Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade

Yet another . . by OverlordQ · 2002-03-21 03:37 · Score: 1

. . good book published by O'Reilly

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.

Re:Yet another . . by khuber · 2002-03-21 03:43 · Score: 1

Really? I think O'Reilly prints a lot of crap that regurgitates online documentation. I haven't purchased anything from them since the Perl 5 book.
-Kevin
Re:Yet another . . by linzeal · 2002-03-21 03:51 · Score: 1

Its nice to have crap like that bound up but it is usually not exactly timely, agreed.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty

How exactly is Stallman interesting? by FallLine · 2002-03-21 03:39 · Score: 1, Flamebait

No matter what you think of the man, he's like a broken record. Whether you think what that record that record is saying the wrong thing or the right thing, it's certainly anything but interesting.

Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by mikera · 2002-03-21 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by sammy+baby · 2002-03-21 03:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by WildBeast · 2002-03-21 03:55 · Score: 1

"dedicating yourself to an ideal, and working ceaslessly in its pursuit, is more than interesting: it's admirable"

You mean like serial killers or terrorists? Do you find them admirable?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by istartedi · 2002-03-21 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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"?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by mikera · 2002-03-21 04:00 · Score: 1

Silly argument, but it's something of a distortion to classify murder and terrorist agendas as an "ideal", methinks?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-21 04:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Codifex+Maximus · 2002-03-21 04:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

> No matter what you think of the man, he's like a broken record.

You mean he is very consistent in what he says and believes?

> it's certainly anything but interesting.

I dunno. I met Richard Stallman at the Atlanta Linux Showcase a few years ago. He is definately different. Very quiet until you press the right button. I walked up to his stand where he was sitting - books were being sold at the booth. I bought an AWK book and ask him if he would sign it - he said no. I asked why and he told me he didn't write it. I said ok which book did you write - he said they were sold out. I asked if there was anything he WOULD sign and he said sorry all was sold out. Man was I frustrated heh. But then I kinda realized that he was concerned that if he signed something, he would be held as endorsing something.

He was generally enjoying the whole thing too as I could see. We talked a little bit and I said I appreciated everything he's doing for Free Software and that I was going to get an autograph next time I saw him. He just grinned like the Mona Lisa.

You don't think such a personality is interesting? I do.

--
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-03-21 04:06 · Score: 1

I think "interesting" is quite the right word ... but note that is not necessarily a compliment. Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Kaczinsky are also "interesting" people whom I think it would be fascinating to meet and talk with -- from behind glass.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by istartedi · 2002-03-21 04:12 · Score: 4, Funny

can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?

The trouble is, people keep telling him that the sky can be grey, white, or almost black. Yet he refuses to believe them.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by FallLine · 2002-03-21 04:24 · Score: 2, Flamebait

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.
So is Pamela Anderson. That doesn't make her interesting (well maybe to look at, but that's a different thing all together). Fame != Interesting.

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.
Ok, I'll bite. How precisely has GNU had an impact on the average person's life? Even if GNU has touched their lifes in some knowable way, that doesn't mean it was instrumental.

In any event, I suspect most of those on slashdot, even the real so-called "geeks", would find this man boring if they had to talk to him for any extended period. The man is driven by some rather simplistic ideas to the exclusion of all else (even that of the core cause which is supposedly promotes). That's NOT interesting.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by monksp · 2002-03-21 04:32 · Score: 1

Umm, I hate to sound unlearned here, but what was his ``vengeance on Symbolics``?

--
-- My work here is done. If you need me again, just admit to yourself that you're screwed, and die.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Bilestoad · 2002-03-21 04:45 · Score: 2

I can imagine spending hours of my time every day trying to convince people that the sky is some other color than blue because I KNOW it to be so, but it's a scary thought. This is the situation RMS finds himself in. His reality is so far removed from most people's that he can never succeed but he is so passionate that he can never give up. Genius, and I acknowledge him to be a genius, is often accompanied by such detachment. Insanity (or delusions, or whatever you want to call it) is always tragic - but he IS boring as dirt.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by joeytsai · 2002-03-21 04:55 · Score: 1

Why is Stallman interesting? That's easy - he's done a lot to change the world.

Before you begin to criticise RMS, think about yourself honestly and what you've done to change the world.

Interesting or not, more likely than not I have more of a reason to listen to him than to you.

--
http://www.talknerdy.org
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by mikec · 2002-03-21 04:57 · Score: 2

That sort of depends on what ideal you pursue, doesn't it? I'm sure we can all think of historical figures who worked ceaslessly to promote horrible ideas. (Pol Pot?) Not to compare RMS with serial killers and depots, just pointing out that ceasless pursuit of an ideal is admirable exactly when the ideal is admirable.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Snowfox · 2002-03-21 05:26 · Score: 2

No matter what you think of the man, he's like a broken record. Whether you think what that record that record is saying the wrong thing or the right thing, it's certainly anything but interesting.

A body shouldn't have to entertain to be interesting. He's interesting because he's picked a fight he believes in, and is fighting it continuously without giving an inch. That kind of conviction is all but dead today. IMHO, he'd be far less interesting if he were trying to pretty up the message and reframe and redecorate it until it was something more politically/publicly "fun and tasty."
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by 3am · 2002-03-21 05:27 · Score: 1

Frankly, that doesn't sound interesting at all.

--

A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2002-03-21 05:53 · Score: 1

can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?
The problem with this analogy is that the sky is not always blue. When I look out my window, I see a grey sky. About half the earth has a black sky at any given time. In essence, RMS is preaching a "universal truth" that isn't. The GPL has its benefits, but it has some major drawbacks, as many companies who blindly followed RMS's gospel have recently found out. RMS and his most fanatic followers refuse to acknowledge this fact though, and simply keep on pretending that the sky is always blue.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-21 05:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

The problem with Stallman, and what makes him profoundly NON-interesting, is that he starts off with initial principles that are at least a little wrong-headed and then refuses to allow real discussion.

I had an email conversation with him once, in which I tried to get him to accept the idea that a balance between the rights of programmers and the rights of end-users is not only fair, but a good idea. He got snippy with me, and then dropped out of the conversation, I assume by killfiling me. I wasn't even giving him that hard a time. I just wasn't sucking up to him as most people seem to.

No one who carries out a conversation that way is interesting. At best, they can be momentarily amusing. At worst, annoying. But interesting, no.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2002-03-21 06:03 · Score: 1

How is that interesting? What you described could have been ANY OTHER person sitting behind that booth having a talk with someone.
I might as well tell the story that I heard about RMS: a collegue used to work at a place where RMS would drop by once a week or so and give a lecture. He would sit cross-legged on a table and talk, while picking dirt out of his beard. He would literally pick something out of his beard, hold it up in front of him to examine it closely, and then flick it away. All the while just talking away, totally unaware that what he was doing is generally considered to be socially unacceptable, in the same league as picking your nose (everyone does it, but not in front of an audience). I think this perfectly illustrates the kind of detachment from reality that the man has, and THAT is what is interesting about him.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by majestyk2000 · 2002-03-21 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Probably referring to this. Specifically (ripped from site):

In 1971, as a freshman at Harvard University, Stallman became a hacker at the MIT AI Laboratory. In the 1980s, the hacker culture which was Stallman's life began to dissolve under the pressure of the commercialization of the software industry. In particular, other AI Lab hackers founded the company Symbolics, which actively attempted to replace the free software in the Lab with its own proprietary software. For two years, from 1983 to 1985, Stallman single-handedly duplicated the efforts of the Symbolics programmers to prevent them from gaining a monopoly on the Lab's computers.(Emphasis mine)
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by sammy+baby · 2002-03-21 06:39 · Score: 2

Yeah, WildBeast. That's exactly what I said. I'm surprised you left out the part where I endorsed killing puppies, though.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by sammy+baby · 2002-03-21 06:51 · Score: 1

Oh, I didn't say that I agreed with Stallman. And frankly, without digging through a bunch of old articles, I don't think that Stallman ever advocated a real commercial position for free software companies, although plenty of people interpreted it that way. I suspect he'd just like to see us go back to computing fiefdoms which exchange code freely with one another, and the monkeys running the show (sysadmins and developers like myself) are the ones who do the coding. That's not the same as setting up shop and saying, "We're your Comprehensive Support Solution for GNU/ Linux / FreeBSD / MonkeyFuckingComputingSolutions!"

In any case, yeah, you're right, the sky isn't always blue. It was just an analogy. What I meant was that Stallman sees the computing landscape in a way which makes certain ethical choices obvious to him, and he's spent much of his professional career trying to convince others of the merit of his views. I respect that.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 07:15 · Score: 1

Hey jackass, its called context. When was the last time Stallman went around killing people? Fucking asshole. I find those kind of closeminded statements drive me against wall.

Listen, there are two sides to the statement. You can dedicate yourself to an ideal, like Mother Teresa, giving yourself to service for humanity, or you can twist a religion until you believe the only option is to take drastic actions and harm others. Both work ceaslessly in the pursuit of their goals, but I consider one admirable and the other one psychotic.

I consider Mother Teresa's quest admirable, in case you were wondering.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by dhogaza · 2002-03-21 07:42 · Score: 2

can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?

Given that it's really cyan, not blue, no, I can't.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by ewhac · 2002-03-21 07:46 · Score: 2

can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?
The trouble is, people keep telling him that the sky can be grey, white, or almost black. Yet he refuses to believe them.

See, it's this kind of imprecise thinking that, I would venture to say, frustrates RMS no end.
The sky is blue. When you look up and see grey or white, you are not seeing the sky; you are seeing clouds, which are obscuring the sky. (You may argue that clouds are part of the sky; we would then need to get from you your precise definition of what you think the 'sky' actually is.)
Further claiming the sky can be black (at night, obviously) is another example of imprecise thinking. The sky is actually clear, showing you outer space (which is only mostly black).
Stallman knows how to identify and keep separate unrelated concepts and facts, so that they can be studied independently. Indeed, you need this skill if you want to have any hope of being a competent software designer. So rather than bash the man as "blind to the flagrantly obvious; everyone knows the sky changes color," ask him to walk you through his thought processes sometime. The man is anything but a fool.
Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 08:45 · Score: 1

However, it seems to me that RMS knows the sky is all sorts of colors, but he sees the benefits of the sky being blue (clear blue skies, sunny days) and wants to tell others.

I consider him the ying, while other companies (Microsoft, etc.) are they yang. Balance needs to be maintained, so both must exist.

The GPL license is the model which best compliments the closed source model many companies use. The BSD license is somewhere inbetween as it can go both ways, in can be either ying or yang, but the GPL is one side and the closed source model is on the other.

This is how I view the GPL. I like the balance is adds to the mix of licenses and his dedication to his beliefs, despite what others think. He is sticking to his guns. When all is said and done, it comes down to belief. Use what you think is best.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 08:51 · Score: 1

*laugh* I don't think so. I think see spent a lot of time helping the poor anyway she could. Despite popular belief, those belonging to a faith don't try to convert you at every instance.

I spent a lot of my time during college hanging out with the Catholic priest on campus and never once did he try to get me to jump ship. Despite knowing I was an atheist who slowly evolved into a Buddhist.

I realized there is a difference between those of truly believe in their faith and those who go around quoting scripture trying to convince others everything in the Bible is true and you should believe it.

Maybe RMS is doing the latter, but I prefer to see the truth in the message and not necessarily believe the messenger. I can't say I have read much of RMS so I don't know how I feel about what he "preaches" but I like the GPL model. It has its pluses and minuses and the challenge is to realize them and determine what works best for you.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by WildBeast · 2002-03-21 08:56 · Score: 2

RMS says that everything non GPL is evil. Hey looks like he got something in common with Bush :)
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by PhotoGuy · 2002-03-21 09:03 · Score: 2

I bought an AWK book and ask him if he would sign it - he said no.
Damn, that would have been as valuable as the rare photo of Sean Connery signed by Roger Moore.

-ComicBookGuy

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 09:04 · Score: 1

Well then, I would have to disagree that everything non GPL is evil. My mom isn't GPL'ed and she's not evil...is she?

My favorite Voltaire quote is:
"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire

Crazy bastard!
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by blue+trane · 2002-03-21 09:14 · Score: 1

except that rms doesn't use violence. besides, suicide bombers rule!
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 09:14 · Score: 1

Thank you for that. I enjoyed your thoughts on this matter.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by blue+trane · 2002-03-21 09:19 · Score: 1

I admire the intensity and dedication of serial killers and terrorists, just not the object of their intensity and dedication.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by blue+trane · 2002-03-21 09:30 · Score: 1

interesting is a matter of taste, you can't really criticize someone because they have bad taste unless you set yourself up as the arbiter of all that is tasteful. I find the autograph story interesting. If you don't, move along...
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by blue+trane · 2002-03-21 09:32 · Score: 1

ya but rms has a girlfriend! he's our hero!
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by child_of_mercy · 2002-03-21 10:20 · Score: 2

he does?

does anyone have a link to a pic?

--
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by darkmoon · 2002-03-21 11:20 · Score: 1

On the contrary, I only read posts marked Off-topic, Flamebait or Troll.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 12:07 · Score: 1

Let me rephrase: Stallman's main goal is to challenge software companies by forcing software to become freely available to the masses, thereby destablizing or destroying the current captialistic model in place around software. I think this statement is a little less ambigious, as he doesn't want to hurt companies that make chairs or other such objects. And I have added what I believe to be his main objective.

Stallman's beliefs are in contrast to how many software companies operate. In fact, I believe the GPL to be the most polar opposite license to the closed source model being used by Microsoft and other companies. And these companies have been doing well as it is a solid business model. So they must be doing something right.

Stallman's take on software is as equally valid. It just so happens that in his belief he wants software to be open and made available to the public. Which is the opposite of let's see Microsoft's model. And that is fine and dandy. A little competition is not bad.

Competition can be viewed as one company trying to hurting another company. But that's how things are done. A person comes up with a good idea and tries to market it and make money from it. Then another person tries to tap into that market share by making an improvement, offering a better service and/or a lower price. In this case, the other person is Stallman and the software is being giving away. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But it's competition. This is capitalism. It will be determined by competition on the free market. Stallman is hurting companies as much as openning up an Olive Garden near a TGI Fridays hurts the other.

From reading some of the material from the FSF, there are a couple of examples of how the current system about software is has socialist tendencies. While I do understand your argument that he is trying to advance the cause of socialism, I would like to clarify from what I have read, he is trying to advance the cause of socialism in software. But because he has these beliefs does not mean he is advancing the cause of socialism in general. I don't see him preaching about socialized health care or anything else. His arguments are mostly restricted to software.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by rusty+spoon · 2002-03-21 12:31 · Score: 1

Let me rephrase: Stallman's main goal is to challenge software companies by forcing software to become freely available to the masses, thereby destablizing or destroying the current captialistic model in place around software.
What I cannot understand is why any software developer writes for this crappy GPL. If all goes to plan then none of us would have jobs. It's no problem, I quite fancy being a pig farmer anyhoo.
I don't see him preaching about socialized health care or anything else. His arguments are mostly restricted to software.
Give him a chance and I'm sure he'll have a crack at it. Doctors and nurses working for free really is for the common good afterall
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by rusty+spoon · 2002-03-21 12:33 · Score: 1

I'm sure he's not a fool but he sure does look pretty follish from time to time.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by rusty+spoon · 2002-03-21 12:46 · Score: 1

> No matter what you think of the man, he's like a broken record. You mean he is very consistent in what he says and believes?
"broken record" is a way of dealing with difficult people and situations. It's what cops do: "Get out of the car"...."get out of the car". It's commonly used as a way to ensure your point isn't lost.
Next time you are struggling to get your point across use the "broken record" technique. It works really well.
Doing it on an RMS/Stallman scale is boring though - I'm sure for them and their audience.
As homer says "Change the channel Marge".
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by rusty+spoon · 2002-03-21 12:50 · Score: 1

he's done a lot to change the world
Maybe your tiny world has been changed by this narrow minded moron, but my world hasn't changed.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Captain+Smooth · 2002-03-21 12:52 · Score: 1

Would you really go so far as to compare RMS to a terrorist? This man is a revolutionary, and should be treated as so. Check out http://www.stallman.org. RMS is possibly the world's biggest activist, and many of his causes are worthwhile. He certainly isn't a saint, but don't take ordinary criticism to the level of flaming this man who has done so many wonderful things for OSS

--

The ability to monopolize an industry is insignificant, next to the power of the source.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by 3am · 2002-03-21 14:38 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I am in fact the arbiter of all that's tasteful. And in my professional and personal opinion in that capacity, that story was boring.

Furthermore, your post if boring, too.

--

A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by Squalish · 2002-03-21 15:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 17:24 · Score: 1

From the previos articles I have seen on Slashdot, many of the developers that contribute to the GPL or any other free software movement, are employeed by corporations or what not.

I am not saying the GPL is the solution to everything. It is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it is a compliment to the system that is currently in practice. I don't think the GPL and the closed source model can exist without each other. It seems to me, after all, the GPL was created because the other model lacked something. Without one, the other wouldn't exist. Ok, maybe it isn't perfectly balanced. The creation of the GPL seems to be strongly influenced by the closed source model. If everyone dropped the GPL today, I doubt the whole industry would fall apart.

Of course, I am unable to picture a place without paying for programmers, but if you read some of the examples used on the FSF website, some of the artists and writers of the past did so because they enjoyed their trade, despite the pittance they received for their work. I picture those who contribute to the GPL, BSD, whatever enjoy what they do and want to do something to help others and give back.

And my inability to imagine what it would be like withouth the pay for code model is only because I am part of that model and it is hard to see outside of it.

Anyway, people do what they like. Whether they GPL their code, BSD it or keep it to themselves, its their choice. It's not like the walls will crumble and developers will be starving on the streets overnight. If any change were to occur, it would be slow. But like I said, both models address the others weakness and I think the GPL is tied very closed with the closed source model.

As for RMS, I can't speak on his behalf or fathom what he could say in the future. But as for the present, I don't see him preaching socialized health care or any of that other stuff. Remember, we are talking about a software revolution/challenge, not a complete social change. I don't know about doctors and nurses working for free, but I do remember a movie called Patch Adams. What the truth behind it is and what is happening today is beyond the scope of this post, cause I don't know.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-22 01:33 · Score: 1

I would like to clarify by saying his vision is geared towards software, not all aspects of American life. I don't doubt that he has a socialist vision towards software, but a socialist that does not make him. I see a distinction between software and material objects in much of what I have read on the FSF.

My description of the FSF is valid; it might not be their only goal - which was a mistake to imply - but it is one that I see behind all the banter.

And since when did RMS or anyone have to respect other people's views? Bush certainly doesn't respect everyone's views, he has his own agenda he follows while trying to make the American public happy. I do not wish to harp on this issue other then saying there are environmentalist that he doesn't respect their views based on his actions. RMS and Bush are both trying to push their agenda. One needs the support of the American people and the other is just following his beliefs and sticking to his guns. Not to mention pushing a software model which contradicts how we do things presently. (But then again, software is its own beast.)

He wants to stop private ownership of software, that is a good assetment of his goal. And I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? by blue+trane · 2002-03-24 16:08 · Score: 1

damn, I knew it! screw all those liberal pinko elementary school fellow-traveling teachers who introduced the wrong-headed idea of cultural relativism to me...

Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's latin for "appeal to false authority."
Without commenting on whether open source/free software is a good thing or not, what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics. Yet someone who has a background not in economics but software development is considered to be insightful and wise when commenting on a very complex matter outside of his field.
General Motors would not promote even it's best engineer to be the companies CEO, nor should those seeking wisdom on the impact of free versus commercial software rely on the screeds of the economically ignorant.

Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by duffbeer703 · 2002-03-21 03:59 · Score: 2

Lee Iacocca

He was the original project manager for the Ford Mustang project and responsible for the turnaround of Chrysler and the acquisition of Jeep/Eagle from AMC before it floundered.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 04:08 · Score: 1

Hi, I wrote the post you replied to.
The person you are referring to is Lee Iaccoca. I read his biography. He was not their best enginee and was quickly moved to sales shortly after joining the company - where he had a natural talent.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by dexter1 · 2002-03-21 04:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am sorry, but that is wrong. Richard Stallmans's argument is one of a moral right to software (that may be simplifying the argument a bit-my point is that he does not base his goal of free software on any economic argument). It has absolutely nothing to do with economics. The open source movement has made the claim that open source is good for business (which, I suppose you can translate into economics). Even if proven that open source is a bad economic idea (a notion which I would disagree with, but just for a hypothetical..), Richard Stallman would still argue that free software is good...it is a moral good.

Furthermore, and this is just a general pet peeve of mine, why is it acceptable to listen to the advice of someone with economic/business background but no technical background? Why should someone who has no technical background, has never written a line of code, has no concept of how much difference a code engineer can make, acceptable to comment on the impact of free vs. commercial software. Note that I am not saying the poster is making the claim, but there seems to be the general sense that you need a business/economic background to run a business or comment on a business decision (ie, the use of free vs. commercial software), but you do not need a technical background. Richard Stallman is very intelligent. I think it is incredibly closed-minded to assume he cannot understand economics or that he knows nothing about it. Further, GM may very well put its best engineer as the companies CEO. Let's not forget how many engineers/technical people have built (and led) very profitable businesses. Here are some examples: HP (as it was when Hewlett and Packard ran it), Bill Gates, Red Hat (I understand he is a computer programmer, but I may be wrong). The list goes on. It is foolish to automatically disregard someone who knows a great deal about the type of business a business is in just because he/she does not have a business background...
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 04:17 · Score: 1

Liscences make it profitable to make software, encouraging people to make better software.
Scarcity? Anyone can create software, there is no scarcity.
What evidence do you have that it would be better stuff? This free crap. I don't have a year to devote to studying GNU/Linux. Windows takes almost no studying - purely intuitive.
By letting people sell their "creation" at a profit, it encourages them to make better "creations." Common sense seems to elude you.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by sphealey · 2002-03-21 04:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics. Yet someone who has a background not in economics but software development is considered to be insightful and wise when commenting on a very complex matter outside of his field.
People with training in formal economics believe that all interaction among intelligent life forms can be explained by the "laws" of economics, particularly classical microeconomics and utility theory. They have convinced some of the academy and a good portion of Western government of this as well.
Many others, including very smart people, disagree with economists that this is so. To cite just one minor problem: preferences of real humans are not transitive. This is a non-resolvable argument, since the economists say "you don't understand economics", the non-economist replies "I am questioning the basis of your argument, not its conclusions", and the economist trumps with "since you haven't stated your argument in terms of economics, it is by definition invalid".
However, in an open discussion forum please don't assume that everyone agrees that everything is explained by "economics" without defining and justifing your argument. Thanks.
sPh
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Waffle+Iron · 2002-03-21 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics
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.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by sphealey · 2002-03-21 04:33 · Score: 2

The person you are referring to is Lee Iaccoca. I read his biography. He was not their best enginee and was quickly moved to sales shortly after joining the company - where he had a natural talent.
In other words, he had no formal training in sales, but used his general knowledge of the world, his overall educational background, and his innate traits to figure out how to succeed in a new environment. Just what was claimed couldn't be done.
Very few poeple end up doing anything related to what they studied in school by 15 years after graduation. Engineering => Sales, Engineering => Economics, and Engineering => Law are very common paths. Now I grant you Sociology => Electrical Engineering, particularly in self-taught mode, is unlikely, but I have seen it happen.
sPh
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 04:34 · Score: 1

"Fascism is a much better economic system"
See - right there is proof the /. OSS people shouldn't be put in charge of an economy when they can make such a stupid comment.
Hate to dissappoint you, but centralized fascist economies are about the worse economies on the planet - if there are any really left. And if there are any you can point to, they are at the bottom of the third world.
The best economy is the one that satisfies it's customers the best. And if you look at any survey data of what people think of the software they are using in their offices these days, their satisfaction is pretty clear.
What is needed is a free economy - where you have the freedom to liscence and sell your software and to innovate to your God given limit.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 04:38 · Score: 1

Stallman advocates free software. This is an economic argument since software (except games, and maybe aimless academic study) is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth.
I didn't think the obvious needed to be explained.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by clone304 · 2002-03-21 04:43 · Score: 1

Bah! Shut up stupid money-worshipper. Take your stupid economics and shove it up your fsckin ass!

What determines whether it is a good thing or not is whether the world is better off for it. Is there an absolute measure of how well off the world is? Is it economics? I don't think so. If you do, then you can go continue to ponder the natural laws of the flow of beans from person to person if you like.

.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by ichimunki · 2002-03-21 04:46 · Score: 1

Ironic that someone spouting off about "appeals to false authority" uses an analogy that stands bright as a different sort of logical fallacy.

In fact, sounds like you have some BS libertarian/republican axe to grind on the whole public/private anything debate and just found the opening you needed to swerve the discussion away from free software and onto your own pet cause list.

As for a moral right to your creation? None that I'm aware of, and that's not the argument being made. Logical fallacy number two. Sheesh.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by JordanH · 2002-03-21 04:49 · Score: 2
- Without commenting on whether open source/free software is a good thing or not, what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics.
I disagree. What you offer is a false dichotomy. Either Open Source/Free Software is justified on the economics or it's not.
Why must this be justified on the basis of economics? Would you recommend a review of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution based on economic impact? Are there, perhaps, other interests and principles at work that may justify Open Source/Free Software?
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by LMCBoy · 2002-03-21 04:52 · Score: 2

Stallman doesn't advocate free (gratis) software; he advocates Free (libre) software.

You are effectively saying that all things of value are economic, because things that are not economic have no value (i.e., "aimless" academic study...)

Sounds pretty circular.

There's more to life than making money. Indeed, volunteer Free Software developers would be quite inexplicable in a world in which all things were reducible to economic entities, no?

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by kaisyain · 2002-03-21 05:01 · Score: 2

People with training in formal economics believe that all interaction among intelligent life forms can be explained by the "laws" of economics, particularly classical microeconomics and utility theory.

Um. Yeah. Whatever. I guess you don't count people like Nobel Prize in Economics winners and professors of endowed chairs of economics at the University of Chicago when you make sweeping, erroneous, and out-of-touch-with-reality generalizations like that, huh?

To cite just one minor problem: preferences of real humans are not transitive. This is a non- resolvable argument, since the economists say "you don't understand economics"

You neglect to mention that it was, in fact, an economist who first "discovered" that preferences aren't always transitive. One such economist who did work in this field, rather than being told he didn't understand economics, was given a Nobel Prize.

without defining and justifing your argument

Hey, maybe you could justify your argument that all people with training in formal economics believe what you say they do?
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by LMCBoy · 2002-03-21 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-21 05:03 · Score: 2

It doesn't take long to be productive with a correctly-configured Linux system (which is usually what you have when you install one of the newer distros). If you want to, you can spend months studying the inner workings of the OS. With Windows, trying to go under the hood is a nightmare -- or are you suggesting that the Registry is user-friendly?

Overall, Linux is a better OS than Windows (at least Windows 9x) so that shows that Open Source software can compete with closed source. Another, perhaps more probing example is Apache vs. Microsoft IIS.

If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...

But then again, seeing as how you sound exactly like a MS employee paid to spread FUD on Slashdot would, I doubt that these arguments will convince you...

On a side note, I wonder exactly how many of these MS has assigned to this site? (I'm sure that there are - hey, if I was running Microsoft, I would hire people for that very purpose. Seeing as there must be at least one MS manager as smart and devious as I am, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't...)

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by ncc74656 · 2002-03-21 05:03 · Score: 2

General Motors would not promote even it's best engineer to be the companies CEO

It has done so in the past, and should consider doing so in the future. It'd be better to have a "car guy" running an automaker than a beancounter...or worse, the "shampoo salesmen" the company has been known to hire into top positions in recent years. I suspect that one of the factors in the imminent demise of Oldsmobile, for instance, was that they installed a "brand manager" at the top who they'd gotten from Procter & Gamble who didn't know jack sh*t about cars. (FWIW, GM appears to be relearning this truth right now...some of the "shampoo salesmen" and their ilk are going away and being replaced with car guys.)
Business sense is a Good Thing, but it isn't everything. Probably 95% of it is just common sense to anybody who isn't a communist (at least that's the impression I got from the macroeconomics course I took one semester).

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by sphealey · 2002-03-21 05:05 · Score: 2

You neglect to mention that it was, in fact, an economist who first "discovered" that preferences aren't always transitive.
Sorry, I structured that paragraph badly. Either I should have put the example in ()'s or broken it up into three paragraphs with additional explanation. Unfortunately my employer does ask that I do some work from time to time ;-).
Since the winner of the "Nobel Price in Economics" (not actually granted by the original Nobel Prize committee BTW) is determined by experts in formal economics, I am afraid I do not find your argument overly pursuasive.
sPh
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by dexter1 · 2002-03-21 05:08 · Score: 2

First of all, I am simplfying the free software foundation's arguments. I am also not as good at articulating them as RMS. I was, however, pointing out that economics has NO part in the argument of the free software foundation. Contrary to what some may believe, people can believe something is good for reasons other than economics. That being said, I will attempt to clarify the moral right. Again, this is my understanding and it may be wrong. If you are going to argue against RMS, I would advice to actually look at the FSF's website and not go off of what I (or anyone else on slashdot) has said.

Here is the clarification: I have no right whatsoever to your creation. However, if you choose to sell me your creation, you have a moral obligation to give me the source code to allow me to modify the program as I see fit. To sell me the program without any way to modify is to sell me a crippled product. It is analgous to selling me a car with the hood wired shut--if the car breaks down, or if I want to modify it, you have prevented me from doing so. You have claimed to sell me the car when all you have truly sold me is some use of the car (the use that I can get out of the car without opening the hood). While selling crippled products may be legally acceptable, it is morally wrong. My apologies to the FSF if I have mischaracterized the argument..
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Uggy · 2002-03-21 05:13 · Score: 2

Except GE's former CEO Jack Welch (some say the best that ever was) rose from the engineer ranks with an undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering. And Roberto Goizueta was also Chemical Engineering (makes you wonder, eh?) for the Coca Cola Company.

As with everything however, you can't be JUST an engineer or JUST a business major. Perhaps business school types should be required to take more engineering courses and vice versa, eh?

--
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-21 05:43 · Score: 1

They claim to have already recouped the 1G$
One gigadollar? I assume you mean one-billion dollars. That seems a bit steep, considering the best known Free Software business is Red Hat, which is only worth something like $20 million if that.
But then again, seeing as how you sound exactly like a MS employee paid to spread FUD on Slashdot would
Why stoop to this level? Everyone assumes everyone else is a troll or a MS paid employee. I would not be suprised if MS has no one paid to spread (mis)information on the web. They may have plenty of money to spend, but having someone do something like that seems like a waste. It does not directly translate into more money in MS' pocket, and it does not efficiently or effectively promote what MS' is about. So stop with the paranoia already.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by wrt2 · 2002-03-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Saying something is a 'matter of economics' is far different than saying it is a 'matter of physics'. Relativity and quantum mechanics (with Newtonian physics a 'good enough' approximation at human scale) are strong predictive models of physical reality. This doesn't mean that they aren't falsifiable (else they wouldn't be theories), but it does mean that these two models have a strong experimental track record of having theoretical possibilities shown to be empirical realities. Economics, were it like physics, would need to have a rigorous mathematical model of the behavior of individuals in group settings which was likewise strongly predictive. The model of Economic Man, the "rational self-maximizer," simply doesn't correspond with real people. Outside of corporate libertarian fantasies, I don't believe such people exist. Don't take my word for it? OK. You mention General Motors. GM decided to make internal combustion engines depend on leaded gasoline. They did this for profit, despite the fact that lead is poisonous to people and damaging to cars. They poisoned three generations of children. They distorted research and covered up inconvenient facts in order to keep at it. Sounds like their model is a rationalizing greedy mofo. I remain unconvinced by your argument. The FSF's argument is grounded in the history of the computing field and reflective of my own experience. Works for me.

--
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by kz45 · 2002-03-21 06:57 · Score: 1

If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...

Wow, a large corporation that takes other people's source code, and sells it as their own made a billion dollars.

how about a true open source company making that much money, like maybe the company that made apache, bind, sendmail, or mysql?
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 07:17 · Score: 1

true. But the point I am trying to make is not to take the prestiege that RMS has in software design/development, etc. and transfer that prestige and authority to an analysis of the human genome, amime, dry wall, or economics.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Don't see what's wrong with my comment. It's a logical and reasonable reaction tothe statement that "Richard Stallmans's argument is one of a moral right to software."
Sounds like you just wanted an excuse to rant. Save it for the couch.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-21 07:49 · Score: 2

Indeed, IBM claims to have invested 1 billion dollars (1G$) in Linux, and to have recouped that investment already. Actually they made a big deal out of it; make a search on Google and you'll be able to read all about it.

As for the paranoia...knowing the way Microsoft operates on many front, and often using underhanded disinformation against potential competitors (especially Linux), I don't see why they'd refrain themselves from spreading FUD everywhere, including this, a well-known Linux hangout. I don't seem how it would seem like a waste to them: sowing discord and doubt in the hearts and minds of your (presumed) opponent is the oldest trick in the book. If it prevents people from switching to open-source products, then it does translate into money for them.

Of course, there's also plenty of people taking MS's defense for their own (obscure) reasons, but it would be exceedingly naive to think that they don't have at least a dozen or so employees whose sole purpose is to engage in psychological warfare with the enemy. As I said, if I was in their place I know I would do it...

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-21 07:52 · Score: 2

They make a lot of money from server sales and services, but from what I understand they also contributed by writing apps. One way or the other, it's still making money by using open source: you might not make money from the software directly, but you use the software to offer products and services which bring in a revenue stream. Nobody ever said anything about keeping the same business model...in any case, Microsoft itself is gradually moving away from the traditional business model of software licensing with their .Net "initiative".

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Arandir · 2002-03-21 08:32 · Score: 1

Games and aimless academic studies ARE economic activities! Just ask any economist.

Economics isn't about the movement of wealth, it's about the actions of people. In a very real sense, it's applied sociology.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by colmore · 2002-03-21 09:36 · Score: 2

Windows is only intuitive to you because you know how to use it already. Try taking someone who's never used a computer before and teaching them to use it. Nothing makes any sense, you click start to shut down, the same menus don't contain the same options in different programs, there are a thousand different ways to change settings.

Of course every single Linux window manager has all of these problems as well. It seems very silly to me that while condeming Microsoft, we knock ourselves out trying to ape their functionality. The new Mandrake even advertises a more Outlook-like email client.

I would love to see a WM based around actually simple and intuitive design, not just copying the 15 year old accepted ways of doing GUI.

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by colmore · 2002-03-21 09:38 · Score: 2

I mean after all, there seems to be no shortage of people whose only contribution to the Open Source movement is to spread FUD about commercial software.

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by blue+trane · 2002-03-21 10:16 · Score: 1

Scarcity? Anyone can create software, there is no scarcity.

The copyright laws and DMCA etc. make it illegal to create certain programs.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Lemmy+Caution · 2002-03-21 13:31 · Score: 1

what determines whether it is a good thing or not is a matter of economics.
Does that dictum apply to your love life?
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by JordanH · 2002-03-21 14:19 · Score: 1
- Stallman advocates free software. This is an economic argument since software (except games, and maybe aimless academic study) is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth.
Speech is a tool for engaging in economic activity and the creation of wealth. I don't think that the value of Free Speech is best evaluated in economic terms.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Rooktoven · 2002-03-21 16:52 · Score: 1

Software, not necessarily _your_ software though. Your comment is wrong in inferring that Stallman wants to take yours away from you.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by dondelelcaro · 2002-03-22 00:38 · Score: 1

It is analgous to selling me a car with the hood wired shut
Or selling me a car with the engine totally enclosed in a double walled hood with mustard gas in between the walls, reverse threaded screws, and a glass of mustard gas above the single piston, so if the hood is removed by someone who is not a priest of car repair, they get gassed. (Deathworld Trilogy:Book Two, Harry Harrison)

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-22 03:17 · Score: 2

There's nothing wrong (IMO) about commercial software and open source software cohabiting on the same computer. I know it does on mine.

About the contribution of non-technical people to the OSS movement, I think you should reconsider your elitist approach. I am not a programmer (actually did some Pascal and *cough*APL*cough* back in the days), so my contribution is of course limited. However, I do try to "spread the gospel" around me, as well as participate in open forums like this one in order to express my point of view, which is as valid as a hardcore C++ hacker. Just because you're not an expert in a given field doesn't mean you can't have an opinion (or that your opinion will be erroneous). I am not a politician or economist, that doesn't prevent me from knowing a thing or two about politics and the economy - enough to have an educated opinion about such matters, anyway!

In any case, if this was intended as a jab, let me state for the record that I do use both open source and commercial software, and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-22 05:27 · Score: 1

Advocating for free software when you are not a programmer and have no job or future job on the line completely removes any validity of the desire of freedom you obtain via free software. If you advocate commercial and free software (Open Source(TM) way) you are simply advocating for gratis software; not freedom. The freedom obtained via GNU free software is only useful to those who know the language the software is written in and have a desire to learn the software architecture to make use of the source code. Anything else is just bandwagon bullshit, or political spin (Open Source) to get no-cost (gratis) software.

What do you do or plan to do for a living? I will make sure I advocate whatever you produce become completely free with no-strings-attached.

I'm not saying you should not enjoy and use free software. What I'm saying is please don't advocate free software (or the Open Source version of free software) unless you have a proposed plan that allows all the programmers you put out of work to make a living. I have found that there are generally nice programmers working for Microsoft. Very knowledgeable too. Please stop the unnecessary bashing of Microsoft. Yes, they have done things which hurt others, etc. etc. It's ancient history and is no longer significant. I want the old free software community back--the one that rarely mentioned what Microsoft was up to and was truely interested in the freedom aspect of software (and the coolness of what was being done w/ the software).

My point: GNU is about freedom of software, not the cost associated with the software.

The other side of the "OSS" movement, Open Source(TM), is not about freedom of software (or the GNU definition of "freedom"). Their agenda is to get business to open up to free software, but they are not advocating for freedom of software. They have a very "loose" ideal compared to Richard Stallman's. They believe that free software can or should mingle with proprietary. If you believe in the freedom aspect of GNU then you will find the reasoning of Open Source(TM) absurd because it does not guarantee or obtain future freedom of software. Therefore, the only value in advocating Open Source(TM) is for the no-cost aspect of free software. This is the only reason businesses open up to free software--it lets them get the benefit of using it without having the burden of contribution. Businesses love the BSD license even more (which Open Source(TM) camp advocates also) because it lets them include the free software into proprietary software (which Microsoft and probably others have done). On the other hand, if Open Source(TM) camp could have it's way, then all software would be free, just as Richard would have it. They are taking a round-about way of advocating for freedom, yet their pragmatic methods may end up hurting the free software (GNU) movement more than helping it. They indirectly excuse business for being a free software leech and not contributing.

Freedom is good, being a leech is not. If you have nothing to contribute, at least contribute by staying out of the discussions involving free software. There is no nice way to put it. The freedom gained is for programmers only--the no-cost of free software is merely a side-effect. Don't confuse the no-cost side-effect with what GNU and even Open Source(TM) are truely about. If you are advocating for no-cost software, then please simply state so. Do not masquerade behind legitimate movements such as GNU when all you really want is software without a price tag. Think hard now. What freedom do you, personally, truely gain from free software? The only one apparent to me, is you can redistribute that software, or sell it like Red Hat. It's a freedom, yes, but not what GNU is about.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-22 06:38 · Score: 1

When software is free, programmers can compete for contract work to make improvements particular users (or industries) find valuable. Even if you can't maintain code yourself, hiring someone to do it for you (rather than wait and hope that the one and only vendor deigns to notice you) is a perfectly good contribution, and it's in everyone's interest (except for the shoddiest of vendors) that should be feasible.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-22 07:41 · Score: 1

There already are people who make money by support, but this brings up a number of nasty issues.

First, software will grow towards "needing support." I don't know if you read the /. article a few days ago, but Shawn Gordon, of theKompany, made a good statement on why selling support for software is a bad idea. It leads to software that needs support (such as Sendmail, which seems like they do not care about usability so much as providing support for it). I believe it is better to have software which does not need support. This is what Microsoft aims for. I remember there was a great fuss when they started making small manuals for Windows9x and moved to skimpish on-line help, but in the end I believe it's easier to use than Windows 3.x was.

Another issue of this is software will become forked multiple times, and the "original" distribution will likely never get bugs patched that the forks do, and etc. This will likely happen because of competition in the service arena. It doesn't now though, because there is usually one "servicer" for one software package. Imagine the case that there are several "general servicers" which will take customer requests and patch accordingly. These create serious maintenance issues with the original source code. On top of that, who will provide for the storage of all the forks and patched software? The service business will likely not, simply because they can make more money by holding patches at ransom and simply giving people those patches when they request them (and doing no extra work for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. customer who requests it). It will then be up to the person who paid for the patch to distribute what work was done for them.

The last issue I can think of at the moment is how software will be "born." Right now free software is started to "scratch-an-itch." In the future I can't imagine much new software will get started, simply because it is cheaper to pay someone to fix old software rather than create new software. The cost of creating new software is enormous. You have to outline the features needed, the architecture to support it, etc. It just doesn't seem feasible that the software industry could support itself like this (and I'm sure whatever these service shops charge will not be cheap either). I don't see innovations in technology occuring either, because software itself is not in competition. What is in competition is programmers supporting software. I don't envision end-users dreaming up a new interface and then paying other people to develop it and then having it become free--just so they can use that interface.

Oh, there is also a problem with copyrights. If you pay someone to modify a program, who owns the copyright to the changes? If a service business makes so many changes to a program that most of the program is the business's, does the creator of the program still hold the copyright (or rights of the entire program)? The reason this is important is because the copyright holder is entitled to change the license of the program at will (move from GPL to proprietary type or BSD, etc.).

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead

Poorly edited! by igbrown · 2002-03-21 03:49 · Score: 4, Informative

While I thought this book was well written and thoroughly interesting, it definitely needed a better copyeditor. There were frequent typos (in one confusing case it states that the first version of GNU Emacs was released in 1996!) and mispellings. For one of the first in-depth, published profiles of such an important individual in the history (albeit breif history) of free software/open source, I would have expected a bit more care on O'Reilly's part. That said, it is well worth the read, as it gives a pretty balanced take on RMS.

Re:Poorly edited! by hacksoncode · 2002-03-21 09:52 · Score: 1

Well, seeing as how it's been reported that it's distributed under a GNU license, you could always just edit it yourself and mail the patches back to O'Rielly.
Isn't that what's supposed to be great about free X (where X = literature in this case)?
Certainly the first version of a lot of free software doesn't seem to wait on thorough editorial review before going out the door. :-)
Re:Poorly edited! by danny · 2002-03-21 13:08 · Score: 2

Yes, there are quite a few typos. Unfortunately this is now normal in books, with very few publishers providing proper editing and proofing support to their authors.
But those will hopefuly be cleaned up in the (eventual) online copy.
Danny.

--
I have written over 900 book reviews
Re:Poorly edited! by dlek · 2002-04-03 09:18 · Score: 2

But those will hopefuly be cleaned up in the (eventual) online copy.

Yes, the online community does so well at spelling. Arf!
dlek.

The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 03:50 · Score: 1

You can tell how influential someone is by both the negative and the positive viewpoints that people have around that person.

Think of the first thing that comes to mind when you hear:

Bill Gates
RMS
ESR

That's three names that evoke a strong response (either negative or positive) and all three have a measure of influence.

Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 04:16 · Score: 1

You weren't "supposed" to have positive feelings about any of them. You simply have negative feelings about all three (this does not disprove my point.)

Personally, I prefer RMS's "Free Software" philosophy to ESR's "Open Source" philosophy. But if I had to spend personal time with either of them, I would pick ESR. He's a lot less freaky. However... I would probably try real hard to spend the day with Bill Gates. Maybe I could talk him into throwing away a little pocket change and buying me an AIBO.
Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1

Exactly.
That's the measure of influence.
Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 04:25 · Score: 1

Actually, your wrong.

They are not all raving lunatices.

Stallman's the only one who is "raving."

;)
Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 04:29 · Score: 1

Yes... but that's the same as spending the day with RMS... only after spending the day with RMS, I would have to dissinfect my whole body and burn my clothes. The Man Needs a Bath!
Re:The measure of a public figure... by gazbo · 2002-03-21 04:49 · Score: 1

I would pick ESR. He's a lot less freaky...
I never thought I'd hear anyone say *that*
Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 05:05 · Score: 1

I never thought I'd hear anyone say *that*

Only when compared to RMS.
Re:The measure of a public figure... by joib · 2002-03-21 06:05 · Score: 2

RMS

Root Mean Square ???
Re:The measure of a public figure... by Tin+Weasil · 2002-03-21 08:28 · Score: 1

Eric S. Raymond

Re:Is it just me . . . . by cthrall · 2002-03-21 03:51 · Score: 1

As opposed to Mundie/Ballmer, who are more along the lines of 1984...

Re:hagio what? by PhilHibbs · 2002-03-21 03:57 · Score: 2

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hagiographic

Re:hagio what? by larien · 2002-03-21 03:59 · Score: 2

www.m-w.com says:
of or relating to hagiography

cross reference to hagiography is:

biography of saints or venerated persons
idealizing or idolizing biography

Give us the good stuff by WildBeast · 2002-03-21 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

He should give us something to work with. A man with a beard have plenty of secrets, let them be known. Open Source them :)

I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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.

Re:I would like Stallman more... by CrazyLegs · 2002-03-21 04:19 · Score: 2

Hear, hear... Your 'chair' metaphore is bang on. I'm no rabid capitalist, but if ever come up with something really innovative software-wise, it will be mine to share in whatever manner I choose. Give it away, sell it, whatever.
I have found with any software I've developed and given away, my core rationale (however uncomfortable it is) has been 'ego'. Perhaps Mr. Stallman has a similar well-spring.
Interesting to note... The company I work for (large bank) will not use any product that is freeware or public-license. Why? They need a 'tie to grab' if something goes wrong, needs mods, etc. As well, my company is not in the business of managing someone else's code, even if that someone else is the Open Source Community.

--
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by skajohan · 2002-03-21 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's pretend Stallman with a snap of his fingers instantly erased all proprietary software and the business depending on the sale of it. Who would pay people to write software?
Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose. Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.
The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by JohnsonJohnson · 2002-03-21 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

The chair analogy is facetious. There is nothing that prevents you from selling GPL'd software. Stallman's basic argument for free software boils down to this: software has bugs, some of which may be repairable by the user of said software if the source code is available. Unless you are shipping bug free software you should ship the code as well or you are doing a disservice to the end user.

To make the chair analogy more apropos, imagine getting on of those wonderful particle boards in a box assemblies from IKEA without any instructions for assembly. IKEA can claim to have sent you the requested piece of furniture but without a guide for assembly it is useless to the user. Granted for simpler pieces a sufficiently motivated person may be able to assemble it anyway, but for any furniture with a significant number of hidden supports that is not the case. As with all analogies this breaks down upon close examination, but then again, that was my original point: software is not equivalent to a finished manufactured good

Incidentally, a better analogy may be other complex systems delivered to an end user such as a nuclear power plant. The handholding and training that the manufacterer (usually Westinghouse or Siemens) has to give to the user (your local utility) is roughly equivalent to providing the source code.

Finally, the "grab a tie" argument has little legitimacy either. If I have a problem with my Linux Kernel, I can hop on the boards (and admitedly absorb some abuse from a few socially underdeveloped board lurkers) and get an answer from the actual software developer themself. Compare this to my officemate who is navigating the "customer support" network of his network card driver manufacterer in an attempt to find the linux drivers the manufacterer claims exist (on thier webpage) but do not provide in any obvious form. He is grabbing lots of ties, but so far the only result is an intense desire to turn them into hangman's nooses.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's pretend Stallman with a snap of his fingers instantly erased all proprietary software and the business depending on the sale of it.

I would immediately beat him to death, since he would have just destroyed (among other things) computer and console gaming. No Grand Theft Auto 3 for you, punk! It's commercial software, and therefore evil!

Who would pay people to write software?
Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose.

I would dispute that factoid. But even if it's correct, it doesn't mean that there's no market for general-purpose software. Quite the opposite!

Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.

And now we're back to nebulousness. Make money HOW? Feed my kids HOW? The truth is, if Stallman could snap his fingers and destroy commercial software, we would simply build it back up as fast as we could, because it works. Doesn't work perfectly, or even well sometimes, but it does work.

The software business would not go away, it would just be different.

Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!

Here is the truth of it. If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop. People would still keep programming, but on their own time as a hobby. Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt. Sales of computers to private individuals would slow since (among other things) there wouldn't be any more commercial-quality software (especially games) to use.

This is the world Stallman apparently wants. But I don't, and I don't think you do either. Think for just a minute. Think about what a Free-Software-only world would be like. Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did. Or KDE or Gnome. Or Apache.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by paulbd · 2002-03-21 05:04 · Score: 2

The software business would not go away, it would just be different. Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID! You could and go to work for a company that needs software to do something that has never been done before. They will pay you to do that work. If they never sell it to anybody else, RMS's ideas about the GPL are completely beside the point. You're only in trouble if you work for a company whose primary business is selling existing software.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by paulbd · 2002-03-21 05:08 · Score: 2

Hear, hear... Your 'chair' metaphore is bang on. I'm no rabid capitalist, but if ever come up with something really innovative software-wise, it will be mine to share in whatever manner I choose. Give it away, sell it, whatever. can we assume that if you write a book, you will reserve the right to prevent us from lending it to our friends? your attitude doesn't take into account that a product whose representation as a set of bits has some important qualitative differences with one that can only be represented by physical matter. as many have quoted, "trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet". your desire to give your software away in the manner you choose appears to overlook the fact that what you are giving away is quite different from a chair (or even a book, for that matter).
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 05:22 · Score: 2

The chair analogy is facetious. There is nothing that prevents you from selling GPL'd software.

Sure, there's nothing legally preventing me from selling my GPL'd software. But nobody will buy my software if there's a version they can download for free.

This is a huge blind spot that none of the GPL zealots ever will address. It just doesn't exist to them. "Sure, sell your GPL'd software! What? You're having trouble selling copies and staying in business? Huh. Can't imagine why. Your software must suck."
Re:I would like Stallman more... by wrt2 · 2002-03-21 05:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Two things.
One, all software once was free (as in beer) and swapped freely via user groups. Why? The profit model was in hardware and support licenses. That once was taught in the CS curriculum, although I could be showing my age ;-) The model of selling use-rights via EULA is within-my-lifetime new and no more a part of human nature than the use-rights selling models that the RIAA and MPAA push (sorry, Hilary, sorry, Jack). You may wish to check your employment contract to verify that you have more rights to your creations than Prince has to '1999'.
Two, I've seen more than one company left holding a tie attached to an empty suit while desperate programmers attempt to reverse-engineer a closed-source business-critical application or utility. It might not be entirely legal, but it happens.

--
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 05:54 · Score: 1

Most professionals don't sell canned software by the copy. Most software is custom-developed inhouse or by consultants--what you see in CompUSA is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 05:58 · Score: 1

RMS would refuse to be a supplier to a car company that forbids third-party garages from maintaining any car they make. Drivers would never put up with being treated the way software users routinely are.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by FatHogByTheAss · 2002-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1

Stallman's basic argument for free software boils down to this: software has bugs, some of which may be repairable by the user of said software if the source code is available.
Which is preposterous. The average user of software has absolutely *ZERO* chance of ever understanding sources for even the most trivial applications, let alone the ones they use to go about their workaday lives.
While in RMS's ivory tower I'm sure everyone is comfortable opening up and rebuilding source. Out in the mud, no secretary on earth is going to open up the source for Werd, no accountant is ever going to understand the code for Excel, and no grandma is ever going to open up Outlook. And even if they did, do you really expect gramma to understand how the build process works? "What's a compiler? Did that come with my Dell?"
For most people, software is a tool. Most people aren't developers.

--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Re:I would like Stallman more... by maw · 2002-03-21 06:28 · Score: 1

Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt. Sales of computers to private individuals would slow since (among other things) there wouldn't be any more commercial-quality software (especially games) to use.
If there is a market for technically advanced software, and if governments don't decide to outlaw technically advanced software, then technically advanced software will be available, although under arrangements different to (and, I've decided after devoting a lot of thought to the issue, probably better than) how it's available now.
I do agree that there'd be a painful shakeup between now and then (if it ever happens, which, sadly, I doubt), but the pain of it would be almost a memory by the time it's felt.
I don't view capitalism as any kind of panacea, but it should serve quite well in this case.

--
You're a suburbanite.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by ftobin · 2002-03-21 07:00 · Score: 2

Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!

I've been doing fairly well on my first job out of college getting paid writing Free Software. My company sells turnkey software+hardware solutions for various law enforcement agencies.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Rary · 2002-03-21 07:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

For most people, software is a tool. Most people aren't developers.
So? I'm not a mechanic, but I still expect my car to come equipped with an openable hood, just in case something goes wrong and I need to either attempt to figure out how to fix it, or at least take it to a shop -- any shop, not just the manufacturer themselves -- to be repaired.
The idea is to give the consumer the opportunity to poke around "under the hood". If they never do, that's fine. The point is, they can.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Re:I would like Stallman more... by WNight · 2002-03-21 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

So don't exist by selling software. Exist by selling hardware that uses it, or by supporting software other people write, or writing custom software that is of much more value to the company that commissioned it than it would be to anyone else (and thus, would never be programmed without their sponsorship.)

Nobody whines that there's no market for ice now that everyone can afford a freezer. (There used to be a thriving market in selling large blocks of ice for homeowners to use basically as a refrigerator.) It could be that selling software has only temporarily been a means to make a ton of money. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

There isn't much precedent in the world for intangible goods. Even art used to take a master to forge, and if an identical copy was made people would still value the original more simply because of its status as an original.

Now we have software though, which can be copied essentially for free, and which has no special original that people want. Any copy is the same as any other. Why should we expect a market based around this to work like other markets?
Re:I would like Stallman more... by ftobin · 2002-03-21 07:33 · Score: 2

Clearly you misunderstand Free Software licenses. We do not provide our product to anyone but our customers. We provide the source to our customers under a Free Software license. They can choose to or (more likely) not share the source. Wouldn't do you much good since part of our turnkey solution is to provide cross-network requests, which you wouldn't be allowed to access.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by FatHogByTheAss · 2002-03-21 07:42 · Score: 1

So? I'm not a mechanic, but I still expect my car to come equipped with an openable hood, just in case something goes wrong
And here is the difference, sport. Market forces pretty much demand that cars come with a hood. Thats because automotive engines aren't that complex, and there is a prescribed maintenence schedule that the owner can do all by hisself.
Ain't so with software. Market forces have not demanded that joe user have access to the source, because there is absolutely nothing %99.9 of the users out there could do with it even if they had it.
Granny can probably change her own oil and filters. Granny thinks lint is what comes out of the dryer.
Comprende?

--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:02 · Score: 1

Copyright law today is just sick. Companies have the right do everything, the people who really make those things have to give them to their employers. Companies are good for producing physical things, they should stay there. I wouldn't like to give away the rights on things I have created just to make money for living. Also copyright is obivously too long.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:10 · Score: 1

Yes, people should be paid for the *work* they do. Does this mean that they can not be paid for creating free software. People and companies that need some kind of software should pay the programers to write it. Why should everyone pay for the countles rare used features of MS Word, the endless comercials?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 08:13 · Score: 1

How do you figure that? From what he said, their customers have the right to modify or release the source themselves or in collaboration with other customers or third parties (including other consultants they may hire; they aren't even locked in to his firm). That's what free software is about--the people who have the software are free to work on it as they choose.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:20 · Score: 1

Because we can pay goverments to make laws that alow us to terrorize people?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, who cares about people. Why should goverment care, as long as they pay their taxes so they can pay their lawyers. Lets just make it a nice dictatorship so we can live so forever!

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Arandir · 2002-03-21 08:27 · Score: 1

If Stallman snapped his fingers and all proprietary software disappeared, it would be here again tomorrow. Let's say instead that he snapped his fingers and all copyright laws disappeared. What would happen?

We would still have proprietary software. Without copyright it won't be the same as the proprietary software today. But it will still be proprietary in everything but name. Copyright is merely a government recognition of a form of property. Eliminating copyright won't make that property go away anymore than eliminating trespass laws will eliminate the ownership of land. As long as a significant number of developers think "this is my software", you will always have software without accessible source code that is difficult (legally or practically) to copy and redistribute.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:27 · Score: 1

And now you can try to explain me why I need a proprietary software vendor at all?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by CrazyLegs · 2002-03-21 08:39 · Score: 2

Wrong-o, bud. Software IS like a finished manufactured good. I buy a finished piece of software that does something useful; end of story. If it doesn't work, I get it fixed. If my chair doesn't work, I get it fixed (or replaced). That's how it is in the real world. I work for a big bank. We do banking. We have hundreds of software developers that develop banking systems. But, we're not a software development company. We're a bank. If my bank has a problem with the Linux kernal, that's a huge risk to us (depending on how many Linux boxes out out there, what they do, etc.).
Hopping on the Net to get an answer and a fix might be fun, but it ain't the answer and it ain't the kind of risk we're willing to take. We're in the business of banking, not Linux kernals. We contract out to our technology providers to 'do' Linux kernals (or whatever).
I don't want to sound (more) facetious, but there is a stunning ignorance on Slashdot (generalization alert!) about how Big IT Shops work, how business works, and about 'risk'. This thread is yet another example. Big shops do not use public-facing support mechanisms. They use contracts.

--
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by ChaosDiscordSimple · 2002-03-21 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!

You're missing the point.
This is going to sound harsh. Understand that I'm a software engineer as well. I've so far worked exclusively on commercial (and proprietary) software. What I'm going to say applies to me as well.
How you and I get paid is irrelevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how we're going to make money. We're not talking about what is good for the economy.
We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Maybe you believe that proprietary software is completely ethical. Fine. However, arguing that it's ethical because you'll put people out of work and destroy an industry is silly. Societies have destroyed industries that society felt were unethical before. In just the United States we've destroyed industries based on slavery, opium, heroin, marijuana, prostitution, animal fighting, and alcohol (briefly). Instead, argue that proprietary software is ethical for other reasons.
As a software engineer, I certainly hope that I'll still be able to work in the field. Unlikely though it is, I have to accept the possibility that society as a whole will decide what I do is unethical. If I don't, I'm just a hypocrite who should not be supporting restrictions on any of the industries in the "laundry list of evil" above.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by ByteWriter · 2002-03-21 09:14 · Score: 1

Surely you're not really that stupid, are you? What do you think you are doing every time you download patches to your MICROS~1 system? It's exactly the same thing. The only difference is that you are hoping and praying that the patch for your MICROS~1 system does not have more bugs than the previous one, or that it really fixed the problem.

If your "bank" were running widespread open source systems, they could hire someone to check any part of the software. If they were large enough, they probably would. They might even team up with other businesses to "certify" a particular system or configuration.

You are suggesting that the "better" scenario is to close your eyes, since you couldn't see the source code anyway, and trust that your MICROS~1 system doesn't have any holes.

History has shown that is not a good bet.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by JohnsonJohnson · 2002-03-21 10:52 · Score: 1

I'm glad you have a job, I have one too. I am a programmer (job title: senior software engineer) but my company's core business is not software but chemistry equipment. It is a medium sized (>1000 employees on 5 continents, $100 million+ revenue) global firm. We too pay out the nose for support on mission critical systems over which we have little control with varying amounts of success.

As far as I can tell, for those bugs in Microsoft or Apple software (to choose a few examples) that are not immediate show stoppers like Outlook exploits, you have the "option" of waiting for Microsoft or Apple to get around to addressing the issue in 6-12 months, perhaps. That is the life of the average end user of which there are far more than banks, and whose software experience is just as legitimate as yours.

I'm not sure if Red Hat's corporate support service is still running, but I am sure there are plenty of consultants at KPMG, Oracle, IBM et al. who are willing to take large sums of cash from you to comse sit at your site and solve your Linux/Windows 2000/Oracle 9/SAP etc. problems. Which they could have stayed home and solved on the message boards, albeit for far less renumeration.

The point is not whether if you have enough money you can find someone to handhold your software. If you were lucky enough to own a Ferrari F50 you were also privileged enough to have your own personal mechanic fly over from Maranello to keep things in working order too. But that doesn't mean Joe Hyundai driver doesn't want support for his automobile as well. There is nothing to be gained from comparing the Ferrari F50 experience to Jiffy Lube however.

Software is different in that it is far easier to distribute a patch, especially a patch to source, than to issue an automobile recall. By closing source though the software industry is artificially creating an automobile recall model of service without having the courage to issue a warranty. Furthermore, to elaborate on the idea of software as an unfinished good. The usual clause in the EULA of most software indemnifying the writer from any damage caused by the failure of the software is enough to indicate they don't have as much faith in the software as say a cabinet maker does in remodelling a kitchen.

Finally, although I am not a SysAdmin (although I do have to maintain some of the odder pieces of hardware and software I use for my job). I know enough about the job to know I don't want to be one.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 11:10 · Score: 3

It's commercial software, and therefore evil!

Ah, someone else who can't tell the difference between commercial and proprietary. Or who thinks that because the two are currently often present at the same time, they must be interchangeable. Or who thinks others think this way. Who cares which, it's wrong any way.

Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!

Why should I care? Honestly, tell me why I should care whether or not you are smart enough to get paid? Why should I care that your favorite business model would no longer work, and you aren't creative enough to come up with one that would? Why should I care that you are so tied to the notion that the only way to make money off software is to sell proprietary software in shrink-wrapped boxes that your children will starve as soon as that model ceases to work? Why should I describe to you how to survive when things change, because the only way you know how to live is to keep them the same? Your fear of change is not my concern.

Or to put it succinctly: Figure it out yourself. There are plenty of examples, so I can't believe you'd find it so hard. I get paid to program, and we aren't selling any of it. Honestly, there are bad business models, and sometimes a model that used to good becomes bad. Deal.

Here is the truth of it. If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop.

Perhaps so. Thank goodness that isn't what Stallman is trying to do! Your inability to distinguish between commercial and proprietary just highlights your crippling inability to imagine how software could be commercial without being proprietary. Demonizing someone else based on your own lack of vision is too typical to be condemned, but I'm also not going to give you any sympathy for it.

Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did. Or KDE or Gnome. Or Apache.

Those are all really bad examples. And if you compare these open source projects and the amount of time spent on them to the internal development cycles of commercial products, I don't think you'd see much difference. But of course that is moot, because the world you're imagining isn't one that anyone else is trying to cause to exist. Because there are more than enough people smarter than you who would continue to profit from software development even in a proprietary-free world. Those who aren't smarter than you might stop development, and thus, yes, the total amount of software might decrease. But frankly, I can't say I'd expect to miss software written by those people.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 11:13 · Score: 2

We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.

Okay, see, now you're equating commercial software to something truly reprehensible like the tobacco industry. I do not see the parallel.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 11:14 · Score: 1

Sorry, you just don't understand free software.

Don't feel bad. It isn't the first time someone on /. didn't understand something and blamed others for their ignorance.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 11:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your inability to distinguish between commercial and proprietary just highlights your crippling inability to imagine how software could be commercial without being proprietary.

And this is your crippling inability: the inability to realize that to outlaw proprietary software is to outlaw commercial software, because if you cannot control the distribution of your software, then you cannot get paid for it. Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop.

I want to write computer games. Who is going to pay me for my game when they can download a copy for free?

Free Software is not a panacea! It is not a valid model for every aspect of this business, and I wish you people would stop saying that we should simply give up and "trust the Force" here. Anybody with a brain can see that it won't work!
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 11:50 · Score: 2

And this is your crippling inability: the inability to realize that to outlaw proprietary software is to outlaw commercial software, because if you cannot control the distribution of your software, then you cannot get paid for it. Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop.

Like I said: You can't see how to make money without proprietary software, and this is not my problem. That others are demonstrably disproving this as we speak just makes your "Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop." sound as pathetic as it is.

Not only that, I'm beginning to get the idea that your imagination is so limited that you can't even think of a kind of commercial software other than shrink-wrapped boxes at Best Buy. No wonder you are having problems!

I want to write computer games. Who is going to pay me for my game when they can download a copy for free?

Are you completely out of touch? You already can! Last I checked, Diablo II isn't Free Software, but that doesn't stop anyone from downloading it off of the web/usenet/irc/icq.

Plus, as if you are deliberately choosing the worst examples possible, games are somewhat unique in that they have a critical component -other- than the source code: Content! The Diablo II source code is nothing in value compared to the content, and I don't remember RMS arguing that artwork should be 'free as in speech'.

Free Software is not a panacea! It is not a valid model for every aspect of this business, and I wish you people would stop saying that we should simply give up and "trust the Force" here. Anybody with a brain can see that it won't work!

What won't work? Your favorite business model? Who cares? Business models come and go. There are other business models that will work, whether you can open your eyes enough to see them working right now or not.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 11:57 · Score: 2

Plus, as if you are deliberately choosing the worst examples possible, games are somewhat unique in that they have a critical component -other- than the source code: Content! The Diablo II source code is nothing in value compared to the content, and I don't remember RMS arguing that artwork should be 'free as in speech'.

Ah. So let me see if I get this right.

Artists make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can scan their work and make it freely available on the web (with or without their permission).

Musicians make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can convert their work to MP3 and make it freely available

But programmers don't make anything worth selling. In fact, it's immoral for a programmer to try to sell what he creates.

Clear as mud.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 12:00 · Score: 1

Right. You not only don't understand free software, you don't understand what the poster was saying. No harm done, thorough reading isn't exactly expected behavior here on /.

So, let me break it down for you:

He writes the software and distributes it to the client under a free software license, let's say the GPL. Meaning the client is bound by the terms of the GPL. The client modifies the source, examines it, uses it, whatever they like -- but they don't distribute binaries made from that source. They don't distribute binaries, they don't have to distribute source. The terms of the GPL are met. If they do distribute binaries, they must also distribute source. But they usually don't.

Now, do you get it?

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 12:06 · Score: 1

If every Microsoft customer got source and a free software license to modify and redistribute it, Microsoft would be a free software company--regardless of whether or not any of their customers exercise their right to redistribute their code. But they don't.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 12:14 · Score: 2

Musicians make something worth selling. They deserve to make money off their work. Despite the fact that you can convert their work to MP3 and make it freely available.

But programmers don't make anything worth selling. In fact, it's immoral for a programmer to try to sell what he creates.

Clear as mud.

Haha. Again, your limited vision causes you to see things that aren't there; to see viewpoints other people aren't espousing.

What you still can't grasp -- because you are incapable -- is that there is nothing wrong with selling software, and no one is saying that there is. There are those saying that there is something wrong with proprietary software. I understand, so don't bother explaining, that you can't see the difference between commercial and proprientary. You are too blind to see the difference, or can't imagine a difference, or just want there to not be a difference. I don't care about the specifics of your inability.

Though it occurs to me that you are perhaps reading a little too generally into my comment "The Diablo II source code is nothing in value compared to the content". This is not to imply that -source code- has no value, but that, particularly in this instance, that source code isn't very amazing. Compared to, say, Nethack, the Diablo 2 code is rather primitive and simple. But it does serve as a nice vehicle for some good-looking content.

Anyway, if you could get past your crippling bias and assumption (because in your brain commercial==proprietary) that I'm -against- programmers making money (despite the fact that I'm a programmer, and making money), you'd see that I went against my own statement and was actually hinting at a business model. Nevermind, though.

After all, I don't have a problem (and like) programmers making money, I don't give a crap if you do or not. Honestly, if you maintain you never reach beyond your mental handicap, yet are still able to make money, I'll be disappointed since 'survival of the fittest' will be thwarted yet again.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Johnson · 2002-03-21 12:21 · Score: 2

"Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt."
I seriously contest the idea that commercial forces produce technical advancement. Commercial forces optimize for MARKETABILITY which is quite unrelated. In my field, some of the most commercially successful products are technically deficient to a shocking extent- some of the free products are technically advanced to a shocking extent- and there's some that are well spoken of because they are both. There's no correlation... and hence no argument that the destruction of commercial software would slow technical advancement.
You could actually argue the opposite, quite plausibly.
Supposing technical advancement is correlated with specific PEOPLE who do good work. Obliterating commercial development would switch those people and their work from proprietary to free and public work. As such, it would spread more quickly because the ideas could be taken and adopted more widely, and others could audit and question the work on a technical basis.
Do you have any idea how much effort has been wasted in recent years trying to figure out what causes the sonic problems with the very widely-adopted Digidesign Pro Tools software... which has in recent months been traced to, among other things, summing busses being repeatedly truncated to 24-bit summing stages rather than summed with more accurate mathematics?
It really looks as though in the proprietary sphere things don't need to get good AT ALL, much less 'as slowly as Linux does'.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 12:29 · Score: 2

What you still can't grasp -- because you are incapable -- is that there is nothing wrong with selling software, and no one is saying that there is. There are those saying that there is something wrong with proprietary software.

And what you and the other GPL fanatics here don't - or won't - get is that there is no de facto difference between proprietary and commercial software. Software must be proprietary if it's to be commercial, since you cannot make money off of software if you cannot control how it is distributed!

So saying that RMS doesn't hate commercial software is disingenuous - he DOES hate commercial software, and deliberately wrote the GPL to make making money off of software as difficult as possible.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 12:50 · Score: 1

If we sign a work for hire contract, I write the code but the copyright belongs to you, so whether the code will be free or not (or both, if you dual license) is legally your decision to make.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by swillden · 2002-03-21 14:09 · Score: 2

you cannot make money off of software if you cannot control how it is distributed!
I work for a company (actually a division of a company) that employs 120,000 people, a large percentage of them programmers (I'd estimate close to half -- that's just my perception, I don't actually have stats). This company raked in over 40 *billion* dollars last year doing computer software. Our whole business is computer technology.
And you know what? We don't sell software. Or hardware.
Guess how? Bonus points if you can guess what company employs me.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 15:26 · Score: 2

And what you and the other GPL fanatics here don't - or won't - get is that there is no de facto difference between proprietary and commercial software. Software must be proprietary if it's to be commercial, since you cannot make money off of software if you cannot control how it is distributed!

Don't you understand yet? I already know you think that -- it's your mental failing, the reason you are 'unfit' and why no one will cry when you're in the unemployment line railing at the evils of a world that doesn't understand that you -have- to make money the way you do. And you still won't understand why everyone else still has jobs...

I'm feeling cantankerous tonight, so I'm going to dismantle your stance. You still won't believe it, but I'll laugh when you again try to prove by assertion that you're right.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "no de facto difference", as if there is a 'default' difference that could be changed by a comittee. Thus I will go by what I think is a very capable definition of "no difference". For there to be no difference between two conditions, then the conditions must be both necessary and sufficient for the existance of the other, commutatively. To explain, being a rectangle is -necessary- for being a square, but not sufficient. Likewise, being a square is -sufficient- for being a rectangle, but not necessary. Thus squares and rectangles are different, you see?

But I'm going to make it easy on you, because I do pity the stupid. I'm only going to consider one direction -- proprietary to commercial. If being proprietary is necessary and sufficient for being commercial, then there is no difference. No, no, that's too easy too. The existence of proprietary, non-commercial software is evident, and thus proprietary is not -sufficient-. Okay... We'll try just necessary. That seems to be what definition you are using, sloppy as you are. But what can I expect, but to equate two things just because one is supposedly a precondition to the other? That's like equating high school with college... But I digress.

First, definitions. For software to be commercial, it must be sold for money. Either individual copies are sold, or the ownership of the software is sold (ie contracted development). Proprietary simply means not under a copyleft or public-domain style licence.

Theorem: The state of software being proprietary is not necessary for the software being commercial.

Proof by counterexample of inverse:
1. Assume the inverse, that software being proprietary -is- necessary for commercial.
1. Red hat linux is not proprietary(GPL), but is commercial($60 from Red Hat store) .
2. Therefore, proprietary is not necessary for commercial. QED.

Well shit. That was still only a 3-line proof, and that was just being formal. Couldn't you come up with something better?

As if that was the only example. You see? It's sad that you continue to rail that it must be that we're fanatics because we can't see how right you are when the proof that you're wrong is sitting all around you.

As to RMS, the proof that he doesn't hate commercial software should be evident in his support for commercial entities such as RedHat, and by the fact that he himself has written commercial software, after founding the GNU Project! It's obvious to non-simians that RMS only hates software that restricts freedom, but you can't imagine how you can make money without that, so he is the evil bastard. It is to laugh. At you.

What makes it even more sad is that even for your own silly notion that the only way money is to control distribution is proven wrong even by proprietary companies! As I mentioned before, I doubt you can -name- a game that you couldn't download for free off the internet. How precisely is this distribution being controlled? Yet the game companies are still making money! Of course you'll surely think that this is a behavior that must be eliminated, but you'll also ignore that they are still making money right now. From the very beginning id made no attempt to control the distribution of Doom, but last I checked people who don't get paid don't drive Testarosas.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Steveftoth · 2002-03-21 15:51 · Score: 1

I also bet that granny could change a config file or edit the registry if someone showed her how. BTW, you are not born with the innate knowledge to change the oil or the filter. Someone SHOWED HER HOW or she read a book that told her how to do it!
Re:I would like Stallman more... by BadmanX · 2002-03-21 18:20 · Score: 2

Theorem: The state of software being proprietary is not necessary for the software being commercial.

Proof by counterexample of inverse:
1. Assume the inverse, that software being proprietary -is- necessary for commercial.
1. Red hat linux is not proprietary(GPL), but is commercial($60 from Red Hat store) .
2. Therefore, proprietary is not necessary for commercial. QED.

You wrote a whole bunch of other stuff and insulted me personally, so I'm just going to ignore that.

But this proof is facetious and wrong. When you drop $60 on a Red Hat box, you are not buying the software. The software is free. You are buying printed manuals, a nice box to put them in, and phone support from Red Hat. Therefore, your proof falls apart.

Again, I want to make computer games for a living. The Free Software model does not work in this sphere of programming.

But this doesn't make a bit of difference to you, I'm sure. You're just going to write me off. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! Sucks that you have to choose between doing what you like and feeding your kids, but hey! Isn't it so much better now that all software is of the same quality and usability as Linux?

Wait...
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 00:50 · Score: 2

IBM and your division is doing consultancy on the use of smart card technology? And you give away the software, but people need your help to use it? Or do you use the software in the consultancy process?

BTW, it seems to me that your company does actually sell some hardware and software. You make it seem like you make 40 billion dollar without selling hardware or software.

PS, what bonus points?

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 01:53 · Score: 2

It seems to me that you twisted the argument into the wrong direction. Let me try and find a big fallacy in your reasoning by asking the following question:

Should a musician, artist, movieproducer or writer be able to limit the distribution of his work? Note that I'm not saying anything about being able to sell the first copy.

If a creator may, methinks you are inconsistent as I don't really see the difference between the IP that is software and the IP that is music. Both can be copied at low cost and are created once and used many times. Both can be plain or a true work of art. Both can be created as works for hire or as a 'proprietary' off-the-shelf package. You can even earn money in both cases with services (many bands earn a lot with concerts).

If a creator may not, this clashes with your statement that the content of a game can help you restrict it's distribution. That would severely limit the creation of games, unless you can come up with a great plan to pay the programmers. I cannot. And don't start that survival of the fittest crap on me, if you want a change that has serious negative consequences for users (because less software is created), you must answer for that. I happen to dislike people that love their own little theory about how the world should be, but don't care about the negative consequences (the rulers of N-korea come to mind).

BTW, instead of Diablo II, let us talk about Quake 3. The artwork isn't the most amazing part about the game. In fact, many companies have licensed the engine to create their own games. I suspect that an open engine will bankrupt ID as competitors will just create their own artwork/levels (with 1/5th the effort). ID will lose the licensing income _and_ will get a lot more competitors so their game will sell less. Since they have the highest costs, it seems likely that they go under.

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-22 02:41 · Score: 2

You wrote a whole bunch of other stuff and insulted me personally, so I'm just going to ignore that.

You insulted me as well, so don't go jumping on any high horse. I'm willing to just take and give, but you're apparently a one-way kind of person.

But this proof is facetious and wrong. When you drop $60 on a Red Hat box, you are not buying the software. The software is free. You are buying printed manuals, a nice box to put them in, and phone support from Red Hat. Therefore, your proof falls apart.

One of the items in the box is the software, you are paying for that, hence it is commercial. Being able to get it for free doesn't make it free as in beer, because then that'd apply to everything you call "commercial". Windows comes with manuals and stuff in the box, but it isn't free. Besides, if you are selling boxes of foo for $60, and one of the things in that box -- the -critical- thing, without which the rest of the box would be pretty worthless -- is software, how can you possibly say it isn't commercial? It's not some bonus extra stuck in there, like a free demo disk with another game -- it's the thing the box is named after! And tech support comes with any boxed version of an OS, but that tech support won't be worth much if you don't have the RedHat CD! Regardless of whether you decide that it can't be commercial here because it's free-beer someplace else, RedHat programmers are getting paid, and isn't that fundamentally what you want to have happen?

Again, I want to make computer games for a living. The Free Software model does not work in this sphere of programming.

Ha ha ha! I laugh at you, like I said I would when you tried to prove your point by assertion (again).

You haven't demonstrated anything concerning how it wouldn't work, you've merely asserted that it can't. You asserted that distribution control was necessary, but again it was merely asserted. Proof by assertion is no proof at all. I've already described how it can. The only way you could respond was to act is if I was saying something I clearly wasn't, unrelated to the point of contention -- making money.

But this doesn't make a bit of difference to you, I'm sure. You're just going to write me off. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! Sucks that you have to choose between doing what you like and feeding your kids, but hey!

You're right, but no reward because I've already said that like five times now. I don't care if you can't do what you want. Because the only reason you can't is because you axiomatically assume that you won't be able to. Everyone else who is smarter than you, or doesn't have this specific mental block, will still be doing what they want, including making games. And since it is your own limitation that prevents you from making money in your favorite way, I have absolutely no sympathy for you, nor should I.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-22 03:14 · Score: 2

Should a musician, artist, movieproducer or writer be able to limit the distribution of his work? Note that I'm not saying anything about being able to sell the first copy.

Then I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, as the right of first sale is one of the rights specifically reserved for the creator. Outside of the right of first sale, how exactly are you expecting to limit distribution?

If a creator may, methinks you are inconsistent as I don't really see the difference between the IP that is software and the IP that is music.

One of the differences is that the rights that come with free software are not very important with regards to music. Music isn't 'buggy'. Music can be bad, but that won't ruin anything. There is no impetus to add 'features' to music. Being able to modify it and share that modification is not a compelling right with music. Essentially the difference is that software is -software-, and that is all the difference in the world. Because they are different, and the compelling rights regarding them are different, I don't see how being inconsistant between them is bad.

And don't start that survival of the fittest crap on me, if you want a change that has serious negative consequences for users (because less software is created), you must answer for that. I happen to dislike people that love their own little theory about how the world should be, but don't care about the negative consequences (the rulers of N-korea come to mind).

What do you mean, survival of the fittest crap? Are you telling me you that there really aren't good business models and bad ones? Are you telling me that every model, no matter how crappy, deserves to live forever despite changes in the environment around it? Nonsense. No business is sacred, and neither is any business model. When they no longer are viable, they will fail, and so it should be.

People make money off of sending incredible amounts of spam every day. If the laws make that no longer feasible, should I cry injustice? When tobacco is no longer profitable as it shouldn't have been 30 years ago is this not "survival of the fittest"? Or what about something sans negative social connotation: milkmen. I grew up in the suburbs, and I never saw a milkman. It stopped working in the majority of places. Did the consumer suffer from not having fresh milk delivered to the door? Did the poor milkman's children starve because he couldn't deliver milk anymore?

But I won't back away from the consequences of what we're talking about. Slightly less software is created. Software created by those with no longer valid business models, and who can't adapt. Is this a negative consequence for users? Only if the software that was lost was particularly desireable, or if the remaining pool of software is not diverse enough to be healthy. Barring that, it is no more "negative" than the failure of a couple dot coms that had neat but anything but necessary services. Is this the consequence you're talking about? I'm not faltering. A short term reduction in some software while maintaining a healthy pool with near and long term benefit doesn't make me balk.

BTW, instead of Diablo II, let us talk about Quake 3. The artwork isn't the most amazing part about the game. In fact, many companies have licensed the engine to create their own games. I suspect that an open engine will bankrupt ID as competitors will just create their own artwork/levels (with 1/5th the effort). ID will lose the licensing income _and_ will get a lot more competitors so their game will sell less. Since they have the highest costs, it seems likely that they go under.

1/5th the effort? I think you seriously underestimate the amount of work needed to create high-quality game content. That is why so many free software games play great but look like hell. Just look at the number of artists vs. programmers that id employs -- and this is iD, the ones with the crappy artwork!

But anyway, one thing you have to remember is that I never said that every business model would work. That would be insane. I said that the business would work (such as selling games), but a specific model (charging huge fees to license a game engine) may (in this case would) not.

Does this mean iD goes out of business? Maybe. Personally, I think Carmack & co are more than smart enough to deal with it. Either they'd hire some more artists and make games that are more than just interesting technology, or they'll do something like become programmers-for-hire for other game companies, writing or customizing game engines for the other company to add content to. If that doesn't work... *shrug* You'll have to come up with something more substantial than one company losing their business model to disuade me.

Not that this is the "little theory" that I "love"... It isn't even my theory or wish. I'm just pointing out that if it came to pass, all the "My poor babies will starve!" alarmsists will be shown wrong, unless they just can't adapt.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 03:15 · Score: 2

So don't exist by selling software. Exist by selling hardware that uses it, or by supporting software other people write, or writing custom software that is of much more value to the company that commissioned it than it would be to anyone else (and thus, would never be programmed without their sponsorship.)

Actually, my company is moving from custom applications to a more generic one. It will make our products much, much cheaper, less buggy and we will make more profit (if it works out well). In your scenario, we couldn't do that. In fact, we expect to service a lot of companies that don't have the dough for work-for-hire. But I guess that they don't have the right to our software in your utopia.

Nobody whines that there's no market for ice now that everyone can afford a freezer. (There used to be a thriving market in selling large blocks of ice for homeowners to use basically as a refrigerator.) It could be that selling software has only temporarily been a means to make a ton of money. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

The problem is that there is no freezer. There would be no problem if you provide a good substitute to the current system that allows programmers to be paid for creating the software we need. Many believe that a 100% GPL'ed world will not allow for this. I've challenged GPL-advocates to explain to me how some software would ever be created with the GPL, I've never had a good answer. They always flee in generics like support fees or work for hire, but never explain to me how something simple like an game with a 1 year shelf-life that takes 2 years to create with a full-time team can be written this way.

There isn't much precedent in the world for intangible goods.

This copyright thing didn't start with software, you know:

The Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
United States Constitution

Now we have software though, which can be copied essentially for free, and which has no special original that people want. Any copy is the same as any other. Why should we expect a market based around this to work like other markets?

Now we have books though, which can be copied for very little, and which have no special original that people want. Any copy is the same as any other. Why should we expect a market based around this to work like other markets?

Because it works and there is no good alternative. It works well for books and it works fairly well for software. The problems started when the developers began saying that software is something special and it is really a service and not a good. If you take away the EULA, DMCA and the other crap that this resulted in, there are only two problems:
- The copyrights in this area last too long, 5 years is enough for software, not 70+
- Software has seperate binaries and code, unlike books which you can learn from. Lawrence Lessig proposes that we put the code into escrow in return for the monopoly on copyright.

It seems to me that Lawrence Lessig's proposals will fix most problems we have now. At least then I'll still be able to play games and make money selling generic software ;)

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 04:47 · Score: 2

Then I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, as the right of first sale is one of the rights specifically reserved for the creator. Outside of the right of first sale, how exactly are you expecting to limit distribution?

By sueing the people that sell CD's with your work without consent. Don't tell me you never noticed that the police regularly cracks down on 'illegal' music/software. What's stopping you from selling CD-R's with MS Office openly on eBay? Methinks it is the law.

There is no impetus to add 'features' to music.

Remixes, covers, CD's that contain a certain collection of music, using an euqalizer to change the music.

Essentially the difference is that software is -software-, and that is all the difference in the world.

I'm afraid that won't do. I don't mind if you justly differentiate, for example because software is useful for a short while (and the copyright should thus last a short while). A book has a much longer useful life. I simply don't see why the IP of software should not be protected, but music should.

As for your buggyness complaint, I don't get a refund when there are errors in the book I buy. Sorry, but the availability of the source is simply a feature. You can make a decision not to buy software if you don't get the source, but I don't see why you should have the right to it.

What do you mean, survival of the fittest crap? Are you telling me you that there really aren't good business models and bad ones? Are you telling me that every model, no matter how crappy, deserves to live forever despite changes in the environment around it?

No, but people may call foul when you don't provide a system that benefits them. Russia didn't fare well with central planning, do you think the lack of goods+food was the fault of the businesses that didn't adapt or that the system was to blame? I think that the system that you propose will make it impossible to create a lot of useful software with any business plan.

I grew up in the suburbs, and I never saw a milkman. It stopped working in the majority of places. Did the consumer suffer from not having fresh milk delivered to the door? Did the poor milkman's children starve because he couldn't deliver milk anymore?

You see, there was a good alternative. The new way was cheaper and was a benefit to the consumer. RMS's evil empire is not. I don't give a damn about how the milk gets to us from the dairy farm, but I do care if it becomes illegal to sell milk and we all have to keep our own cow.

But I won't back away from the consequences of what we're talking about. Slightly less software is created. Software created by those with no longer valid business models, and who can't adapt. Is this a negative consequence for users? Only if the software that was lost was particularly desireable, or if the remaining pool of software is not diverse enough to be healthy. Barring that, it is no more "negative" than the failure of a couple dot coms that had neat but anything but necessary services.

I'm not convinced that just a bit of software will be effected. I think the consequences will be serious. You admit that the dotcoms didn't provide crucial software, many 'generic' software is crucial to companies throughout the economy (ERP systems, data warehousing, databases). I'm not willing to risk a disaster because you like a free OS+software.

Does this mean iD goes out of business? Maybe. Personally, I think Carmack & co are more than smart enough to deal with it. Either they'd hire some more artists and make games that are more than just interesting technology, or they'll do something like become programmers-for-hire for other game companies, writing or customizing game engines for the other company to add content to

Your solutions don't work out. Whatever they try, creating the engine is not feasable since competitors will copy their work and are always cheaper off.

If that doesn't work... *shrug* You'll have to come up with something more substantial than one company losing their business model to disuade me.

I just took one of the most succesful companies in the games-sector. If they don't succeed, who will?

Not that this is the "little theory" that I "love"... It isn't even my theory or wish. I'm just pointing out that if it came to pass, all the "My poor babies will starve!" alarmists will be shown wrong, unless they just can't adapt.

Well, you are unable to give good business models for people to earn money creating the software people would like to have. Your argument is like claiming that we don't need money because people will adapt. In fact, it is a better argument since I can come up with a bartering model that will work in theory. Too bad that it will propel us back into the dark ages.

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by WNight · 2002-03-22 05:53 · Score: 2

You want an alternative? Become a hardware engineer. Or a landscape architect. Seriously, there's nothing saying you have to make a living in any certain field.

I just wanted to get that out of the way. I do think that programmers can make a living even in a world full of GPLed software. But I don't think we should take it as a given that we'll be supported in the profession we'd like. I know artists who wish they could make a living but instead do it as a hobby while they work other jobs.

Is there any reason why you couldn't write a closed-source game? Use only LGPL libraries, rewrite code, etc. If there's less competition then shouldn't you make more money when it's released?

As for books (and music), they're just finally entering the realm of "information" after hundreds of years. It's been out of the realm of practicality for individuals to copy books until recently so copyright law really only had to deal with the professionals (other publishing houses). Now all digital information is in the same spot at the same time and we're seeing how absurd laws that treat it as physical property really are.

Now, I'm not saying we should abandon copyrights. I'm just saying that they aren't based on reality in any way, they're just a polite fiction that happens to work. But it's not working as well now as ten years ago. So we're inventing draconian crap like the DMCA and the SSSCA (not CBDTPA or something) trying to push the genie back into the bottle.

When do we just say that enough is enough, that the world has changed, and we aren't going to try to protect obsolete business models?

This relates to a lot of things. Why keep passing laws doomed to failure (the DMCA and SSSCA) to protect a failed copyright law. Why expect that software will make more billionares?

Really, as long as your company turns any profit, and pays a decent wage to the staff, isn't it a success? I know many businesses (in various fields) that can't manage that properly. Why see it as a failure just because it can't go for generic software (like MS) and make more? Perhaps that's the tail end of a short-lived business model.

Or maybe not. But I don't see why your desire (or mine) to make more money at it is any more relevant than the RIAA's desire to make more by stopping music sharing.

I think there're ways for programmers to make money in a different economy, but I'm not willing to cripple a bunch of industry and pass insane laws to make it happen. If we could revise copyrights that'd be a huge step forward, but it'll never happen. Not in a world where political bribery is an accepted fact.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-22 06:09 · Score: 2

Your solutions don't work out. Whatever they try, creating the engine is not feasable since competitors will copy their work and are always cheaper off.

If someone wants an engine that doesn't exist, they will pay to get it. Once it's been created, it can be copied, but iD has already been paid for it. If someone wants an engine that does something the existing free ones don't do, they will pay to have it developed or to have those features added to an existing one. Part of the problem is that currently each developer makes their game in a vaccuum, from scratch, and when you consider that suddenly being released under the GPL, it seems like everyone else could just steal your stuff. But iD could benefit from what others wrote as well (Carmack, despite being a genius, isn't the sole owner of game programming skillz). We're talking about an environment where -everyone's- code is free software, and you can benefit from others as much as they benefit from you. This isn't something that's going to happen overnight, where one day Carmack wakes up in the morning and finds the Doom 4 engine on Sourceforge.

Being essentially an engine-maker might become less lucrative, but that doesn't mean the engines won't get made. Or the games.

I just took one of the most succesful companies in the games-sector. If they don't succeed, who will?Well, you are unable to give good business models for people to earn money creating the software people would like to have. Your argument is like claiming that we don't need money because people will adapt. In fact, it is a better argument since I can come up with a bartering model that will work in theory. Too bad that it will propel us back into the dark ages.

There are good business models. They are being used right now. Are the ones I'm giving you not perfect? So what? It's not my job to come up with the perfect business model, but to demonstrate that there are ways to make money doing the same thing, and let the business majors work out the details. Business majors, I might add, who are already doing this. How does this propel us into the Dark Ages? I had never thought that one of the characteristics of the Dark Ages was bartering. Not that this would be necessary anyway.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-22 06:16 · Score: 2

Thought I'd reply to this, since it'll be short.

Me: Then I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, as the right of first sale is one of the rights specifically reserved for the creator. Outside of the right of first sale, how exactly are you expecting to limit distribution?

You: By sueing the people that sell CD's with your work without consent. Don't tell me you never noticed that the police regularly cracks down on 'illegal' music/software. What's stopping you from selling CD-R's with MS Office openly on eBay? Methinks it is the law.

That's protecting the right of first sale. You said you weren't talking about first sale. But now you are. How must you control distribution -beyond- this right? How am I supposed to answer the question of whether it is right or not for them to have this control? Note that it is perfectly legal (and has been upheld in court) to sell the MS Office CD that you bought on eBay. Because that doesn't violate MS' first sale right. Selling CD-R's is illegal, because it does.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 22:29 · Score: 2

If someone wants an engine that doesn't exist, they will pay to get it. Once it's been created, it can be copied, but iD has already been paid for it.

I understand it. I also understand that the first one to create the engine is screwed. His competitors can use the engine he payed for:

Nr 1: Cost for the engine+content
Nr 2: Cost of the content
. . .
Nr infinity: Cost of the content

In a perfect economy, the selling price will be marginally higher than the lowest cost by which you can make the product (if not, extra competitors will come to the market). The lowest cost is the cost of the content, so the company that creates the engine is screwed. They will be go bankrupt for being innovative and creating a new engine! Even if the economy is not perfect, the one that innovates and creates the engine still will be punished by a smaller income. Somehow I don't want to punish people who create new things, do you?

Part of the problem is that currently each developer makes their game in a vacuum, from scratch, and when you consider that suddenly being released under the GPL, it seems like everyone else could just steal your stuff. But ID could benefit from what others wrote as well (Carmack, despite being a genius, isn't the sole owner of game programming skillz).

They already sell the engine and get bug fixes from other game makers. I don't expect that many people will be able to add features to such a complex engine (it's not easy to comprehend such a beast and start contributing). A big downside to a GPL'ed engine is that it is much easier to cheat. When ID GPL'ed their old games, the number of cheats skyrocketed. This makes the games less valuable. I honestly believe that ID will lose far, far more than it would gain.

Being essentially an engine-maker might become less lucrative, but that doesn't mean the engines won't get made. Or the games.

Despite the fact that I can rationally argue that the game market will be hurt severely, you still 'believe' that the engines+games will be made. Believing an irrational, unprobable theory is called a religion. I'm fully open to other religions, but don't expect rational individuals to support you on that.

There are good business models. They are being used right now. Are the ones I'm giving you not perfect? So what? It's not my job to come up with the perfect business model, but to demonstrate that there are ways to make money doing the same thing, and let the business majors work out the details. Business majors, I might add, who are already doing this.

I'm not against open source. Au contraire, I believe it will be very important to the maturing of information technology. However, I believe in an environment were open source and proprietary software can exist together. IMO forcing everyone to use open source will make certain desirable creations impossible or unlikely. You nor any other GPL advocate have been able to convince me that this is not so. IMO you should be proving that this is false, because you are the one that want to take away freedoms from others! You can whine and complain all day about the fact that I'm not smart enough to come up with new business plans, but fact is that simple economics dictate that a forced GPL society will hurt many that create IP or use it. All the arguments that GPL advocates put forward merely argue that we shouldn't pay people for providing a large group with their creations, but instead should earn money by pushing all the expenses on one company or by getting money for a related things (service). The first creates an immense barrier and harms the market of software that companies really want: off-the-shelf, cheap, well-tested, userfriendly software. The latter essentially removes all incentive to create a good, userfriendly product. You can only survive by making software difficult to use/extend so people will pay you.

I want the best thing for users and creators, you cannot provide that. Your extreme ideas will just do great harm to our lives and economy.

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by Aapje · 2002-03-22 23:19 · Score: 2

You want an alternative? Become a hardware engineer. Or a landscape architect. Seriously, there's nothing saying you have to make a living in any certain field.

It's not just that I want an alternative to make money. I want to be able to provide my customers with the stuff that they want. Can't you grasp that users exist? That they might actually be happy if I'm able to sell my product to many so the costs are low? You're just an incredibly selfish person making it seem like you want what's best for users. But in reality, you just want free software and access to source code. The wishes of the majority of users seem to be irrelevant to you.

When do we just say that enough is enough, that the world has changed, and we aren't going to try to protect obsolete business models?

Selling IP is not obsolete. With new business models that empower the creators, instead of the distributors, it can and hopefully will be very succesful. I'm perfectly willing to pay a honest price if the majority of my money goes to the creator. But I'm not a fool that will pay the RIAA, MPAA and publishers far too much money for sitting on their asses and trying to take away our rights.

The DMCA and other regulations are meant to fight the empowerment of the creators+users that is made possible by information technology. The battle extends far beyond software and the GPL is not an answer to the problem.

If we could revise copyrights that'd be a huge step forward, but it'll never happen. Not in a world where political bribery is an accepted fact.

Try to get it changed. At least I'm glad that political bribery in the Netherlands is not accepted/legal and happens far less. Unfortunately there are few politicians that truly understand what's at stake. Most just believe the lobbyists of the large corporations and totally ignore users and creators. Perhaps you should write to your congressman and ask him to make his voters happy instead of the few corporations. Ultimately votes are still more important to politicians than money (although you can convert money into votes).

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:I would like Stallman more... by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-23 08:18 · Score: 1

Working for assholes can affect which rights you're willing to exercise, but not which rights you have. Even if my boss loses his mind and tells me to move our whole frontend from Perl to C#, Perl is still free software.
BeOS isn't free because there are people who have and use it who can't have it modified to suit.
Re:I would like Stallman more... by kiwaiti · 2002-03-25 23:29 · Score: 1

I do not, of course, know anything about the program you mentioned. I assume that, in the past, you have basically customized an existing application program (owned by your company) which you are now "customizing for generic use".
It's not just that I want an alternative to make money. I want to be able to provide my customers with the stuff that they want. Can't you grasp that users exist? That they might actually be happy if I'm able to sell my product to many so the costs are low? You're just an incredibly selfish person making it seem like you want what's best for users. But in reality, you just want free software and access to source code. The wishes of the majority of users seem to be irrelevant to you.
Rant aside, you seem to be concerned about the people or companies that cannot now enjoy the benefits of your product because they can't afford a customized version.
Imagine if your "generic" version was OSed and included in standard distributions of whatever (read: readily accessible). This would not prevent you from still offering support and customization just like you've been doing all the time (if the market is large enough, you might suddenly face competition, but AFAIK competition is A Good Thing [tm], and you would still obviously be the best qualified to do the job). It might even work with the GPL if there is sufficient customization that cannot easily be transferred between companies.
On the other hand, those who can't afford your services could use the open version, maybe even convincing them that they can afford your service after all. In PHB terms, you would get a lot of free exposure and possibly contributions from the community.
Sometimes, The Right Thing To Do might actually be feasible.
Kiwaiti

--
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
Re:I would like Stallman more... by kiwaiti · 2002-03-26 00:54 · Score: 1

Which is preposterous. The average user of software has absolutely *ZERO* chance of ever understanding sources for even the most trivial applications, let alone the ones they use to go about their workaday lives.
While in RMS's ivory tower I'm sure everyone is comfortable opening up and rebuilding source. Out in the mud, no secretary on earth is going to open up the source for Werd, no accountant is ever going to understand the code for Excel, and no grandma is ever going to open up Outlook. And even if they did, do you really expect gramma to understand how the build process works? "What's a compiler? Did that come with my Dell?"
Shift focus. Consider the company a user, not just the secretary. If bugs are bad enough to itch a large company, scratching might involve setting the IT staff to resolving the issue. The secretary isn't supposed to reinstall her doze box or apply binary patches, either.
Kiwaiti

--
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters

Not-free as in closed minded. by Picass0 · 2002-03-21 04:02 · Score: 2

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

Sorry Richard, but this is how some of people put bread of the table. There is nothing evil about seeking training, obtaining a skill, and then marketing that skill.

Recently NaN went out of business. They published a closed source but free beer piece of software called Blender. They gave a free version away and sold manuals and such to support the company. Towards the end, they came out with a slightly higher end product and charged money for it, while still maintaining the free version. It was the best peice of 3d software for Linux, bar none.

I would pay good money to bring back NaN and Blender. I financially support them, and would again.

Some people write free software and give it because they can afford to. Linus is one of those people. Good for him. But if he decided tomorrow that he needed to sell the Linux kernel instead of giving it away, I'd pay for it. He's proven it's worthwhile. And RMS would shaft Linus publicly for it.

I guess what I wish RMS could understand is that free and charity are good, but supporting small business and start ups and freeware independant programmers is also good.

When an underdog company produces a piece of software that beats whatever M$ has made, RMS could get behind them, but he won't. RMS will have none of that.

Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Frater+219 · 2002-03-21 04:16 · Score: 2

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

That is a factually incorrect statement.
Please see Selling Free Software, an official FSF position document which encourages free software authors to sell software, for a counterexample.
Please retract your error.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Picass0 · 2002-03-21 04:31 · Score: 2

I will not retract my statement. RMS wants all software code to be open under terms such as GPL. The code is the ONLY THING that a small company or independant programmer owns. And I think they have the right to own that code and keep it private if they so choose.

While opening the code would allow wider development, bug-checking and all of that good stuff, it also removes the incentive to pay the original author.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by wfrp01 · 2002-03-21 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Picass0 · 2002-03-21 04:49 · Score: 2

I have paid for GNU software. I paid Red Hat for it's distribution of Linux.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean I should pay RMS for some GNU software? Well, when you give your code away to your competetors you have to accept that they may package your code with something that adds to it's value. Red Hat has done just that. And next time I may buy Mandrake. They took Red Hat's (and RMS's) code, and added still more. Just because my money didn't go in RMS's pocket doesn't mean I didn't buy it.

In the end, I'm looking for the best software, and as a consumer, I appreciate the fact that Linux distros are cheaper that Windows.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by JasonAsbahr · 2002-03-21 05:30 · Score: 1

The reason why I couldn't get behind Blender is because it was free-as-in-beer but *not* free-as-in-freedom. The only hope for a 3D animation tool to catch on enough to challenge 3D Studio Max, Maya, and Lightwave is to be open source.

Even dual licensing (and charge extra for commercial use) would have been better.

$0.02.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by TheFrood · 2002-03-21 05:58 · Score: 3, Informative

I will not retract my statement. RMS wants all software code to be open under terms such as GPL. The code is the ONLY THING that a small company or independant programmer owns. And I think they have the right to own that code and keep it private if they so choose.

Again, factually incorrect. Stallman and the FSF have always supported the right of authors to keep their code private and not release it at all. In fact, the FSF objected to Apple's license for the free portions of OSX, because the license said that the source code had to be made available for any deployed version of the software, rather than any published version of the software. Stallman has always held that authors should have the right to keep their code private if they wish.

What Stallman and the FSF object to is publishing/selling software and then restricting the freedom of those you sell it to to use it how they wish.

You're zero for two so far, buddy. If you're interested in debating Stallman's opinions, I suggest you do some reading and find out what they actually are.

TheFrood

--
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by wfrp01 · 2002-03-21 07:04 · Score: 2

Oh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were concerned about the welfare of programmers. You're paying for "added value", you say? Umm, how about the "added value" of creating the software in the first place? I don't disagree with your decision to use Red Hat or Mandrake. Just don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of morally superior developer advocate.

he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

Yeah, whatever. I love a good rant, but at least try to get your facts straight.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Picass0 · 2002-03-21 07:25 · Score: 2

>>Oh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were concerned about the welfare of programmers. You're paying for "added value", you say? Umm, how about the "added value" of creating the software in the first place? I don't disagree with your decision to use Red Hat or Mandrake.

What's wrong with supporting the better developer? When RMS gives his code away, you can't get upset when someone else makes money with it.

>>Just don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of morally superior developer advocate.

Oh please. I wasn't passing myself off as Ghandi. I just get sick of RMS's sanctimonious Free-everything crap.

>>he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

>>Yeah, whatever. I love a good rant, but at least try to get your facts straight.

Yeah, whatever.

Many people/companies think they can't sell software and give it away at the same time. Hence my Blender example. RMS wants everyone to give away the source code, and gets pissy when someone thinks that might threaten their business model.

It's not enought just to give away a free copy of the software. They actually need to surrender their IP.

/rant
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:37 · Score: 1

It's not about giving away binaries for free, can you get it?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by ChaosDiscordSimple · 2002-03-21 09:10 · Score: 2

RMS is so biased towards free software that anything that he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.

Not true.
Proprietary software is evil in his mind. Even if you give software away for free, it's evil in his mind if it's proprietary. Selling software is perfectly fine in his mind, so long as it is "free software". In practice, this makes it very hard, (and maybe impossible) to sell software, but that's not his goal, it's just a side effect.
Stallman doesn't even demand that you use the GPL. He would rather everyone use GPL, but GPL incompatible free licenses are acceptable.
Sorry Richard, but this is how some of people put bread of the table. There is nothing evil about seeking training, obtaining a skill, and then marketing that skill.

Your typical slaver was well trained as a businessman and ship's captain who simply used their skill. Illegal drug dealers are provided training and skills by their suppliers to increase their success in selling their product. Opium poppy farmers certainly have to learn how to properly cultivate their plants and work hard to bring them to market. In all of these cases people are trying to put bread on the table.
Ultimately, if society decides a product, service, or business practice is unethical, the fact that some people would lose their jobs is irrelevant. Stallman feels proprietary software in unethical. The appropriate response is to argue why it is ethical. Perhaps Stallman is wrong, but he's not wrong just because we might lose our jobs.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by HiThere · 2002-03-21 09:34 · Score: 2

I'm sorry that NAN went under, but do you have any idea of just how many closed source packages I've bought from companies that went under. And many of them were far better (at least for my purposes) than anything remaining on the market.

So closed source is no answer here, and not providing a free version is no guarantee of survival. I have lots of "scars" to prove it. (Not as many as the people who worked for those companies, but enough that I get nervous around any closed source purchase.)
.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by spitzak · 2002-03-21 09:42 · Score: 2

You are just setting yourself up to look like an idiot.

You said right in your message: "NaN published a closed source but free beer piece of software called Blender"

Okay, try to remember what RMS is in favor of.

Hmm, remember "free as in speech, as opposed to free as in beer"? How about a more obvious one: "closed source" is what RMS is against.

NaN did not fail because it followed RMS. It did exactly the opposite of what RMS wants! (not that that is a proof that disobeying RMS leads to failure, either).
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. by Chris+Johnson · 2002-03-21 11:40 · Score: 2

"Well, when you give your code away to your competetors..."
This is the best example I've yet seen on why RMS's hardline stance is correct and necessary.
A competitor is someone who is trying to cut you down- perhaps even in a thoroughly hostile way. They're playing a zero-sum game and you have to lose for them to win.
RMS came up with the much-maligned GPL and continues to try to loudly publicize his concepts on this sort of thing. Now, what is the one biggest complaint some people have with the GPL?
It is that they are not permitted to be competitors under the GPL.
They're compelled to cooperate and not given a choice in the matter. Linux distributions are NOT COMPETITORS with GNU software: RMS simply wants to be damned sure of furthering his concepts through the proliferation of the software, and there are plenty of people fighting him.
The whole POINT of the GPL is that there are NO competitors within it. The concept of software competitors is rendered about as sensible as people you meet being linguistics competitors, competing for rights to say certain words. Within the GNU sphere, everyone is potentially a programmer, and nobody is a competitor. Cooperating within a larger community isn't just a good idea, it's the law! :D
This can arise naturally, and has. It can ALSO be destroyed through the actions of others, and that too has happened, and continues to try to happen.
And you can go on considering yourself a passive consumer of 'competing products' in the touching faith that this 'competing' will bring you what you need: but right now, it is RMS and his outright denial of the 'competing' process with software development who's brought you the 'products' you USE.
You don't need to begin programming and participating- but it would be a good thing if you understood why GNU and Linux are not 'competitors' in any rational sense of the word. Maybe you can at some point understand why your buying or not buying 'products' is not a measure of your significance in the free software world...
To paraphrase Douglas Coupland, in the world of GNU software, YOU ARE NOT A MARKET. You're more like a citizen. :)

Re:hagio what? by KtotheK · 2002-03-21 04:02 · Score: 1

A hagiography is a biography of a saint.

I've pretty much already formed my opinion ... by xtermz · 2002-03-21 04:05 · Score: 1

...of RMS ... by watching Revolution OS last monday night on Sundance channel.

In my mind, the guy does more harm than good for the Linux & Open Source movement, however, his achievments cant be overlooked. You can sense the frustration Linus seems to have for RMS when he brought his kids on stage at LinuxWorld while RMS was giving his speech about Linux being called 'GNU/Linux'.

Yes, the guy is a genious, but like most, he's an eccentric one at that... Of course many dont see past his quirks, and just label him a pain...

--

I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.

Re:I've pretty much already formed my opinion ... by jcast · 2002-03-21 08:40 · Score: 1

In my mind, the guy does more harm than good for the Linux & Open Source movement,

That's the goal! Stallman thinks his association in people's minds with ``Linux & Open Source'' is helping those movements and the expense of GNU and Free Software. So, he has to destroy that association to help his movement. I'm sure he knows that'll hurt ``Linux & Open Source'', and I'm sure he doesn't care.

--
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Re:I've pretty much already formed my opinion ... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:50 · Score: 1

But what if Linux would never existed without the GCC?

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:I've pretty much already formed my opinion ... by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:53 · Score: 1

You are speaking almost as if communism was ever corectly implented.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.

Theory And Reality by FortKnox · 2002-03-21 04:06 · Score: 1, Flamebait

True, RMS' crusade involves a wonderful ideology that is utopian in theory. But so was Marx with Communism. Some things in theory aren't necessarily the best in practice.
Now, I know that the Free Software Movement is working well, but RMS is always moaning about how some things aren't "free enough", or how the "proprietary" software is "evil", regardless of form. Being a purist in his thoughts is almost fanatical. There needs to be a balance in his crusade. I'm just glad most believers in the FSM know the balance, and don't follow RMS entirely.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:hagio what? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-21 04:07 · Score: 1, Informative

Try "hagiography" as your search term. It's a biography of a saint.

Stallman one of the most interesting people alive by QuantumG · 2002-03-21 04:08 · Score: 4, Funny

You gotta get out more.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Ahem... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-21 04:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Yes, we all like to discover something new and jump on the latest bandwagon

No "we" don't!

Sencerly,
The Persian National Society of CP/M and VAX programmers.

Re:Is it just me . . . . by Codifex+Maximus · 2002-03-21 04:14 · Score: 2

Heh bring the Unabomber into this huh?

I read alot of the Unabomber's Manifesto. It makes alot of sense from one point of view; we are destroying our planet with technology. However, this is where my opinions differ from the Unabomber - to wit: Blowing people up is not the answer.

So, if you are going to compare Richard Stallman's writing to the Unabomber's then that is ok in the sense that they both have academic backgrounds - they just have different methods of achieving their goals.

Your assertion then carries no weight.

--
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.

Chrysler did by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 04:15 · Score: 2

General Motors would not promote even it's best engineer to be the companies CEO

Maybe not, but when Chrysler promoted Lee Iococca (formal training: engineering) to CEO they were the happiest carmaker in Detroit.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

Re:Chrysler did by CathedralRulz · 2002-03-21 04:30 · Score: 1

He is an engineer by training (masters degree) but was quickly moved to sales.
Trust me - engineers make about the worst executives you could imagine. Lets be realistic.
Iaccoca was a natural salesman/leader.
Re:Chrysler did by JohnsonJohnson · 2002-03-21 04:33 · Score: 1

Although trained as an engineer, Iacocca was primarily a salesman.
Re:Chrysler did by Jason+Earl · 2002-03-21 04:50 · Score: 2

By your definition engineers are people who are bad at marketing and sales, but that's ridiculous. Someone "trained" as an engineer, is an engineer. Lee Iaccoca was an engineer that is good at sales and leadership. Engineering, salesmanship, and leadership skills are hardly mutually exclusive.
Re:Chrysler did by r00tarded · 2002-03-21 11:47 · Score: 1

obviously you have never met RMS.

--

four-oh-four
Re:Chrysler did by Jason+Earl · 2002-03-21 14:36 · Score: 2

Ha Ha, way to bring me back on topic.
No matter what detractors might say about RMS, the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright to more lines of software than most software companies, and there is an even larger body of software that is released under the GPL but whose copyright is not held by the FSF. You can count the people who are more influential in the software industry on my old shop teacher's left hand. You may disagree with RMS, but you can't discount his abilities as a hacker and as a leader.

Re:Stallman one of the most interesting people ali by thunderbee · 2002-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1

No, he really is. He is a man of convictions, and lives by these conviction. Not something many people do. Very very few indeed.
You really have to meet the man, or at least attend a speech. He is intelligent and will not simply throw ideas, but demonstrate how he came to these beliefs. You might disagree with him on matters of faith, but not on the logic of his arguments.
Of course, this point may be kinda wasted here ;-)

--
In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.

Calling Larry Wall by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative

I wish Larry Wall would get more involved in promoting the general idea of open source. Larry would be so much easier for government and corporate types to accept, and he certainly has a solid reputation in the open source world. This is not to say anything about ESR or RMS, just that L?W would make an excellent addition to the public relations efforts of open source.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

Re:Calling Larry Wall by glwtta · 2002-03-21 20:43 · Score: 2

I think you've hit on the real reason here - he can't accomplish anything without a middle name that makes for a cool TLA.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

T. Boone Pickens by GMontag · 2002-03-21 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Free as in free to use but restricted by Fweeky · 2002-03-21 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm afraid Mr Stallman gives "freedom" a different meaning to me.

When I want my code to be free as in freedom, I put it under a BSD, MIT or Beerware license; why should I decide someone else is less deserving of using my code than anyone else? That's not very free.

Sure, people can place restrictions on their changes, but those changes are their work and I'd rather not take away their freedom in controling it, and I definately don't want to take away their freedom of control over code that happens to use something I've written.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with the GPL, just that pushing it as a "free" license rather pushes the concept of freedom to breaking point IMO.

Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by unapersson · 2002-03-21 05:15 · Score: 1

But then if I download a binary closed sourced program based on your code it is not longer free, as I can't then amend the program I've just downloaded. How is that more free than the GPL? Or is your idea of freedom that the code is free for the packager but not the consumer?
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by distributed.karma · 2002-03-21 05:36 · Score: 1

When I want my code to be free as in freedom, I put it under a BSD, MIT or Beerware license;
A 'truly free' program cannot be under any license.

--
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by Fweeky · 2002-03-21 06:23 · Score: 2

> But then if I download a binary closed sourced
> program based on your code it is not longer free,
> as I can't then amend the program I've just downloaded

They were free to close their work, I'm free to open my work, you're free to use my open works over their closed ones. I'm not seeing the problem here.

If having access to source is such a big deal for you, use only open source software, but why should you think you know better than the originator what they should do with their code?

> Or is your idea of freedom that the code is free
> for the packager but not the consumer?

My code is free, their code may not be, and whether they make it so or not is up to them. So they included some of my work; big deal, it's not as if it closes the original work, it just means they didn't have to spend the next 3 weeks redoing what has already been written.

If they were going to release the code anyway, it doesn't matter; if they weren't, 999 times out of 1000 they'll either find a work they can take, or spend 3 weeks rolling their own. I'd rather those 999 projects not waste several man-year's effort than 1 project release their code grudgingly (or waste time pushing my work into a plugin so they don't have to release much anyway).
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by Fweeky · 2002-03-21 06:31 · Score: 2

> A 'truly free' program cannot be under any license.

That's freedom to claim you wrote the code and freedom to sue me if it's buggy, not freedom to put the code in your closed source baby crushing machine or shove it in the Linux kernel with a few lines stating who originally wrote it.

If GNU can have their restricted concept of freedom, I'll have my less restricted concept of freedom :)

Even your "'truely free'" code needs to state that it's public domain; otherwise by default you get no rights.
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by jcast · 2002-03-21 08:51 · Score: 1

The problem is that there are two differing definitions of ``freedom''. The first is the Capitalist definition, going back at least to Adam Smith:

You are permitted to use your property in any way which does not infinge on the reciprocal rights of others.

The second is the Socialist definition, going back to (I believe) John Dewey:

You are physically capable of doing whatever you want, as long as getting you your capabilities does not impare the capabilities of others.

Stallman, when he describes the GPL as ``free'', is using the Capitalist sense. Granting that Free Software is more ``free'' than Proprietary Software, FS must be a property right (in the broad Libertarian sense). So, then, any ``freedom'' to infringe on the freedom of others is not Capitalist freedom. It is, of course, quite possibly Socialist freedom, but that's not what Stallman is talking about.

Executive summary: Stallman is using a completely different (albiet legitimate) definition of ``freedom'' from yours. So, arguing with him (or his supporters) about whether the GPL is ``free'' is pointless: you're both right.

HTH

--
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by distributed.karma · 2002-03-21 10:08 · Score: 1

> Even your "'truely free'" code needs to state that it's public domain; otherwise by default you get no rights.
Except the copyright, which is there automatically for everything you write.

--
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
Re:Free as in free to use but restricted by Phil+Hands · 2002-03-21 14:23 · Score: 1
OK, check this out for freedom:
- Impoverished hacker sells his time to Unenlightened corp.
- Corp tells hacker to add some feature to a Free Software project.
- Hacker does so, assuming that he's going to release his enhancement once written.
- Corp then tries to stop him publishing, so they can go proprietary, and make money (largely out of other people's work).
- If the code in question is under the BSD license, the hacker has the freedom to get shafted by his employer, and the users have the freedom to get all the normal grief of being tied into a proprietary product, which then gets dropped, or is not properly supported.
- If it's a modification to a GPLed work. the employer is obliged to do what the hacker wanted to do in the first place, or discard all his work.
Not that this affects me too much, since I work for myself, but I've certainly used the "I'd love to sign the rights over to you, but this software's GPLed so I'm not allowed to" line to shut up some of the people that have tried to make my work proprietary in the past.
--

Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way

How does selling free software work economically? by knabar · 2002-03-21 04:31 · Score: 1

From the page:

The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.

So if I sell my piece of free software, whoever buys it is explicitly allowed to redistribute it unmodified. Which means I can sell a few copies, everybody else then can/will get it for free (as is beer) from who bought it from me. How is this economically viable for me?

(This is meant to be a serious questions - I don't get it)

from behind glass by Pope · 2002-03-21 04:34 · Score: 2, Funny

You don't like emacs, do you, Clarice?

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Tie to grab by dmaxwell · 2002-03-21 04:36 · Score: 3

They should fire their entire legal department for being flaming morons then. Every commercial EULA has all sorts of language disclaiming liability and the Government is falling all over themselves making these EULAs legally enforcable. Believe me, if an Oracle database blew up at your bank and cost them millions of dollars in business Larry Ellison wouldn't even have to so much as say "I'm sorry".

The "legal liability" argument for commercial software has no legs whatsoever.

Re:Tie to grab by CrazyLegs · 2002-03-21 05:03 · Score: 2

We don't rely on boilerplate EULA arrangements. We contract exactly what we want and what obligations exist in terms of support levels, etc. If an Oracle database blows up, it matters not what Larry Ellison says. This is the way of world in large corporate customer environments. But, we're big enough to make this work (not without difficulties, though).
The real issue is economic, though. If we use an open source product, we have no one to modify that product (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and no timetable on which to operate. Ultimately, we have to either (1) rely on garnering support in the open source community or (2) fork the code on our own. Neither of which is particularly effective for us.

--
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Re:Tie to grab by JordanH · 2002-03-21 05:29 · Score: 2
- If an Oracle database blows up, it matters not what Larry Ellison says.
Really? Can you cite specific examples where damages have been awarded based on buggy software when those warrantees had been explicitly renounced in the EULAs?
What does happen is that if customers complain too loudly, the manufacturers become concerned about their reputation.
Which is why various organizations have sprung up to offer support for Free Software products, like Covalent for Apache, Linuxcare (and the distro vendors) for Linux, several firms for Postgresql, etc.
- The real issue is economic, though. If we use an open source product, we have no one to modify that product (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and no timetable on which to operate.
Like Commercial software vendors give you timetables for bug fixes? They don't generally, in my experience. The commercial vendors can and do EOL products (with outstanding bugs) you depend on requiring you to completely retool your operation. This couldn't happen with Open Source.
Re:Tie to grab by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 06:05 · Score: 1

Anyone can modify the product. You don't have to somehow get your vendor's attention or pay monopoly prices for the time of their developers. Hire a third party and get whatever enhancements you can imagine.
Re:Tie to grab by Xerithane · 2002-03-21 08:26 · Score: 2

Sorry to interject, but this is the whole point to support contracts. And this is where enterprise level software differs from your off-the-shelf variety. The reason why Oracle is so expensive is not for the actual database software, it's for the reliability and the support contracts.

If you are running a business that runs a couple million transactions a day, you want a tie to grab. You want someone who you can call and get down there in under an hour if the software barfs. That's why this stuff is there. That's why GPL software (unless they sell support contracts) wont make it into enterprise level business (with the exception of Apache) At one job, we had an SGI box that started acting up, within 4 hours we had a support team out there working on the box. Ended up having to replace the entire box, but that's enterprise support. It's like the insurance business almost, hoping only a small percentage of your clients have issues.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:Tie to grab by MAXOMENOS · 2002-03-21 08:28 · Score: 2

The real issue (against using open source software) is economic, though. If we use an open source product, we have no one to modify that product (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and no timetable on which to operate. Ultimately, we have to either (1) rely on garnering support in the open source community or (2) fork the code on our own. Neither of which is particularly effective for us.

I can think of several companies (Red Hat, IBM, Ximian) that would be more than happy to enter into a contract with your bank to modify open source software as required, and stick to a time table to do so. In fact, part of the beauty of Open Source Software is that Red Hat and IBM (for example) have the talent available to modify Open Source software that they do not own. They can do this, precisely because of the way Open Source software is licensed.

Additionally, there's quite a bit of open source software (e.g., MySQL) that is owned and produced by companies whose whole business is that particular project.

Finally, if you find a piece of Open Source software that you like, but which doesn't have support from a corporation, you can set up an agreement with a consulting firm to maintain that software. Admittedly, you'd have to really like that program to do this, but it can be done.
In short: there are plenty of ties for your bank to grab, even if you use open source software.

Now, please understand: I'm not saying that there is an open source application that meets your needs, right now. I am saying that your stated objections don't make sense. A big bank is going to have ties to grab whether the software is open source or closed source.

--
Finding God in a Dog
Re:Tie to grab by JordanH · 2002-03-21 08:40 · Score: 2

But, the previous poster was referring to EULAs and bugs and how they don't put up with that from Larry Ellison.
I anticipated your argument in my comment by pointing out that you can get support contracts for a lot of Free Software today.
Btw, why do you think that Apache is different? Actually, you can get a support contract for Apache from Covalent, but why do few people have one?
Because, it just works. You don't really need one. I think this could be true of a lot of other Open Source products in the future. This would lead to much more reliable systems all around, eh?
But, if you must have a tie to grab, I think there will be more and more ties getting into the "grab me" business for Enterprise support of Open Source/Free Software.
Re:Tie to grab by Xerithane · 2002-03-21 10:07 · Score: 1

Oracle doesn't really have an EULA to work with. If a company is shelling out the $80K to get Oracle in their operations, they know damn well it will be working or someones head rolls.

Apache is the only open source application that people have utmost faith in working. Why? Because it has a huge proven record of working. I'd say the second "best" open source application is probably CVS. Another thing, if Apache dies you restart it. If CVS pukes, you can fix it easily. If you have a DB you lose data, nobody wants that.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:Tie to grab by JordanH · 2002-03-21 10:35 · Score: 1

Actually, a lot of people use Oracle on Linux in Enterprise settings. Linux is an Open Soure application. You can lose a DB through filesystem corruption.
I believe you are mistaken about Oracle. I believe it does have a license that disclaims fitness for any particular purpose.
I could be mistaken, but I think I saw that last time I installed Oracle.
Re:Tie to grab by Xerithane · 2002-03-21 12:02 · Score: 2

Oh true, Oracle does not guarantee data integrity and all that. However, heads still roll if Oracle screws up. If someone pays $80K for a database solution, they pay for someone to blame and also someone to come fix the problem.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Dick vs. the rest of the world. by heroine · 2002-03-21 04:37 · Score: 2

It may be about freedom to Dick but it's all about money to the rest of the world. Independance from corporate authority is neat but not having to pay for software is neater. First, banks don't recognize source code as repayment for loans, they still want money. Second, .coms didn't go bankrupt because the source code was uneditable but because they couldn't pay for it. Third, the most popular open source projects are free front ends to commercial libraries. If you argued with that you were moderated to -1 in those stories.

