Slashdot Mirror
Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade
Free as in Freedom is a generally sympathetic but far from hagiographic biography of Richard Stallman, inspiration of the free software movement. While much of the material in it will be familiar to anyone actively involved with free software, there are, as Williams claims, "facts and quotes in here that one won't find in any Slashdot story or Google search." It is also an entertaining and accessible study, which I finished within a day of my review copy arriving.
Williams begins with the famous jamming printer and Stallman's encounter with a non-disclosure agreement that prevented him writing reporting software for it. He then jumps forwards to a speech given by Stallman in 2001, responding to attacks by Microsoft on the GNU GPL. Having used these episodes to introduce Stallman and explain the basic idea of free software, the rest of the work continues in a similar vein, mixing historical chapters with ones describing Williams' own meetings with Stallman.
Chapter three describes Stallman's childhood as a prodigy; chapter four his experiences at Harvard and MIT; chapter six the MIT AI Lab and the Emacs "commune"; chapter seven the death of the MIT hacker community and the first announcement of the GNU Project; chapter nine the GNU GPL; chapter ten the appearance of Linux and debates over GNU/Linux; and chapter eleven the coining of the term "open source" and the arguments over that. These contain quotes by everyone from Stallman's mother to the leading lights of free software, as well as plenty by Stallman himself. The narrative never strays too far from its subject, but becomes inextricably interwoven with the broader history and politics of free software and sometimes digresses to cover key figures and events with which Stallman wasn't directly involved.
Williams' first-hand accounts help give Stallman a human face: chapter five recounts a meeting in 1999 LinuxWorld, chapter eight a meeting in Hawaii, and chapter twelve a frustrating car trip with Stallman at the wheel. These give a feel for Stallman's personality and presence, his forthrightness and emotional intensity, his steadfastness and his abrasiveness, and his ability to unsettle. Chapter thirteen attempts to predict Stallman's status "in 100 years," quoting opinions from from Eben Moglen, John Gilmore, Eric Raymond, and Lawrence Lessig; it also suggests that Stallman's personality may be inseparable from his achievements.
Although I was already involved with free software advocacy, my first encounter with Richard Stallman came when he turned up to a rehearsal of my gamelan group; afterwards I tried without much success to explain to my fellow musicians just how important the strange bearded man they'd just met was. I don't think Free as in Freedom would help much with that: it jumps around too much and assumes too much general knowledge of the computer industry to be a good introduction for complete outsiders. Those already interested in the history and politics of free software and hacker culture, however, should relish it.
In an epilogue Williams talks about the writing of Free as in Freedom and the choice of copyright license. Despite the big fuss made about it being released under the GNU Free Documentation License, however, only a sample chapter is available online now and the rest will not, apparently, be put online until June. (This is not a violation of the OFDL, because Williams as copyright holder can allow O'Reilly to distribute the book in any way they like.) So if you don't want to buy a printed copy, you can either wait three months or hope someone OCRs the book sooner.
You can purchase Free as in Freedom from Barnes & Noble, read chapter three online, or check out Danny's 600 other book reviews. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
I've always seen "interesting" as distinct from "novel".
Yes, we all like to discover something new and jump on the latest bandwagon but it's a shame that the endless quest for novelty often obscures what is fundamentally important.
Until people (wider population, not just Slashdot) actually hear and understand Stallman's message I think he's perfectly right to continue sending it out.
There are some who believe that dedicating yourself to an ideal, and working ceaslessly in its pursuit, is more than interesting: it's admirable.
And let's not forget that the guy is, to borrow a Bostonism, "wicked smaht." He's MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, the guy frigging invented Emacs, which is a work of twisted genius comperable to the Necronomicon. You may think that his line is boring as dirt, but think how rotten it must be from his perspective - can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?
Your question answers itself.
Why are you asking this question? Why aren't you asking "How exactly is istartedi interesting?". I'll tell you why. It's Because RMS is famous and I'm not.
That's enough, but it sort of begs the question "why is he famous?". The answer to that is long and difficult. Some would argue that he isn't famous, and outside the computing community that's true, but only because those outsideers don't realize what an impact the GNU culture has had (for better or worse) on the devices that impact their daily lives.
You could also ask, "at what point did he cross the threshold and become famous?". Was it when he took vengeance on Symbolics? Was it when the GNU project was announced? If he hadn't been at MIT, would anyone have cared? Did the MacArthur grant make him famous? I think pinpointing the exact moment is difficult.
Love him, hate him, love what he stands for, hate what he stands for. Regardless, I don't think there is any arguing that he is an important figure.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
...if he would promote Free Software as "a good idea" (which it is) rather than "the One True Way For All Humanity" (which it most certainly is NOT). Stallman has not and never will adequately address the issue of how we'll feed our kids in an all-Free-Software world. You cannot make money selling software if you're also freely giving it away. You cannot make money on service and support of software that doesn't need service and support. And because of the above two truths, big corporations will not ever, EVER go to an all Free Software solution, so the idea that in the future we'll all draw salaries for writing Free Software is a pipe dream of the highest order.
Commercial software is not immoral. I have never been able to fathom why making a chair and selling it is a-okay by Stallman, but writing a program and selling it is not. Commercial software makes Free Software possible, since it allows programmers to make money while they sharpen their skills. Yes, there are many awful aspects of commercial software: shrinkwrap licenses, spyware, copy protection, no guaranteed rights for the user, etc. But the whole model of "You give me money and I give you a copy of my software" is never, ever going to go away, and Stallman could make many inroads simply by taking a more pragmatic view and admitting that to himself.
