Slashdot Mirror
Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade
Free as in Freedom is a generally sympathetic but far from hagiographic biography of Richard Stallman, inspiration of the free software movement. While much of the material in it will be familiar to anyone actively involved with free software, there are, as Williams claims, "facts and quotes in here that one won't find in any Slashdot story or Google search." It is also an entertaining and accessible study, which I finished within a day of my review copy arriving.
Williams begins with the famous jamming printer and Stallman's encounter with a non-disclosure agreement that prevented him writing reporting software for it. He then jumps forwards to a speech given by Stallman in 2001, responding to attacks by Microsoft on the GNU GPL. Having used these episodes to introduce Stallman and explain the basic idea of free software, the rest of the work continues in a similar vein, mixing historical chapters with ones describing Williams' own meetings with Stallman.
Chapter three describes Stallman's childhood as a prodigy; chapter four his experiences at Harvard and MIT; chapter six the MIT AI Lab and the Emacs "commune"; chapter seven the death of the MIT hacker community and the first announcement of the GNU Project; chapter nine the GNU GPL; chapter ten the appearance of Linux and debates over GNU/Linux; and chapter eleven the coining of the term "open source" and the arguments over that. These contain quotes by everyone from Stallman's mother to the leading lights of free software, as well as plenty by Stallman himself. The narrative never strays too far from its subject, but becomes inextricably interwoven with the broader history and politics of free software and sometimes digresses to cover key figures and events with which Stallman wasn't directly involved.
Williams' first-hand accounts help give Stallman a human face: chapter five recounts a meeting in 1999 LinuxWorld, chapter eight a meeting in Hawaii, and chapter twelve a frustrating car trip with Stallman at the wheel. These give a feel for Stallman's personality and presence, his forthrightness and emotional intensity, his steadfastness and his abrasiveness, and his ability to unsettle. Chapter thirteen attempts to predict Stallman's status "in 100 years," quoting opinions from from Eben Moglen, John Gilmore, Eric Raymond, and Lawrence Lessig; it also suggests that Stallman's personality may be inseparable from his achievements.
Although I was already involved with free software advocacy, my first encounter with Richard Stallman came when he turned up to a rehearsal of my gamelan group; afterwards I tried without much success to explain to my fellow musicians just how important the strange bearded man they'd just met was. I don't think Free as in Freedom would help much with that: it jumps around too much and assumes too much general knowledge of the computer industry to be a good introduction for complete outsiders. Those already interested in the history and politics of free software and hacker culture, however, should relish it.
In an epilogue Williams talks about the writing of Free as in Freedom and the choice of copyright license. Despite the big fuss made about it being released under the GNU Free Documentation License, however, only a sample chapter is available online now and the rest will not, apparently, be put online until June. (This is not a violation of the OFDL, because Williams as copyright holder can allow O'Reilly to distribute the book in any way they like.) So if you don't want to buy a printed copy, you can either wait three months or hope someone OCRs the book sooner.
You can purchase Free as in Freedom from Barnes & Noble, read chapter three online, or check out Danny's 600 other book reviews. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
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.
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.
I've always seen "interesting" as distinct from "novel".
Yes, we all like to discover something new and jump on the latest bandwagon but it's a shame that the endless quest for novelty often obscures what is fundamentally important.
Until people (wider population, not just Slashdot) actually hear and understand Stallman's message I think he's perfectly right to continue sending it out.
There are some who believe that dedicating yourself to an ideal, and working ceaslessly in its pursuit, is more than interesting: it's admirable.
And let's not forget that the guy is, to borrow a Bostonism, "wicked smaht." He's MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, the guy frigging invented Emacs, which is a work of twisted genius comperable to the Necronomicon. You may think that his line is boring as dirt, but think how rotten it must be from his perspective - can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hagiographic
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"?
of or relating to hagiography
cross reference to hagiography is:
He should give us something to work with. A man with a beard have plenty of secrets, let them be known. Open Source them :)
...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.
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.
> 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.
You gotta get out more.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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"?
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.
Maybe not, but when Chrysler promoted Lee Iococca (formal training: engineering) to CEO they were the happiest carmaker in Detroit.
Miko O'Sullivan
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.
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
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
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.
You don't like emacs, do you, Clarice?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting. What is more interesting is the cult-following that he has managed to achieve. He's managed to convince a group of otherwise bright people to focus solely on the gospel of the GPL.
Weird, I started out writing this to show that Stallman isn't interesting at all, but the more I think about it, the more I realize he is. I may not like the way he or his minions behave, but it's definitely interesting...
Um..yeah. If you spent 12 years sleeping on the floor
of your office, under your desk, you'd be interesting too. As well as mad as a hatter, and without a girlfriend.
Respect and all that...but he is a freak.
> ... 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.
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
O'Reilly has reviews of the book available. Among them, is a 'review' by Bill Gates:
RMS
Root Mean Square ???
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)
Yeah, WildBeast. That's exactly what I said. I'm surprised you left out the part where I endorsed killing puppies, though.
Some spew emitted from RMS, collected by someone else....
Why should we pay for it?
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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
RMS says that everything non GPL is evil. Hey looks like he got something in common with Bush :)
-ComicBookGuy
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
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.
he does?
does anyone have a link to a pic?
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
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
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!
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. 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?
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
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
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