Agreed, and I think the GPL is great by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 04:42 · Score: 2

The GPL comes with responsibilities. Those repsonsibilities are extremely reasonable and almost never involve costs that any company is likely to care about (no, it doesn't "infect" your code). Nevertheless, those responsibilities exist, and so I've always felt that calling it "free as in freedom" software is not quite accurate: your actions are limited in certain regards. This is one more reason I prefer "open source" over "free software".

--
Miko O'Sullivan

I have yet to find... by kybernator · 2002-03-21 04:44 · Score: 1

...a better text for getting to know rms than the famous Hiroo Yamagata interview with him, which you can find, among other places, here:
http://www.kde.org/food/rms.html
After I met him in person and made experiences similar to those of Mr Yamagata, I wrote this comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1173 &cid=17086 86
Even though I still admire this guy in a way, his bruised ego can get on peoples nerves, it sure does that to me. Why can't he call this OS "GNU/Linux" and let others call it whatever they like, as long as both partners in the communication know what the other is talking about? Usually context will make clear if you are talking about an OS or a kernel.
Freedom of software is fine, but what about a little more freedom of speech for the people you communicate with, Mr. Stallman?
(C'mon, mod me down, I criticised rms:))

Re:I have yet to find... by Chris+Johnson · 2002-03-21 11:19 · Score: 2

Heh. This Hiroo Yamagata does seem to be breathtakingly unclear on the concept! I have a hard time imagining how someone could more effectively drive RMS up the wall.
It's like, "So, RMS, do you think commercial adoption of your GNU products will help cut down software piracy?" :D
I am reading the KDE.org interview you've linked to, and feeling incredibly sorry for RMS :D

An introduction: Hackers by ajs · 2002-03-21 04:46 · Score: 2

The review mentions that this book assumes too much background. If you're looking for a book that gives you or others that background, I heartily recommend Hackers by Steven Levy It's a wonderful tour throught what it meant to be a hacker right up to the mid 80s.

I imagine the Stallman book would make a lot more sense after reading it. Also, if you can get ahold of "In the Beginning Was the Command Line" by Neil Stephenson, its a wonderful guide to the history of OSes on personal computers, which plays into this as well.

Re:An introduction: Hackers by cdupree · 2002-03-21 11:06 · Score: 1

Just FYI, you can easily get to the excellent
article "In the beginning was the command line"
by Neal Stephenson at

http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

I especially love his metaphor of MS, Apple, BE,
and Linux as a set of car dealerships.

"You don't know how to maintain a station wagon
either!"

HTH...
Re:An introduction: Hackers by ajs · 2002-03-22 10:50 · Score: 2

Yep, that's where I first saw it. I now own the soft-cover. The car-dealership/crossroads thing is really great!

Glad someone else has heard of it ;-)

Just chapter three? by Charlie+Bill · 2002-03-21 04:46 · Score: 1

Where's the free, uncensored, open-source online version, eh?

Oh, I suppose that's gnu.org...

Re:Just chapter three? by chadm1967 · 2002-03-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Didn't you read the article? The complete book will be available around June.....

I wish people would read the entire article before commenting.

Speak for yourself by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 04:50 · Score: 1

Trust me - engineers make about the worst executives you could imagine. Lets be realistic.

My boss (who is also chief owner) is an engineer and is an excellent boss and executive. Not only does he have the respect and friendship of the entire company, but he's kept the company profitable (and, ergo, us employed) while most of the rest of the tech industry was going down the crapper.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by bleuchat · 2002-03-21 04:51 · Score: 1

So if I sell my piece of free software, whoever buys it is explicitly allowed to redistribute it unmodified. Which means I can sell a few copies, everybody else then can/will get it for free (as is beer) from who bought it from me. How is this economically viable for me?

(This is meant to be a serious questions - I don't get it)

Honestly, I think the GPL relies on the fact that most humans are lazy. Seriously. I buy a GPL'ed program and install it. I could rip the CD and put the ISO online, but I'd have to take time to do that. Even if I do, you have to download it, burn it to a CD and use it. It's much easier to just fork over the $15, or however much it is, and get the CD yourself.

Linux is a perfect example of this. I can download Red Hat or Mandrake or whatever distro I want, burn it to a bunch of CDs, and install it on my computer. But it's so much easier to go to the store, buy the box, and use those CDs.

You may not agree, but I think that's at least one reason it works.

Talking in Cambridge next week by Ed+Avis · 2002-03-21 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Richard Stallman will be giving a talk on 'Software patents: obstacles to software development' on the 25th of March in Cambridge. I expect he will talk with reference to _all_ software developers, not just free software, because he has said in the past that both free and proprietary software developers have a common interest here.

That's Cambridge, Cambridgeshire rather than Cambridge, MA BTW. Send mail to rmstalk@fipr.org for details.

This is important right now because of the proposed EU patent directive; it would be good for the mainstream press to attend.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Re:Talking in Cambridge next week by sde1000 · 2002-03-21 05:20 · Score: 2

Here are the details of the talk on the 25th.

As the special guest of the Foundation for Information Policy Research:
Richard Stallman
Founder of the GNU Project, and campaigner for free software which people are at liberty to copy, redistribute and change. Winner of Grace Hopper Award, Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award, and Takeda Award....
Software Patents - Obstacles to software development
Software patents are patents on software ideas. A typical computer program today combines many software ideas, just as a symphony combines many musical ideas. Inevitably most of them have to be old ideas. Software patents mean that every design decision brings with it a risk of getting sued.
Date: Monday 25th March 2002
Time: 16:15-17:30
Venue: Large Lecture Theatre, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
Directions: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/UoCCL/contacts/
Poster: http://www.fipr.org/stallman.html
This event will also see the launch of the "Friends of FIPR" - this will be your chance to become a founding supporter of the UK's only effective think tank addressing Internet issues.

All are welcome!
Re:Talking in Cambridge next week by distributed.karma · 2002-03-21 05:32 · Score: 1

The exact place of RMS's talk is the new computer laboratory a.k.a. William Gates Building. How ironic.
Then again, I'm off for a holiday just on the day before.. great timing :-/ (I'm studying in Cambridge).

--
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

Celebrity Boxing by owlmeat · 2002-03-21 04:54 · Score: 1

RMS vs. Eric Raymond.

I'd like to see that.

--
They stab it with their steely knives,

But they just can't kill the beast.

Re:Stallman one of the most interesting people ali by gruntvald · 2002-03-21 04:59 · Score: 1

Your URL and email address would suggest that you don't get out *at all* !!! heh, heh , heh

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by knabar · 2002-03-21 05:02 · Score: 1

Linux is a perfect example of this. I can download Red Hat or Mandrake or whatever distro I want, burn it to a bunch of CDs, and install it on my computer. But it's so much easier to go to the store, buy the box, and use those CDs. You may not agree, but I think that's at least one reason it works.

I agree we disagree :-) and I think the lazyness argument works the other way around... For a lot of people (at least the ones with fast Internet connections), it is easier to download the ISO images and burn them than to actually get in the car and drive to the store.

I just did it two days ago with Mandrake 8.2 - which I could not have even bought at a store at that point.

Also, most of the software is small enough to be easily up- and downloaded, only few applications are big enough that it is not possible doing that over a modem is a reasonably short amount of time.

What I think this model comes down to is donations - if people think a free software program is good, they give money to the original author. But again, lazyness prevails most of the time and it does not happen.

Serendipity by Ray+Dassen · 2002-03-21 05:06 · Score: 2

When O'Reilly's onlamp.com published an article on this bibliography, their ad serving system revealed itself to be an AI with a sense of humour by choosing a remarkably inappropriate IBM ad to go along with it.

Re:Emacs? by hey! · 2002-03-21 05:08 · Score: 2

I'm a vi man myself. Simple tools, working in concert is my style. Emacs is simply too much for most of my day to day work.

But every I run across an Editing Task from Hell. Some kind of manipulation of a text data file or a set of bloated source files that is highly repetitive but not simple subsitution. The kind of thing that to do in a typical GUI editor you have to spend a few hours doing a mime's impression of an industrial robot.

Then I bust out emacs, which magically turns a day's worth of drudgery into a few minutes of stimulating mental excercise. I'd call an editor that can do that a work of genius.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by Picass0 · 2002-03-21 05:10 · Score: 2

Honestly, I think the GPL relies on the fact that most humans are lazy.

Or how about the idea that I support the effort financially so it continues to serve me.

I buy a copy of Red Hat about once a year. I don't have to - my cable modem could grab the ISO overnight and I could burn it in the morning. But it's my way of supporting the cause. And I'm not distro biased - next time it may be Mandrake or someone who has the better mousetrap.

Stallman on 'Revolution OS' by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-21 05:11 · Score: 1

he was in this horrible dumb-umentary of a film, beating the same dead horse. he describes how he would hack users' passwords at MIT to try to convince them that they should use Enter (i.e. no) password. what does this have to do with making source code available such that it can be corrected, extended, enhanced, etc. to suit individual needs and for the greater good of the computer community? i mean, if i want a private account in which i can store my financial info, personal info, and private collection of pictures of fat midgets having sex with young animals, why should that be 'open' to RMS? what, i ask you dear reader, does this have to do with open source code?

Re:Stallman one of the most interesting people ali by QuantumG · 2002-03-21 05:14 · Score: 2

Have met him. He's cool, if not a little bigoted and scary. I just think there's about 8 million people who are more interesting than him (and no, I do not wish to name them).

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Is it just me or... by Ozan · 2002-03-21 05:41 · Score: 1

...should the biography of RMS not be under the GFDL?

most interesting? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2002-03-21 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stallman may be one of the most interesting people alive right now

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...

Re:most interesting? by extrasolar · 2002-03-21 16:47 · Score: 2

"He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting."

That can be said of anyone you disagree with heavily. Also, it is an ad hominem attack. You disagree with him because he's a fanatatic. "fanatic" is basically your own judgement of him. You might as well say that he's wrong because he is an atheist or because he smells (not that I would know).

Think critically about what he is actually saying. That is the only way to know which is ethically correct. Yes! Ethics! Sorry...I know you don't like the word but its important when your license affects other people.

Also, only take RMS's viewpoints from his own writings. There are *many* misconceptions about him. Try www.gnu.org/philosophy/ . You may realize he is more rational than you may presume.
Re:most interesting? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2002-03-21 20:00 · Score: 1

Also, only take RMS's viewpoints from his own writings.
You mean like his incessant rants about GNU/linux? His fanaticism and uncompromising nature have been well-documented, even by himself. He may mean well, but at the same time he appears to be living in a reality of his own, a reality that is far removed from the world the rest of us live in.
Re:most interesting? by extrasolar · 2002-03-21 20:43 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, you won't even oblige my simple request--to read it from the horses mouth. If you had, you certainly couldn't call his writing style as a "rant". Your post is certainly more of a rant than what RMS has ever wrote.

I will counter your belief with simple fact. Most of the software on any GNU/Linux system is a result of his influence and his reality. Its not our job to accept reality but rather to question it and make right what is wrong.

But rather you are a sheep angry at another from straying too far from the herd. How miserable.
Re:most interesting? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2002-03-22 05:53 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, you won't even oblige my simple request
Actually, I read that a long time ago. I believe his ideas are wrong. They have been shown to only work in practice if you don't need to make any money (RMS is basically living off charity), yet he keeps hanging on to his ideals and preaching them to everyone willing to listen. Nothing wrong with that per se, it just shows that he's a fanatic about his ideals, and unwilling to compromise. Just like I said. Even if you agree with his ideals, surely you must see that he is fanatical about them, and not willing to compromise in any way?

Interesting ? by valen · 2002-03-21 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Interesting ? by valen · 2002-03-21 07:06 · Score: 1

You've obviously never met the man...

Pardon? by nosferatu-man · 2002-03-21 05:48 · Score: 2

> ... the first version of GNU Emacs was released in *19*96!

You mean as opposed to the steam driven Emacs released in *18*86?

Peace, &c,
(jfb)

--
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.

Re:Pardon? by igbrown · 2002-03-21 10:08 · Score: 1

Hmm...looks like some poor proofreading on my part.

I meant 1996.

It would look like ... this by drew_kime · 2002-03-21 05:48 · Score: 2

Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did.

When did Windows 1.0 come out? And when did NT3.51 come out? Next question.

--
Nope, no sig

Re:It would look like ... this by ftobin · 2002-03-21 06:55 · Score: 2

Is Windows ready as a server? I think not. Linux wins there hands down.

Oh, and I've been using free unixes (Linux and FreeBSD) on the the desktop for the past 6 years.
Re:It would look like ... this by kz45 · 2002-03-21 07:50 · Score: 1

Is Windows ready as a server?

I guess you never heard of Windows NT, or XP...

Oh, and I've been using free unixes (Linux and FreeBSD) on the the desktop for the past 6 years

Good for you.
Re:It would look like ... this by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:14 · Score: 1

1) Linux - 1991 (development started) Windows - 1985 (first public relase) 2) Linux is not a graphical shell like Windows 1.0 so you have to compare Linux to QDOS (the OS Microsoft used to make DOS from). 3) Linux IS ready for the desktop for most uses.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:It would look like ... this by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:18 · Score: 1

I guess not everyone wants to see a BSOD on their server. Yes NT, W2K and XP do crash even on the desktop. Servers tend to have more workload that desktops.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:It would look like ... this by ftobin · 2002-03-21 08:22 · Score: 2

I guess you never heard of Windows NT, or XP...

My company's product uses a Free Software unix, database, web server, et. al. We save the government, and hence your tax dollars (if you are in the US) thousands on each machine we ship because our machine is so solid, and we don't have to pay royalties to MS.

We won our contract after a much larger company was awarded 6 million dollars and failed trying to implement on a Windows platform. 6 million of your tax dollars gone, *poof*. My company produced a working version for only half a million using Free Software, and entirely avoiding Windows and other Microsoft products. We could have saved taxpayers over 5 million dollars if people like you would realize that Free unix solutions are better than Windows ones.
Re:It would look like ... this by thelaw · 2002-03-21 09:04 · Score: 2

"6 million of your tax dollars gone, *poof*."

no, not poof.

that amount of money probably includes sales tax, which goes to fund state government goods/services. the rest of it goes to microsoft. but it doesn't stop there: microsoft has to pay its marginal costs (let's assume that all the fixed capital costs are covered already). they pay their workers, and they pay their shareholders (in theory), or they invest the leftover cash. the workers and shareholders either reinvest the money, improving future earnings potential for the rest of the economy, or they spend it, sending the money back into the system but redistributing it away from themselves. or maybe they save it, increasing th money supply (which has a stimulative effect).

anyway, after this money is distributed, microsoft reckons its tax liabilities, which recently have been 0. if they ever pay taxes, then, they will be sending money back to the government, where it has more opportunity to cycle back through the economy.

the circular flow: econ 101.

jon

--
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Re:It would look like ... this by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 09:22 · Score: 1

By that argument, we should hire vandals to destroy public property, because the repair bills will stimulate the economy.
Re:It would look like ... this by ftobin · 2002-03-21 09:26 · Score: 2

no, not poof.

I don't think you understand. The company hired to do the work (it was not Microsoft), sure, paid its employees and fed the money somehow 'back into the sytsem'. But if as taxpayer if you don't think there was anything wrong, feel free to send checks without getting anything in return to the company that failed the project and didn't deliver. You'd be doing the same thing.
Re:It would look like ... this by thelaw · 2002-04-04 04:36 · Score: 2

some would say that wars do exactly that... WWII brought the US out of the great depression, not the New Deal.

jon

--
-- http://www.cerastes.org

Bill Gates 'review' by ftobin · 2002-03-21 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny

O'Reilly has reviews of the book available. Among them, is a 'review' by Bill Gates:

Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put three man-years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product, and distributing it for free?

Bill Gates in his "Open Letter to Hobbyists," 1976

Re:Bill Gates 'review' by yukonbob · 2002-03-21 08:38 · Score: 1

What hobbyist can put three man-years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product...

Ya... you'd need to be the richest corp on the planet to do that ... ermm...

-yb
Re:Bill Gates 'review' by ftobin · 2002-03-21 08:46 · Score: 2

Ya... you'd need to be the richest corp on the planet to do that ... ermm...

I don't think that Microsoft is the 'richest' corporation there is. Certainly giants like GE are larger. It just happens that Bill Gates is the 'richest' individual.
Re:Bill Gates 'review' by yukonbob · 2002-03-21 08:55 · Score: 1

Ya... you'd need to be the richest corp on the planet to do that ... ermm...

I don't think that Microsoft is the 'richest' corporation there is. Certainly giants like GE are larger.

<joke>GE is who I was talking about...</joke>

you get the point, though...

-yb

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by balthan · 2002-03-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Honestly, I think the GPL relies on the fact that most humans are lazy. Seriously. I buy a GPL'ed program and install it. I could rip the CD and put the ISO online, but I'd have to take time to do that. Even if I do, you have to download it, burn it to a CD and use it. It's much easier to just fork over the $15, or however much it is, and get the CD yourself.

Just like music. That's why online piracy is almost non-exsistant. 'I could rip the CD and put the MP3s online, but I'd have to take time to do that. Even if I do, you have to download it, burn it to a CD and use it. It's much easier to just fork over the $15, or however much it is, and get the CD yourself.'

Re:Yet another . . MORON by seek31337 · 2002-03-21 06:47 · Score: 1

Reference: Slackware SU man page

Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)
Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over
all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the
MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator
password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from
everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give
power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I
wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under
the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root pass
word who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he can tell
the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this
impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If
you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in
whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at
first.

He's smart, but he's an idiot, too.

--
No SIG for you!

Re:Emacs? by sammy+baby · 2002-03-21 06:56 · Score: 1

Then I bust out emacs, which magically turns a day's worth of drudgery into a few minutes of stimulating mental excercise. I'd call an editor that can do that a work of genius.

I wasn't being ironic when I called it a work of genius, although I may have been when I called it twisted, and almost certainly was when I compared it to the Necronomicon.

Why isn't this book free? by zrk · 2002-03-21 07:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Some spew emitted from RMS, collected by someone else....

Why should we pay for it?

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by wfrp01 · 2002-03-21 07:33 · Score: 2

So if I sell my piece of free software, whoever buys it is explicitly allowed to redistribute it unmodified ... How is this economically viable for me?

It probably isn't. You may need to find someone to pay you to produce the software in the first place. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Oh, I know, I'm conjuring images of working in a sweatshop. Who wants to do work for hire?

But consider this. How many MS employees own the software they write? If they decided to change jobs, do they get to bring their code along? For some reason, it always seems that the purported advanges of IP rights only accrue to the big shots. Why should someone who spends years developing code somewhere be compelled to start from scratch again if they decide to switch careers?

But the proof of free software's viability is empirical. Just look around. The catalog of free software is growing and improving daily. So obviously people find a way to make it work. That's what I don't get. How can people continually make theoretical arguments against free software's viability when the quantity and quality of free software is growing by leaps and bounds?

For a concrete example of who's spending money on free software, look at IBM. They support programmers all around the world. Good for the programmers, and good for IBM.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!

Re:Emacs? by TooTallFourThinking · 2002-03-21 08:16 · Score: 1

Notepad? Yeah the last time I had to do some hardcore text manipulation, I turned to notepad. It got the job done. And that Find/Replace was a life saver! Oh wait...

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by knabar · 2002-03-21 08:21 · Score: 1

But the proof of free software's viability is empirical. Just look around. The catalog of free software is growing and improving daily. So obviously people find a way to make it work. That's what I don't get. How can people continually make theoretical arguments against free software's viability when the quantity and quality of free software is growing by leaps and bounds?

I think you make some good points, especially on how people make it work - by doing either work for hire (which only works if the company you do the work for can afford it by making money otherwise) or if you do it 'after hours' and make your living otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with this. But I still believe that if I had no regular job and had to live by selling my free (as in speech) software, I'd starve to death within weeks.

You're very wrong by Weasel+Boy · 2002-03-21 08:27 · Score: 1

"Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!"
...
"If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop."

I think you are very, very mistaken. On at least two counts.

First, Stallman is NOT against selling software. He is against selling software without the source code. There is a big difference.

Second, I don't think you realize how many programmers are employed to write software that will never see public distribution. I would guess that somewhere in excess of 90% of all programmers do NOT write software for shrink-wrapped, retail distribution. In many of those cases, the customer DOES get the source code.

Finally... how long did it take Linux to become usable? About 4 years. Windows? 10. Apache? 2 to 4. IIS? I'm still waiting. But try turning it around. How much better have Linux, Apache, and KDE gotten in the last 5 years? How much better are Windows and IIS? Now which development model do you think is more effective?

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:42 · Score: 1

"...which only works if the company you do the work for can afford it by making money otherwise..." Companies that have similar needs can come together and still need to pay the same amount. Then they only need to pay again if they need new features, bugfixes etc. not every two years.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by Theom · 2002-03-21 08:46 · Score: 1

Well, mandrake could NOT offer you the download, sure someone else could, but I think more people would buy this way - no need to search the whole internet and/or wait until someone who bought it would upload it. Of course I would still search and download as I cant aford to buy it at the moment (student) and there are no shops with shelves full of software here in Latvia.

--

mp3: l33t term for empty.

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by wfrp01 · 2002-03-21 08:50 · Score: 2

I still believe that if I had no regular job and had to live by selling my free (as in speech) software, I'd starve to death within weeks

Me too. ;)

That's the rub, that makes people chafe. Free software raises the bar. It's hard to get someone to pay you to write free software, because when you reduce software to commodity status, the returns are lower. On the other hand, I don't really dislike the idea of applying a little natural selection to the developer pool. I think fewer, higher quality developers, who have access to each other's work, can produce better software faster than a whole bunch of overpaid amateurs all working in isolation. I worry about the future of the software industry not a bit.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!

That's mean by drew_kime · 2002-03-21 08:55 · Score: 2

Linux is not a graphical shell like Windows 1.0 so you have to compare Linux to QDOS (the OS Microsoft used to make DOS from).

Man, I thought I was being tough going back to Windows 1.0 (even though it wasn't usable), but you're just being mean

--
Nope, no sig

Re:Calling Larry Wall: soiled, not solid reputatio by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 09:00 · Score: 1

Care to be more specific?

--
Miko O'Sullivan

Never mind by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 09:04 · Score: 1

I misread your posting such that I thought you actually had something useful to say.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

A good example of irony by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 09:10 · Score: 1

Were you too embarassed to mention what a PIECE OF SHIT Perl is?

... he said on a message board programmed in Perl.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by J.+Random+Software · 2002-03-21 09:16 · Score: 1

Are we really worried? I thought programmers were elitists who all think we're above average. I know I'm not worried about getting the bar up out of the basement, because there will be less crappy code I have to interop with.

As for the quality of the industry's output, I've always liked the comparison with civil engineering. Nobody puts tarps over bridges to keep anyone else from learning how they're designed.

Are you kidding? by mikosullivan · 2002-03-21 09:38 · Score: 1

Considering the amount of traffic /. gets, the fact that it was developed with a relatively small staff and budget, and considering the complicated job it has to do, I'd say it's a shining star in the world of online services. I'd be interested to hear examples of other sites that do all that with some other language.

--
Miko O'Sullivan

FREE is NOT about NOT selling software by crovira · 2002-03-21 09:57 · Score: 3

Its about freeing the code.

If you do a good enough job, you'll get the money from people who want to use YOUR code and not write their own. That's a fact jack.

This is the ONLY profession that steadfastly refuses to understand the scientific method and the principles voiced by Newton; "I see far because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Scientific progress is about an upward spiral.

Instead we have midgets grubbing around in flat little circles trying to use "clean room" techniques to reinvent the wheel so some ass-hole won't try to sue them for having used some fuckin' common sense.

You have NO progress that way. You have no Linux, No GNU, no standards. You have the victory, and a mighty small one it has to be, going to who is already the winner. That does you dick all good in both the short and the long term.

If you're missing a feature now, its "tough tits!" because the code is locked up. If Word doesn't do something you want now, you're totally fucked until M$ wakes up and sees some competitive advantage in doing something like it but you know it will be done to their advantage not yours. Otherwise, you're sucking bus exhaust.

When software is free ("Free" as in "libre" a great concept I do wish the English language had a word for so I wouldn't be putting a French word in quotation marks [1],) then you can add it, test it, use it and toss it back to the developper for inclusion into the product and further refinement by the community of other people who would be interested in the feature.

Most people will yawn. That's not value added to them. Lets face it how many of you can even put a scalar on the number features in the average software package.

The days of trying to sell software made by the creeping feature creature are over. Its not about standards, interoperability, colaborative software, APIs.

If you software can't communicate with mine, then I don't want to know about it. I have no possible use for it because you've witten software I can't possibly use.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

evil^2 by I+am+Jack's+username · 2002-03-21 10:34 · Score: 1

> Economic analysis works well for things such as pork belly futures, but not so well for things like religion. -- Waffle Iron

"And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!" - George Carlin

not economics, philosophy by dalinian · 2002-03-21 10:35 · Score: 1

As I understand it, Stallman advocates free software as a moral philosophy. From the GNU Manifesto:

"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way."

This I think is the core of Stallman's ideology. It is in no way economics-related in nature.

this review is invalid. by r00tarded · 2002-03-21 11:44 · Score: 1

is this review GPL'd? if not we refuse to recognize it.

--

four-oh-four

Re:How does selling free software work economicall by Chris+Johnson · 2002-03-21 11:50 · Score: 2

Maybe you need to stop buying distributions, then. You seem to be considering your value to free software solely in terms of how much money you give to it. That's absurd... and sets an awful precedent.

The point is not your value in terms of a money-spouting consumer unit, but your value as an individual permitted to express yourself in ideas involving computer software.

Supposing you use the GIMP, say. And you have some kind of special need, like being able to run filters on heightfield Targas that split a 16-bit value into adjacent channels.

Your value is not measured in terms of being able to pay someone to make the program do that.

Your value is measured in BEING A PERSON who HAS THE NEED TO DO THAT, and the ability to GET THE SOFTWARE TO DO IT.

If you hire someone to do it for you, your value is STILL in being the person who needed to get the program to do that. Without you and your special need, the program would have remained unable to deal with that special purpose. Your NEED, not your money, is the thing of value here.

If you want to help, keep your damn money- and think of new stuff you want software to do!

Internal Slam in Book? by dowdle · 2002-03-21 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I bought my own copy of Free as in Freedom but I couldn't help but be offended by the very last page. You know the one... after all of the Appendixes... after the Index. The one that says (please excuse any typos):

The cover of this book was designed and produced in Adobe Photoshop 5.5 and QuarkXPress 4.1 with Interstate and Sabon fonts. The cover photograph of Richard Stallman was taken by Sam Ogden / Photo Researchers, Inc.
The interior of the book is set in Adobe's Sabon font and was produced with FrameMaker 5.5.6. Sabon was designed by Jan Tschichold in 1964. The roman design is based on Garamond; the italic is based on typefaces created by Robert Gronjon, one of Garmond's contemporaries. Sabon is a registered trademark of Linotype-Hell AG and / or its subsidiaries.
Many people contributed to this project, including Tim O'Reilly, Laurie Petrycki, Jeffrey Holcomb, Edie Freedman, Hanna Dyer, Emma Colby, Melanie Wang, David Futato, Sheryl Avruch, Claire Cloutier, Joe Wizda, Rachel Wheeler, and Leanne Soylemez.

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'm all for free software by maxpublic · 2002-03-21 13:31 · Score: 2, Flamebait

I'm all for free software. Y'know, the kind I write and decide, for myself, as the creator, what license I'll use when distributing it. GPL, BSD, closed-source proprietary, so long as *I* have the freedom to make a *choice* without some mouth-breathing shithead telling me that only certain Approved Options(TM) are moral.

Just as you have the choice to buy or not buy, use or not use, my software. See? Maximum choice, maximum freedom all-around. And no annoying little mental midgets kicking us in the shins trying to decide for us what is good and what is not.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

Re:i'm all for free software by blank · 2002-03-21 16:10 · Score: 1

I'm all for free software. Y'know, the kind I write and decide, for myself, as the creator, what license I'll use when distributing it.

You still have that right. He isn't taking that away from you. Now, Disney, the RIAA and MPAA is trying to put more restrictions on what you can write than Stallman is.

GPL, BSD, closed-source proprietary, so long as *I* have the freedom to make a *choice*

You do.

some mouth-breathing shithead telling me that only certain Approved Options(TM) are moral.

I can only assume he is able to breath from his mouth. I don't think he shits from his head. You don't have to listen to what he says. You can also not support or use any software that advocates or made.

Just as you have the choice to buy or not buy, use or not use, my software. See? Maximum choice, maximum freedom all-around. And no annoying little mental midgets kicking us in the shins trying to decide for us what is good and what is not.

I have not seen stallman ever try to pass a law that limits you to choose. I think you should have problems with the authors that decided to use the GPL as their license than Stallman. They should have known what they had gotten into by using the GPL. If you choose the GPL than you stand with Stallman. If you stand with Stallman, you agree with what the GPL stands for which is "Free" as in freedom and not free as in beer.

--
bah. start over

Free as in speech ---- bollocks! by CharlezManning · 2002-03-21 14:01 · Score: 1

Surely the ultimate freedom is being allowed to be different. My main concern wrt FSF is that they're saying you have to be free their way (which isn't really much of a freedom is it). It gets to be a sort of perverse closed community based on open source. If the software was truely free then surely I'd be allowed to do what the hell I like with it (including link it closed source). The limitations of the GPL signifcantly take the free out of FSF.

Recently, FSF (or RMS) have said that they would like to do away with the LGPL which does allow linking with closed source.

The open source movement's greatest achievement has got to be Linux ( a fact not lost by those people who get their egos enhanced by calling it GNU/Linux). Linus' copying licence says it is OK to hook up prorietary modules/drivers to the kernel [which would not be ok under GPL]. RMS has challenged this stance.

While GPL everything might make sense in desktop/server scenarios, there are many places in the embedded environment [where I am active] where it does not make sense. In particular, it is important to be able to hook up proprietary algorithms in drivers. Under the Linus licencing model I can - under GPL I can't.

Many organisations get into open source by degrees. GPL almost forces an all or nothing approach. This will be a barrier to the uptake of open software. ie. The GPL is ultimately limiting the scope and horizons of free software.

Re:Free as in speech ---- bollocks! by Chris+Burke · 2002-03-21 15:59 · Score: 2

Surely the ultimate freedom is being allowed to be different. My main concern wrt FSF is that they're saying you have to be free their way (which isn't really much of a freedom is it).

You're right, which is why I insist on having the freedom to be a fascist dictator who destroys the freedoms of those weaker than I. Ahem. This is kinda like the argument about whether BSDL is more free because it lets you make software that doesn't grant any freedom, or is the GPL because it doesn't?

RMS has -always- disliked the LPGL. It's a compromise, and he isn't the kind of man who likes compromises. I personally don't mind closed drivers that much, or proprietary software in general (especially when I don't have to use it), but I would -prefer- everything to be libre.

Many organisations get into open source by degrees. GPL almost forces an all or nothing approach. This will be a barrier to the uptake of open software. ie. The GPL is ultimately limiting the scope and horizons of free software.

That is a (mild) non sequitor. A barrier to uptake is limiting the -rate- of uptake of free software in the short term. The consequence of the GPL in the long term could very well be more free software, as the body of GPL works grows and becomes more irresistable to use.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Free as in speech ---- bollocks! by CharlezManning · 2002-03-22 08:04 · Score: 1

RMS has -always- disliked the LPGL. It's a compromise, and he isn't the kind of man who likes compromises.
A very astute observation. The problem is that all engineering is a compromise. The whole world is a compromise. Pi isn't a neat number like 3.
In embedded systems there's always been a lot of sharing, however there has always been a need for proprietary code too. Unfortunately there's typically also been a need to link these code bodies together (ie need LGPL), but the code then needs to be linked to is often GPL.

Free software by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-22 07:04 · Score: 2

Freedom is also about freedom of speech. You would censor me because I am not programmer? That's total bullshit. You can disagree with me but you shouldn't say that I cannot express myself on these matters. I don't have to program to understand the social implications of OSS, agree with them, and promote what it stands for. And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!! As I have said, I use both "free" software, some of which I have paid for, and commercial software (all of which I have paid for). How does that make me a leech? I contribute by saying what I think it's right, and I won't let an elitist, arrogant and anti-democratic MS pawn like you tell me what to do or not do!

As far as my politics go, I am an anarcho-syndicalist and actually agree with many elements of Marxist theory (such as the alienation of the worker from the fruit of his labor, etc.) I believe that Free Software (as opposed to Open Source) is a superior ideal. But there are great programs out there that aren't Free Software, they are Open Source or even proprietary...should I not use these programs as well? What's your point? Nobody's forcing anyone to write free (as in gratis) software - certainly not me! As I said, I have often paid for what I consider good software. I even have a registered version of WinZip on my old Windows partition.

On a side matter: you seem to be worried about programmers being put out of a job because of free software. Now, what do you make of manual laborers who were put out of a job because of automation? Who programs those machines? Programmer, perhaps? Did you ever condemn automation for this? many of those laid-off workers eventually found a different job. Even if some programmers do lose their job because of open-source software (an assertion you make but for which there is no proof, and I mean absolutely none) being smart people they will find manage to get by. But let me ask you this: if FS or OSS is suicidal for programmers (as you imply), then why are there programmers who do it? Answer that question before trying to censor me!

Oh, about the "unnecessary" bashing of Microsoft: MS is still abusing its monopoly to stifle competition. To claim that it's "ancient history" as you do is to either a) totally ignore reality or b) exactly what your MS supervisor asked you to do. Yes, I'm sure that there are some nice and knowledgeable programmers working at MS. I never said the contrary, and actually some of their programs are very good. That is not, that has never been the point. I have never said anything to the contrary. Are you so thick as to not understand what an "abuse of monopoly" is? You are living proof that you can be a programmer and still spew crap about the OSS debate.

Just be certain about one thing: I'll keep on contributing to this debate, even at the risk of being wrong sometimes, whether you like it or not. And that's all I have to say about this.

--

Reminder: find a new sig

Re:Free software by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-22 08:40 · Score: 1

Now you are claiming that I am an MS employee. That makes at least two people in this thread alone.

The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing. You are thinking of a broad definition of freedom. The freedom associated with GNU and Open Source(TM) has nothing to do with speech, religion, or whatever other freedoms you can dream up. It is simply freedom of source code. The only benefit of this freedom belongs to programmers. For example, the freedom to own a gun does nothing for you if you don't care about owning a gun (i.e. you just enjoy the taste of Deer, and continue to want Deer). If you have nothing to do with guns, then don't pursuade others to carry them or not carry them.
And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!!
Just like you are second guessing what I want? You assume I want proprietary software to coexist with free software? If not then why are you implying it. I don't care if you have registered WinZip or not. You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom. Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly.
if FS or OSS is suicidal for programmers (as you imply), then why are there programmers who do it?
Perhaps they are naive. Lets get something straight: this open-source movement really took on steam around the time the dot-com movement was started. It is not too hard to come to a conclusion that many open-source programmers still have a mindset of a dot-com; that everything will be alright and we can give everything away for free. Many of these open-source programmers did work at dot-coms, and many are now out of their jobs and facing reality. They may also just love to program (which is why I do it). They probably have a different job than programming (system admin or something) and generally don't care about the programmer market. Perhaps it's a mix of the two.
Answer that question before trying to censor me!
I'm not trying to sensor you, per se. Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters. The former, you are pursuading people to adopt the free software philosophy (either GNU, OpenSource(TM), or your own brand of mix-and-match). What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software. Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech" and that I'm a Microsoft paid zealot who has ties with no less than 3 mob bosses and worship satan. I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line? If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU).
I'll keep on contributing to this debate, even at the risk of being wrong sometimes, whether you like it or not. And that's all I have to say about this.
And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software. To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Re:Free software by Archie+Steel · 2002-03-22 09:30 · Score: 2

The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing.

I wasn't implying that. I was referring to the freedom I have in advocating Free Software, Open Source Software, proprietary Software, sleeping in the nude, nuking three-legged llamas, etc. The point I'm trying to make (I'll spell it out so that you can understand) is that I can advocate whatever I want to whomever I want. If I convince people, it's not because I have some secret mind-control powers, it is because my arguments resonate with those who receive them. What you're saying is that I should shut up because I am not a programmer and therefore am not deeply involved with the subject. To which I reply that freedom of speech (not software) gives me the right to say what I want, and dammit I will! Try to pay attention.

>And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!!

Just like you are second guessing what I want?

Well, you started it. You somehow figured that I want all software to be free software (as in gratis). I never said such a thing, so you must have assumed it, so therefore you are assuming wrong. So stop assuming you know in advance what I think (or that I'm an American, for that matter -- I'm not) and I'll stop saying that you're a MS employee... (which you haven't denied, BTW).

You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom.

I am not an hypocrite, I am flexible. I don't believe in dogmas. Free Software is good, so is Open Source, so is Proprietary. I use good software. I pay for good proprietary software, and sometimes I contribute for Free Software because I believe that it has an important place in the way the industry is developing (and changing). I also like the fact that people who produce free software will often distribute their source, giving it back to the community, so other can reuse and build on it. That's a very noble, unselfish thing to do and I think it is admirable.

Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly.

Says you. And who says that there's no middle ground, that you either have to be Free Software 100% or Proprietary Software all the way? I didn't, for sure. I don't care much for your confrontational, black-and-white approach...and BTW, the only reason I'm calling you a MS employee is that this is the exact line propagated by Gates, Ballmer and co...No, I believe that all these different licences have a right to exist, because the programmers who choose to adopt them do so of their own free will. That is freedom - if they choose to be dispossessed of their code, that's their decision. You say they might be naive...perhaps they are just unselfish.

I'm not trying to sensor you, per se.

Well, that says it all!

Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software.

There you go again, distorting what I say. Are you sure you're not from MS? I never said anything of the sort. Never. Please take it back. I am not advocating that people should use "no-cost" software. I'm saying that people should use software that works, and that some of it will be free software (as in freedom) that may or may not be free (as in gratis). I'm saying that if someone wants to contribute code freely to the community (you know, "giving", a concept which is still important for some people), then it's all in their honor. If their program is good, then we should definitely use it. I'll give you another example: Star/OpenOffice. I will personally buy StarOffice 6.0 when it comes out in May (I have the Beta right now). Now, some people are putting out a no-frills version called OpenOffice, which is available for free...obviously, the two can coexist. So people with less money (or living in the third world) would still be able to use a professionnal Office suite, even though it might not have all the bells and whistles of the commercial version. What's wrong with that? Actually, I know what's wrong: you see software as a revenue source for programmers, first and foremost. Many people see software as a way to make things simpler by automating tasks. Well, I'm sorry, but it's up to the industry to change it's business model, not for FS and OSS licenses to go away. That's called progress, and it doesn't always favor the status quo (again, think of those manual laborers who lost their jobs to programmed machines...)

Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech"

For the record, I am not an american, but I do believe that freedom of speech is a universal human right, which each individual should be fully entitled to. Stop assuming everything, it makes you look like a fool.

I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line?

Funny, there are lots of people here who are programmers - some very brillant - and yet they support the idea of FS and OSS. It's actually their arguments which have convinced me...so I guess I'm not so ignorant about those who are concerned by these issues.

If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU).

Actually, if you had paid attention to my posts, you'd see that I do know how to program...just not in any useful language. I am not a programmer, but I understand the principles of programming and I work with them everyday (I work for a video game company). But just to shut you up I'm going to buy a Perl book tonight and write a little script I need for my web site. I'll make it GPL so then you won't be able to complain any more about how I should just shut up about the issue.

And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software.

A lot more than yours, of that I'm certain!

To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.

You might want to rephrase this, it doesn't make any sense.

So, are you a MS employee or not? C'mon, you can tell us, we won't say anything to your boss...

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Free software by reflective+recursion · 2002-03-22 11:20 · Score: 1

Yes for the record I am paid by Microsoft. You figured me out. Damn you're good. Didn't you know Slashdot was owned by Microsoft? Everyone here is a MS employee (except for the trolls, of course).
Stop assuming everything, it makes you look like a fool.
..said the hypocrit who feels he should have a say in any matter just because he has some sort of right to open his big fucking mouth.
I do try to "spread the gospel"

I am flexible. I don't believe in dogmas
Of course you don't, where would anyone get these crazy assed ideas?

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead

Slashdot Mirror

Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade

301 of 453 comments (clear)