If you got to know him personally, you'd see he's freaking smart, and very interesting. He's like a broken record on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux issue. He's got a standard set of arguments on free vs. proprietary. He's an interesting person to talk to about technical issues, politics unrelated to free software, etc. Just because the issue he represents most of the time has been beaten to death for some people doesn't mean that's all there is to him.
Not everything in this world can be explained by economics. Economic analysis only works where things can be converted in to a particular 1-dimensional measure (money or its equivalent). Every human activity has some degree of "impedance mismatch" when trying to convert it into simplistic economic models. Economic analysis works well for things such as pork belly futures, but not so well for things like religion.
Most economists probably assume that software is like a commodity. RMS probably assumes that software is like a religion. I suspect that it has aspects of both.
Thus, RMS is qualified to comment about his software area, and economists are qualified to comment about theirs. Neither viewpoint covers the whole picture by itself.
T. Boone Pickens is a contradictory example, kinda, from the oil industry. He is not an Engineer, he is a Geologist that became a captain of industry.
This happens all of the time, when and only when a person with technical skill also has an instinct for business.
In the computing world, Bill Gates is a better example than Ross Perot since Perot was mostly a salesman for IBM before becoming a captain of industry, rather than being a programmer. Thus the Perots of the world support your conclusion, but they are not the only cases.
Yea, I know that mentioning some of these names gives me an automatic karma hit, but they are good examples for this point.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
If you'd like to spend some money on software, why don't you consider purchasing some software from GNU?
https://agia.fsf.org/
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
You have moral right to my creation?
Of course not. If you don't want to share your code with me, then don't license it under a Free software license.
Or are you talking about the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL? (i.e., you may not use my GPL'd code in your program unless yours is GPL'd too). Sorry, you have it exactly backwards. *You* have no right (moral or otherwise) to use *my* code, unless you agree to my license.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting. What is more interesting is the cult-following that he has managed to achieve. He's managed to convince a group of otherwise bright people to focus solely on the gospel of the GPL.
Weird, I started out writing this to show that Stallman isn't interesting at all, but the more I think about it, the more I realize he is. I may not like the way he or his minions behave, but it's definitely interesting...
Um..yeah. If you spent 12 years sleeping on the floor
of your office, under your desk, you'd be interesting too. As well as mad as a hatter, and without a girlfriend.
Respect and all that...but he is a freak.
No that is not what the FSF is really about. From what I have seen, heard and read, the FSF is about creating a set of terms for software that maintain its openness. Much like Microsoft (and many other companies) which has a set of terms for software that maintains its closeness. Both models have their advantages and disadvantages.
You can't steal Microsoft's code because they'd sue you and have every right to do that. They want there code keep secret. They don't want others taking their code and making derivate work from it. The FSF wants software free/libre and wants to maintain that same model on all derived code. And they are trying to push that model because to them it makes the most sense.
Just like other companies keep their code to themselves, because it makes the most sense (at least financially) to do so.
One of the big differences that seems to anger some people - or at least they don't understand and this cause frustration - is that because they can see the GPL'ed code, they want to use it anyway they seem fit, despite the licensing. Regardless of the fact that they could immerse themselves in code that is completely free to use however they seem fit. In their own commerical product or as toilet paper.
But, I have seen relatively few objective takes on this. The views mostly seem to either slander the GPL or herald as the best thing since Christ. However, it is merely another model for code. If you like it, use it and tell others. If you don't, fine, pick something else and tell others of your choice. Just stay objective, otherwise you start becoming the type of people you are complaining against.
Stallman just likes his code and wants to see all work derivate from GPL'ed code to remain in the public domain.
And in typical Slashdot style:
they try to get people to buy their products (that is what the companies are REALLY about, after all) just because they require that everyone should think that consumerism is the only way of life.
Who remembers the live interview with RMS where it was being broadcast using Real Audio Server (or whatever the proper name of it is)? Remember how Richard told them to stop the broadcast because he refused to be used (through the broadcast of his interview) to encourage people to use proprietary software (RealPlayer)? Well, this isn't exactly the same because the book isn't directly making people use proprietary programs to read the text... but since it was made with proprietary software... I'd think he would discourage it. I guess TeX, LaTeX, etc weren't good enough?!? ...not that I know how to use any of those. :)
Just food for thought.
Scott Dowdle
www.MontanaLinux.Org
I admire all of their dedication to their ideals. The terrorists were dedicated not to ideals, but to a primal defence instinct. We built air bases within 100 miles of Mecca, we gave the Islamic world Britney Spears, we started wars to protect possible future pipelines, we do not officially support the decimation of Palestine, but our one-sidedness is obvious to any neutral observer. The terrorists were dedicated to both the hatred of Americans and to the idolatry(one of the worst 'sins' mentioned in the Koran) of their leaders, whoever they may be. IMO, they were brave, couragous souls who fought for entirely the wrong cause. To give your life for something cannot be considered cowardly, however you look at it. To do it based on what your leaders tell you to, with little thinking involved on your part, as opposed to for some purpose greater than yourself, or societal good, is weak-minded, IMO. But the human mind is weak, the masses are misinformed, and my rant is over. Could we please stop contradicting obvious blanket statements by inserting the word "terrorist" into them? I am getting tired of doing this.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation