this whole morass three months ago.
But while we're back at it again, let me one more time remind people that copyright is no more insidious or evil than than any other legal instrument that permits people to enter into contracts with each other. In the case of using a copyrighted good, that contract is spelled out in the copyright notice, and must be accepted by the consumer prior to using the good (reading the book, playing the cd, installing the software, whatever). While it does indeed serve to raise the price of copyrightable goods, a basic understanding of the laws of economics tells us that this rise in price serves to increase the supply of available copyrighted works.
In the specific case of software freedom, the issue we're trying to get at is probably not copyright at all, since all GNU software is copyrighted, and (almost) no one denies that it is 'free' software. What we're concerned with is whether software is open source or not, and whether we have the legal right to change that source code. Releasing software under a Closed Source type of license imposes costs on the user above and beyond the monitary costs; these additional costs (which are so well enumerated by Kuhn and Stallman--see essay) are important reasons that Open Source software exists and will continue to thrive. But they do not justify attempts to deny developers the right to release software they have created under the license of their choice, any more than the simple act of requiring payment for the use of the software would justify such legal action.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
So, as an experienced MCSE, you must know lots about Linux? Damn, I haven't heard that before...
1) Agree completely.
2) Hell no, just put it in a menu like cmd.exe is. Some old-skool hackers like the CLI.
3) Are you taking the piss? Just leave the source on a server, and let users get it if they wish. Most won't. Shipping 3 CDs of useless bollox just confuses the average punter.
4) Linux ain't a product. People will use what they like. Many distros are semi-standardised on a particular GUI. X is really the standard here.
5) GUI based RPM (or apt) Both easy, and can do kernel upgrades if properly handled.
6) Mozilla is great despite not being numbered high enough for you. Galeon, however is damn fine, and don't forget Opera 5.x.
7) Sun Star Office 6. Good luck importing MSWorks 3 files into MSOffice - MSO compatibility is a long way from perfect.
8) Backwards compatable with what? Itself?
Previously, I've recommended Win2K to business folks, but since the WinXP licensing issues, and improvements in Linux usablity, I now recommend Linux. No big problems as yet (certainly no more than Windows). A current standard Mainstream Linux install will suit most users down to the ground.
You can keep kissing M$ butt, but sooner or later, you know they're gonna have to take a dump.
"However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom."
Following this train of logic, the GPL should be studiously avoided, as it attempts to use the power of copyright law to dictate what other people can and cannot do with the code.
In short, RMS is openly advocating the use of BSD, Artistic and Public Domain licensing... as they don't try to strongarm the users into only using the code in a certain way.
Gun. Foot. Trigger. Pull.
SoupIsGood Food
What's this software freedom about?
I've found it very difficult to explain it to those who don't care about it. It's just like trying to explain the importance of western freedom to a stalinist, a chinese, or a religious fanatic. They simply say, "What do I need that freedom for?" Why would a monogamist need freedom for free sex or a muslism for free beer?
I guess the main problem is that we who appreciate this freedom live in such a different world. We appreciate it because we have experienced it and we don't want to give it away, ever again.
10 years ago, I had a computer. All of my software was pirated, because I nor my family wasn't exactly filthy rich, so I never could have afforded to buy all the software I needed. I loved programming, but the costs of even cheapest development tools would have been prohibitive.
But even with enough money, there would still have been inpenetrable barriers of the proprietary software which I could never change or use in any way, except the restricted ways the producers allow me. I was living, from morning to the evening, in a totaliarian world with high walls everywhere.
5 years ago, I became a Linux user. All the barriers crumbled down, and I could at last breathe freely and freely look at everything in the world in which I live. My world had changed.
Well, my world has its problems. If I want to buy a computer, Linux may or may not have drivers for its hardware. Not all web pages work any more, because Internet Explorer has become a standard. "The other world" is a threat to my dream world, to my freedom. Then someone thinks I'm a fanatic just because I want to protect my free world from Microsoft, which is a totalitarian regime par taleban or the chinese gov. To them, my free world is The Enemy, because if I live in my world, I don't make them profit, and *gasp* might even seduce other paying customers to my world. They want to take my freedom away.
But this is me, a programmer, who really *needs* the freedom. Why would anybody else care about this free world?
Free software isn't just Liber Software, but also gratis beer software. It changes the entire idea that you have to pay for the air you breathe. It decriminalizes all the kids who have a computer and want to explore the world of computing (like playing games).
But no, I don't believe I could ever explain the splendidness of my world of Free Software or other freedoms to a taleban or a chinese communist or a religious fundamentalist or any other authoritarian person. Such as a Microsoft shareholder.
Even with my background, it took me a long time to understand the freedom RMS is talking about. He is talking about software freedom, where you can change and distribute any software without being jailed as a thief, not your freedom to take the freedom of others away with (proprietary) licenses.
Of course RMS is a libertarian in other many senses too. It might be that he sometimes unnecessarily mixes different concepts of liberties, I don't know. But he's perhaps the most influential person for creating the world I live in today, so I'll gladly give him my respect for that.
If this is true than the GPL does not exist.
Not a new idea, of course -- I'm sure I've seen it on
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Why do you make the mistake of using a car as an analogy?
It weakens your point.
for more info see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html
Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property.
I think Kuhn and RMS have a very convoluted view of the nature of individual power.
First of all, picking a copyright licence, GPL or not is precisly "to make decisions that affect others more than you". Under the GPL, the author grants some, but not all of the "exclusive rights" given to him by the Copyright Act. If Kuhn and RMS believe that retaining exclusive rights is an "exercise of power" per their definition of this term, then they should advocate placing software into the public domain. Instead they retain some of the power to exclude and use it to achieve their particular agenda. That agenda is not a bad one, but the idea that it is the only one that is acceptable is ludicrous.
In no sense is the exclusion of others from using your software for their own proprietary interests "being able to make decisions that affect mainly you". Who are they talking to when they say "you"? They drift back and forth between the interests of the users, authors, and other developers so it's hard to tell. Their definition of power focuses on "you" being the decision maker, ie the author, so deciding conditions for the exercise of your exclusive rights your code definitely "affects mainly others", since it will be the basis for the exercise of governmental force against them if they violate it.
The essay really moves to the far far left fringe. I think MS was wrong when they called the GPL "un-American", but with essays like this, they aren't far of the mark. The idea that exercising a "right to exclude" is a "power" (presumed bad) and not a "freedom", is simply contrary to mainstream American values. Isn't property by definition an exclusive right? In fact, all rights involve defining a space of action and giving exclusive moral sanction in that space to somebody and denying it to either the government or others or both.
Current copyright law places us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms.
The first sentence is profoundly wrong. If you don't want to be in a "position of power", simply proclaim the software public domain. Of course, the GPL doesn't do this, which compounds the error with hypocracy.
Next follows the most troubling part of the whole essay: that last quoted sentence is a whopper. The implication that it is unethical to exercise your rights if those involve excluding others is the essence of the communist belief system. The Bill of Rights restricts government from violating individual rights, and most prominent among these is the right to property, which includes proprietary interests in intellectual property as a subset of statutory and contractual assets generally.
In summary, the essay is a convoluted parade of offsetting errors: the GPL violates the very principle the authors imply is "unethical" (retaining exclusive rights = "power") , but the idea that it is unethical to exclude others from your property is a far worse concept.
Too bad you didn't realize this until now.
I tend to agree with you.
:-).
Its all about a continuum with bill gates representing one polarity and stallman the other. Somewhere there's a middle path to be walked here . . . focusing only on one polarity or the other fails to take into account the whole. Either extreme will not serve our evolution because the polarities must be in a balanced cycle of expansion to progress forward.
Didn't that buddha guy say something about the middle path.
Sometimes its worth the effort to go beyond simple binary/polar thinking
PS MICHAEL your editors note fails to really weigh in as more significant than a comment. Would you consider placing your thoughts in a comment next time?
Listen to Reality!
I think RMS needs to stop getting blowjobs from 12 year old boys and come back to the real world. The entire article was riddled with contradictions in every paragraph.
This guy needs a reality check, followed by a visit to a mock McCarthy Senate Hearing committee on unAmericanism. That'll teach him.
BLACKLIST!
OSS is more of a political party than a way of doing things as it once was. God forbid we don't write GNU on everything that is opensourced ... maybe we don't want it to be GNU ... and even if my code is GPL'd, opensource, or buried in a bunker it will always remain my code and my code alone.
Eric Raymond this, Stallman that, Torvalds there ... Great men in the world of open source, but what some people fail to realize is even without them open source will live on forever. It's not a power to choose ... it's a choice to choose.
I'll tell you why I personallu endorse open source ... I want the ability to maybe help someone out with my code in the future to be able to help them with their personal code, because I would have never learned the languages I know now had it not been for the viewing of working source code.
I don't need to feel better about my Linux OS by knowing the code is there ... personally I've never looked at the kernel source code and I have no real intention to do so in the future, if I could upgrade a kernel via binary I probably would ... there's no benefit to me for it being open source.
HOWEVER with the source there I can look at it to get a feel for how an operating system functions at the basic level of source code, and because I don't want to go poke around at the code doesn't mean that thousands of others around the world don't every single day.
I'm not anti-open-source, I'm just pissed that Stallman seems to think it doesn't exist without him ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I could argue with you that matter itself is a bunch of higher-ordered physically represented information, but I will not.
---------
Fuck you, motherfucker. Fuck yous to: Rob "Taco-Snotter" Malda, Homos, Kowboi Kneel, and RMS.
I wrote it.
I can release it. Or not.
I can burn it, delete it, print it out and use it as Kleenex©
It's mine.
If I want to give it away, that's MY decision.
It's mine.
I choose the license. And if at a later time I choose to re-release it under a new license, I will dammit.
And I don't like your license you transparent control-freak. Don't you dare try to define my freedoms for me, under the guise of a freedom-fighter, for that is the true mark of a fascist.
Fair call from a user perspective. I suspect reality is that your video card manufacturer doesn't support Linux.
'Freedom is free of the need to be free /
free your mind and your ass will follow'
-- Funkadelic
The case made by RMS and Bradley Kuhn would be more convincing if they distinguish between:
- what is the desirable state of things
- what can be obtained by law to achieve it
Let's assume one agrees (I do) that the desirable state of rights of users of software is the freedoms as defined for free software. How to go there from where we presently stand? There is a minimum requirement: to make sure that law and practice does not restrict the freedom to license under the "make free, keep free and give and give alike" approach of the GPL. Reactions after attacks on the GPL have shown that this has strong support, well beyond the free software arena. But now, should one restrict the possibility of others to license under non-free licenses? The answer is in my opinion two-fold:
- Law should forbid taking away from users some very basic freedoms. It should also abstain from making proprietary licensing and its various protections usable to make it impossible in practice to develop and disseminate an overall infrastructure of free software.
- If - AND ONLY IF- this is obtained, why forbid those who want to jail themselves in the prisons of proprietary licenses to do so? Let competition between services to freedom and ownership of power occur, and count on democratical debate and user choices to sort out which is best.
There is of course a caveat: if the very basic freedoms of users of software that should be protected by law are identical to the free software freedoms my reasoning is flawed.
Ok, so basically RMS/Kuhn say that developers (or "power holders") should grant utmost freedom to the users of their products. Agree, disagree, it's your call.
There's a way to make him happy. Put every product I, you, FSF, RedHat, M$ write into public domain. "It was mine, now it's yours - do what you want with it". Freedom? Here's freedom.
I can take "White Christmas", play it in public, in private, modify it, release the modifications, keep the modifications, translate in ancient greek, rap it, reggae it, s/Christmas/Cowabunga/ it, and everyone else will be still free to do the same with his/her copy of White Christmas.
PD the world? That's the utmost freedom.
Is this what we (me, you, RMS, ESR, Bill) want? Maybe yes, maybe no. Go in front of a mirror and say "I want my work to be seriously and deeply free for every other man on this planet". Repeat and rinse until convinced.
Then come back and start the sermon again, thanks.
why is that, Cock Head? Let me guess, mr geek that gets the shit kicked out of him at school needs to act all tough when someone hangs shit on his crappy linux system....
As far as I see it, being really powerful is no good unless you know when to excercise your powers, and when not to.
:o)
Everybody should be free to make this choice on his own. If he chooses unwise, well, that's his problem, at least in the long run.
I don't want RMS to decide what to do with _my_ work - but on the other hand, I certainly want to decide what he does with his.
I want to have the power to freely decide when to put my code under copyrights (to be able to sell it) - even though it might be foolish in the long run.
And I *really* can't stand intolerance! When can't people just leave other people alone with their beliefs? (Yeah, I know - I leave RMS alone for now, too...
Cheers, Lars
Free to be empowered to be free.
Tell me how I will get paid in advance for writing QuakeRipOff (or any other generic app)?
Instead of being paid in advance, companies make an investment and expect to be paid afterwards, when the users (should) know what they get. Is that immoral? It seems far more immoral to have to pay in advance and not to know that you get. In this programmers are no different from writers. Do you believe that they should give away their books and live on added services (whatever those would be)?
Why not be sensible and just limit the EULA's and patents? Why don't you fight the RIAA & MPAA with a position that doesn't hurt businesses and thus could garner support?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
No, software is a realization of an idea. Copyright protects that realization. Patents protects the idea.
/mill
I think it is only intellectual property (copyrighted not patented) that makes sense. Physical property is scarce so any time someone claims ownership someone else lose the same. Nonphysical property one reproduce by putting in the same amount of work.
Arguments based on fundamentally weak propositions never succeed in communicating very clearly and that appears to be the case here. It's the rhetorical parallel of "garbage in, garbage out."
People do this all the time, but that doesn't make it a sound logical practice.
I think the initial quote on the piece by Hazlitt is very suggestive of the overall tone . . .
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves."
I take issue with this quote. The suggestion being that there has to be either the love of oneself of the love of others. There is no real argument being made here, simply an opinion being stated. As a person very full of love for myself and for others, I think it's a ridiculous statement. I say you have to love yourself to love others.
I'm pro-choice: I want to be able to define under what terms I want to distribute whatever I create.
But I'm also anti-abuse: I don't want anybody to tell me that I can't rip my audio CD in order to listen to the music using my portable mp3 player.
The problem we can see in the music an software industry is that there is no real choice. These industries have big monopolies that can define their termes of distibution without laws that prevent them of taking advantage of their position.
I'm in favor of copyright laws that let me choose and prevent abuse. I'm convinced thet currently we are moving in the wrong direction with the DMCA that allows even more abuses.
I think a lot of people (both posters here and RMS) are missing an importinat point. The "freedom of licensing" and "freedom of fair use" are not god-given rights -- they are circumscribed rights granted by governments.
Exactly what rights are granted and how they are circumscribed is a good topic for public policy debate, and the argument for a specifc policy should be framed in terms of what benefits society -- not in terms of "god-given" "freedoms" and "rights".
IP law already limits what terms creators can impose on users (patents expire, licenses must respect fair use) and that is a Good Thing. RMS wants to limit those terms even more, in ways I happen to think are not of benefit to society, but I don't think the notion of limiting them (more or less) is a priori illegitimate.
BTW, there similiar arguments even about other kinds of property. While it may seems "obvious" that I own a physical thing that I buy, it is unclear whether I should own the right to breathe clean air (in which case a company should have to pay me to pollute) or whether a company should own the right to pollute (in which case I should have to pay it to stop). The best way to answer such questions is neither the way of the "Earth is Holy" environmentalists nor the way of the "Business is Holy" right-wingers, but arguing about how which laws benefit society most.
Yes, it's subjective, but at least its a sane framework for discussion.
The contract is set BEFORE starting work. Contracted code is defined BEFORE writing.
Therefore your worry is unfounded.
Your boss can therefore sell your code for 1000x what they've paid you for it.
It may be they can't sell it at all.
At that point, though it isn't your code, it's your boss's. And it's HIS problem.
Part of the problem with RMS is the English language. It's often difficult to get the words out the way you mean it. A lot of words do double duty.
PS: You have no right to work. Work is something that most people do. You may, or may not, find work.
At the bottom of the article:
:-)
"Copyright © 2001 Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman"
Funny thing is, that if the article in question had been generated by a shellscript or something similar, the above notice would be _quite_ invalid
if RMS got to decide :-)
L. Bob Rife
"Snow Crash" Neal Stephenson, 1992
I don't see what everyone here is arguing about so much.
The article appears to be RMS defending the viral aspect of the GPL by saying that nobody should be able to grab power over a GPL'd program by creating a closed fork.
I don't think he ever said anything about having to publish everything you write under the GPL. If you write something, you can choose how to publish it, or not to publish it at all; nothing in the article conflicted with that. And - as far as I know - if you publish it under the GPL, you yourself aren't affected by the terms of the GPL, because you're the author of the work and thus don't need a license to use/copy it. (On the other hand, the moment somebody sends you a bugfix or feature upgrade and you incorporate it into the code you wrote, you are affected by the GPL on *THEIR* code, unless they explicitly transferred their IP rights in their code to you which they probably did not)
However, if you obtain GPL'd software and change it, then it is _not_ your work: it's the work of others. If you change it, then your changes are your work, but if they don't stand alone then you still derived benefit from the work of others which you obtained for free.
The only one thing that people might find objectionable about Open Source is that giving something away is an devastating competitive move in a capitalist world, because it's impossible to compete on price without making a loss. (Witness MS's tactics at giving away IE.) The irony is that the main reason most Open Source developers can still eat while they give stuff away, is that they have day jobs, usually either in the IT industry or in academia. Ergo, Open Source is actually being subsidised by commercial software, and as Open Source competes more strongly it is sabotaging its own bedrock.
It's my spaghetti and it's my right to decide which sauce to eat it with.
Enough with stupid fucked up comparisons, thx.
Freedom -2: I have the freedom to choose what to include in my code and what my finished program will do.
Freedom -1: I have the freedom to choose what the hell I'm going to do with this program now I've written it, providing of course this does not conflict with the choice made by any other people whose components went into my program: I may choose to delete it from my hard disk; I may choose to publish the code on my web site; I may choose to send it to my granny for a Christmas present; I may choose to make it available to a select few people; I may choose to set it to music and release it in MP3 format; I may choose to do any one of a hundred things with it, even to issue it under the GPL
-- hence --
Freedom 0: I have the freedom to offer the fruit of my work on the terms that achieve my intention
What is RMS's problem with that?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
But lets extend it into the real world - what if you substitute "your program" with "my house" in these discussions. What if I want my friends to share your house, or your car. What's the problem with that
Well, alot of things - your kids might not like it for a start. I write software for a living, I would like to continue to have a living, and the whole purpose of the FSF seems to be to prevent me from charging people to use the fruits of my labours.
Some nice people do let strangers share their house. I let my friends share my house sometimes... but I don't know you, and my family need somewhere to sleep.
--------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
It's true, I'm not being a troll. He thinks that the man should naturally have decision-making power in a marriage relationship because the man is stronger. Not surprising that he'd be in favor of microsoft making your decisions for you too.
Also, Locke ultimately says all these rights belong to a Christian god (which is why he thinks it's wrong to commit suicide- you don't own that body meester).
uwmurray, I think it is you who ought to review Locke. Or at least read some Rousseau or Hobbes or something, for Christ's sake.
Finally, intellectual property is not a natural right, it is a utility-maximizing bargain engineered by the framers of the constitution designed to increase social welfare by granting temporary monopolies to artists. It just doesn't work.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
He got it spot on when he says that the only way to sort this one out is to ask Stallman and Kuhn if they would pass a law to make proprietary licenses illegal.
It seems to me they wouldn't, but the difference here seems to be one side stressing the need for freedom to make a wrong choice, and the other stressing the moral imperative not to.
It reminds me of a (apocryphal) story about the US Congress discussing a few years ago a bill to allow patents to be taken on mathematical objects. Imagine paying royalties every time you use, say, Pythagoras' theorem! I think the issue with software is similar. When you have a working piece of code, what you have is the realisation of an idea of how to solve a particular problem. There's no justification (not in my eyes, anyway) for preventing other people with the same problem from using your idea. You can choose not to teach anyone how to use your idea, but if they can figure out how to do it by themselves, then there's nothing you can do.
Can programmers make a living? Of course! They should get paid to figure out how to solve a problem, but they shouldn't be paid again and again for other people using the solution they came up with. The situation is in some sense similar to that of universities, where people don't get paid for others using their research, but to do the research in the first place, and train students on how to use it.
--
sig is gone.
In society, it is important to first protect those who contribute, and those who create. Thier freedoms must be placed over those of those who use what they make or design. Someone should have the freedom to control what they make, and the freedom of someone else to do whatever they want with another's creation is trumped by this. Protect the creators first, and society with benifit. Protect the users first, and creation will stagnate, which leaves everyone worse off.
"freedom for all....but only the freedoms I allow" is pretty wierd. I know this guy is supposedly some sort of big guy in the linux scene (which I am not a part of -- I use the software because it's better, not so I have my own personal madman spouting stuff about what I should be able to do with code I write.)
I'm all for open source(most of my projects fall under it using a license I wrote(there's so little to protect, I don't need lawyers for that!)), but lets have it on terms the developer actually wants, rather than a "one license for all" which is really kind of scary.
It's been a long time.
Ho hum, canned text - don't bother responding to this one - check the history. I really don't know how someone can be sad enough to troll for fun, but they must get some twisted fun out of it...
You can not contract away your fundamental freedoms. You can not sign a binding contract to become a slave, or to sell your own children. It is illegal to rope someone into an overly coercive contract.
RMS's point is that the right to use and modify software is a fundamental right that affects almost all of our interactions with the world as computers become increasingly ubiquitous. Hence, contracting away this fundamental freedom is much like signing a contract that makes you a slave- it should be illegal because it's *too* coercive and *too* restrictive of fundamental freedoms.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
christians killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics, or GWBush claiming to be able to win a war on terrorism, or the US government dealing with the draconian Chinease government. The world is filled with hypocrites.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Your statements about transfer of license and archival backups is not strictly true.
.thing was, they couldn't provide the OS with it.. their license to uset he software was non-transferable. THis is not 'unfair' or any such thing. An army of lawyers agreed to these terms in the first place when millions of dollars were shelled out for the deal.
Yes, under straight copyright law, they are true.
However..... there is such thing as a 'contract'. Now.. I'm not talking about stupid 'click-wrap' agreements.. I'm talking about real contracts, usually the result of some negotiation.
Look at, say, a large cray. There was a company a while ago selling an old cray..
If I have software, copyright protects me.. but also, *I* protect me. I could get lawyers involved, and draw up a contract, and discuss it with you, to show how you are not allowed to use this software except in explicity ways. We can agree that you can't make backup copies, that you can't do this or that or the other thing.. and we can have this gone over in detail, with witnesses and everything.
And, if we do that, and you breach that contract... good luck showing in a court how you were 'allowed' to do that because 'copyright law says you are'.
In short, what you are forgetting is that copyight law only sets some guaranteed protections. A contract can always add additional restrictions; that's why you have to renew your MS software. First-sale doctrine does not apply when software is not sold, but licensed.
I have a problem with click-wrap agreements that are given the full force of law as a binding contract. Thats' my problem. If they want to impsoe specific terms, do it in a face to face manner.
If I give you some software, and just say 'here, thanks for the 10 bucks, here's the software' then copyright law applies. I have sold you the work, similar to if you purchased a CD at the record store.
If, on the other hand, I permit you to use the work under a license agreement that we both agree to, then your statements don't hold up. IF that license agreement clearly states that you cannot make archival copies, then you cannot make archival copies. I don't mean click-wrap agreements here, I mean your lawyer and my lawyer going over them, signatures, witnesses, etc... like a REAL contract.
IN this case, I have NOT 'sold' you a work protected by copyright. I have licensed you the use of my intellectual property under certain, specific terms.
"true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids. "
Hmm, won't that be considered Power! instead of freedom. You got power of those kids.
What? Who would order a sandwich for lunch?!?!
:)
You USians...
"true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids. "
Hmm, won't that be considered Power! instead of freedom. You got power of those kids.
Given the amount of money the BSA thinks is being lost to software piracy, they would have implemented such measures already if it were practical.
Side note: Wisely, the BSA runs its web site using free software.
"true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids. "
If what you are saying is true freedom = power! Than for that not to happen you have to decrease freedom and you'll be powerless or power less.
I am absolutely INCENSED that you are trying to dictate to ME what comparison I should make between Stallman and Bill Gates. When I post to slashdot, _I_ should have control as to how I portray those two people. How DARE you try to control my thoughts by expressing your own opinion!
See title
Anarchism, as a mode of thought, simply expects people to be grown-ups. Most people who have anything to say about the subject--which is to say, most people who are not in any shape or form an anarchist--fail to notice this component of it in their mad rush to disavow any possibility that human beings can live this way.
Human beings are bald, domineering, violent apes with an ego problem. If they're grown-up, they're just grown-up bald, domineering, violent apes with an ego problem.
They do what they do. Because they're bald, they wear clothing and have stupid sex taboos. Because they're domineering, they establish hierarchies. Because they're violent, they do it by hurting and killing. Because they have an ego problem, they think of themselves as refined and think up justifying philosophies for everything they feel like doing, all of which are nonsense.
The problem with anarchy, which is otherwise quite appealing, is that it is an inherently unstable situation in a species of bald, domineering, violent apes with an ego problem.
It doesn't matter if you get rid of a hierarchy. If you do, someone will want a hierarchy, with him on top, of course. He'll get it, even if it kills you.
Look at the web. It used to be anarchy. That was great but short-lived. Now various governments want to control it, and they're getting their way. You can't stop them; if you try they'll either ignore you, put you in jail, or kill you.
As Jean Shepherd said, some chickens are going to be better at being chickens than others. It doesn't matter what the parameters of chickenhood are.
Go ahead. Prove that I'm right. Take a moral stand. Tell me that I advocate domineering and violence or that I'm insulting anarchism or something. Get down with your bad monkey self!
The best thing you can do with apes is have a hierarchy that is full of incompetence and always changing, deliberately enfeebled. That's what the Constitution was supposed to be about. Too bad it didn't work.
How can a software company profit from a free software (only) solution?
If I invest money (engineering staff) and time into developing a solid application, and a group of hackers decide to branch the software into another competeing software and release it for free, what can I do? Sure you may say a similar event occured between Microsoft and Netscape, but the difference is Microsoft developed their software independantly they did not use Netscape software.
I often hear that open software companies benefit from the many-eyes form of debugging, but can that replace an expert quality assurance staff dedicated to your product. What about a testing for a software on a newly released hardware product?
Am I crazy or what?
I think a lot of confusion and hot air has risen because of mixed meanings of the word "free" or "freedom" once again. It is perfectly valid to say that "Free Softward" does not include the freedom to make the software not free in the sense of removing the freedoms of users and developers. This makes perfect sense.
The freedom vs. power thing is much more confusing and muddling. Even the GPL is a choosing by the developers and implicit within it is the right to choose. The choice made may be more or less moral, amoral or immoral but there is still choice.
Saying choice itself is wrong has nothing to do with freedom in its fullest sense.
No, Mozilla 0©9©6 on Windows 98, since I have been visiting my parents for Thanksgiving, and can't convince my Dad to use FreeBSD© I am not sure what you are talking about with this copyright symbol business, it looks fine to me, and no copyright symbols in sight© Where do you see this at? Is anybody else seeing them?
Best Slashdot comment ever
How about allowing developers to choose whatever license they want for the software they develop? Sure, every copyrighted work is supposed to enter the public domain after a temporary time. That doesn't mean that the source code enters the public domain--only the released binaries. Think about it. Let's say a band makes some music. When that music recording enters the public domain, the band isn't required to release the sheet music. How the music was achieved has nothing to do with the fact that it enters the public domain. The same rule holds true for software, in my opinion. Most people have simply forgotten that the source code has nothing to do with the released work which is supposed to enter the public domain. Put another way, let's say someone came up with an ingenius way to play music that nobody has thought of before, and that person makes a bunch of recordings and sells an album. Some years later, that album enters the public domain, which means that people can use the music for whatever they want. The musician doesn't have to tell the world how the recording was achieved (the source code to the recording). So I'm saying Stallman's being a dumbass. If I want to release software under a license that says you are not allowed to run the software at all, then I'll release software that way. When it enters the public domain, people can use it. But that has nothing to do with the source code. You can still modify a binary. You can still learn the algorithms. True, it's more difficult. But if the program was difficult to write, it should be difficult to decypher. Oh well.
Oh yeah, you can use any license you like... as long as it's one that I endorse. On your feet mere mortals! Worship me! I am Stallman!
Whatever. Pardon me for thinking for myself, but I am free to disagree with you.
The WSM website that you mention (which I agree is a great resource) has moved to http://ws.struggle
I think between the two of you, the repeated and contradictory usages of the word 'freedom' have made the word totally ambiguous.
Going back to my nice simple freedom to occupy my house. Some others might view that as counter to their freedom to take shelter as needed. I cannot exercise my freedom without the ability to take away theirs.
This is an incorrect conclusion to a very relevant situation. The answer is not that you have the power to take away their 'freedom', but that one of you or the other does not have the 'freedom' they are trying to claim. Either property rights exist, or they don't. In the former case, you have such 'freedom' that you can maintain an exclusive claim to dwell in some place. In the latter, you have no home to defend. Home is where you hang your hat, and by continuing to live where these 'freedoms' prevail, you are consenting to the fact that you have no power to stake a land claim.
The bottom line of this whole string is that 'freedom to do unto others' is not a freedom. There is no such thing as freedom to censor. That's an oxymoron. Censorship is inherently against freedom.
And, to go back to abe ferlman's post: From a practical standpoint, the power to take away freedoms and the power to protect freedom ARE the same thing. It might be attractive to try to make the theoretical distinction, but when that's done, you've succeeded in nothing except showing that you intentionally ignore practical reality in favor of trying to make yourself sound smart. "You have the freedom to do anything you like except take away freedoms." Who is REALLY being too simplistic here? That statement is the beginning of an infinite loop that will always grow. Obviously, that's no axiom that can exist in reality for any amount of time with any amount of success. Life is just not that idealistic. Sorry, and I know it's romantic to think so. He is being too argumentative with his notion of "power" -- If one has the power to protect freedom, they must NECESSARILY have the power to take away the 'freedom' of those that he is defending against. The GPL takes away no freedom period. As I said above, 'freedom to censor' is an oxymoron, and that is the 'freedom' that is being utilized by those the GPL is protecting against. The GPL seeks to guarantee that information that IS free remain that way. To say that the GPL would be unenforceable in some fantasy situation is irrelevant in every way. Speculation about such things is human, but that speculation has no bearing on anything.
If you read carefully, this is exactly the same thing Mr. ferlman said. Except that I'm not using two conflicting definitions of 'freedom'.
As far as the rest of his post, maybe someone wrote an essay encompassing all that crap about how intellectual property rights relate to the framers of the constitution, but it seems rather painfully obvious that he's just parroting it to put some sort of coup de grace on his post. I'd really love to hear the reasoning behind all that. Maybe another time. Further: "Everyone has the right to say that certain things ought not be said, but no one has the right to *keep people from saying those things*." Go yell "bomb" or "I agree with Osama Bin Laden" on an airplane, yell "ANTHRAX!" in some densely populated place, yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, etc. I thought you'd be more careful about minding obvious exceptions to your absolutist statements. You're arguing black and white principles in a world that exists in living color, so to speak. Where is the freedom to censor? I don't think I need to say it a third time. It's not that it's INCOMPATIBLE with free speech, it's that it's NOT A FREEDOM IN THE FIRST PLACE. And the exact same thing holds true of his final sentence.
If you consider that a line of reasoning, I can see right off the bat that you aren't a mathematician, or a logician for that matter. It's ironic, then, that these are exactly the two fields that one must be intimate with to be a programmer. The conclusion is totally non-sequitur. You're stating that math cannot be compared to software because people are willing to buy software but are not willing to buy theorems. This amounts to saying you're right because most people agree with you. That's no basis for an argument.
Programmers don't manufacture a god damn thing. They find new and interesting ways to make a black box do things that IT IS ALREADY CAPABLE OF DOING. Programmers, therefore, get paid for being capable of figuring things out. The current payment methods of programmers and mathematicans holds no relevancy whatsoever in this. Programs are the application of pure logic TO hardware, just as theorems are the application of pure logic to previous mathematical ideas. Your argument seems to epitomize the 'reasoning' that must have been used to justify the patenting of the "one click buy" method, or Ford's lawsuits against people using words like "jaguar" or "lincoln" in their business' names. It's preposterous to believe that kind of thing is right, and amateur economics doesn't do anything to convince people otherwise.
of course you have the fundamental freedom to keep your thoughts to yourself; that's not the argument. The argument is that AFTER you show these things to others, it's absurd to believe you can prevent people from using your method/writng/calculation/code/what_have_you.
I wonder if Stallman believes that developers should be free to choose not to write software at all. Forcing "freedom" on people is also a form of power...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Now that I am back home on my FreeBSD machine, I see what you are talking about. Apparently, Mozilla 0.9.6 on Windows 98 may still have some issues. The © (copyright) symbols should be periods (.), the ¥ (yen) symbol should be an exclamation point (!) (I think). That is really weird.
Best Slashdot comment ever
Heidi, are you on drugs?
...when most of the population is moderate.
From where the FSF sits, most of the population is still using captive software. So they have elected to become the polar opposite of Microsoft. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, but it's necessary in any political struggle.
Taking free software as a social movement, the next step would normally be an MLK to RMS' Malcolm X. We've had a short list of could-be's, like Linus and Miguel. (Not so much ESR, whom I see as sort of a Log Cabin geek.) I'm sure Michael Robertson has acquiring that role on this year's todo list as well.
But when the extreme positions are still boring and irrelevant to most people, taking the moderate view is a good way to be ignored. I actually don't think the copyright debate is mature enough yet that we on the free software side could accept leadership by moderation. If a challenger to RMS were to appear tomorrow preaching compromise and BSDness and "why can't we all just get along", the only lasting effect would be to widen the schism so that people outside the community might actually notice one existed.
On top of that, it's a lot harder to consider the FSF/RMS as the spokesmodel for the entire free software or open source movement than it is to consider Microsoft/billg the figurehead of proprietary software. If people really found the GPL that stifling, BSD would be bigger than Linux by now and we'd be having this same discussion about someone else.
Really, at this point the FSF's function is not to promote their own goals directly, but to get other people to react to them. And if you look at their underlying strategy, it's always been that kind of political judo. Lately they've been pushing Microsoft to become so insular and reactive that it's bringing people around to the free software way of thinking. It's a slow process but a real activist knows that change takes a while. Real activists also understand that the whole point of their own movement is to make their own leadership roles unnecessary. I think that the main players in the FSF are real activists.
Finally, don't forget that 24 years ago it was Bill Gates who was the underdog, writing scathing letters to all those who dared to share their software. He didn't make many friends back then, but a couple decades later it turns out he really didn't need to.