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.
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?
Your question answers itself.
Why are you asking this question? Why aren't you asking "How exactly is istartedi interesting?". I'll tell you why. It's Because RMS is famous and I'm not.
That's enough, but it sort of begs the question "why is he famous?". The answer to that is long and difficult. Some would argue that he isn't famous, and outside the computing community that's true, but only because those outsideers don't realize what an impact the GNU culture has had (for better or worse) on the devices that impact their daily lives.
You could also ask, "at what point did he cross the threshold and become famous?". Was it when he took vengeance on Symbolics? Was it when the GNU project was announced? If he hadn't been at MIT, would anyone have cared? Did the MacArthur grant make him famous? I think pinpointing the exact moment is difficult.
Love him, hate him, love what he stands for, hate what he stands for. Regardless, I don't think there is any arguing that he is an important figure.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
...if he would promote Free Software as "a good idea" (which it is) rather than "the One True Way For All Humanity" (which it most certainly is NOT). Stallman has not and never will adequately address the issue of how we'll feed our kids in an all-Free-Software world. You cannot make money selling software if you're also freely giving it away. You cannot make money on service and support of software that doesn't need service and support. And because of the above two truths, big corporations will not ever, EVER go to an all Free Software solution, so the idea that in the future we'll all draw salaries for writing Free Software is a pipe dream of the highest order.
Commercial software is not immoral. I have never been able to fathom why making a chair and selling it is a-okay by Stallman, but writing a program and selling it is not. Commercial software makes Free Software possible, since it allows programmers to make money while they sharpen their skills. Yes, there are many awful aspects of commercial software: shrinkwrap licenses, spyware, copy protection, no guaranteed rights for the user, etc. But the whole model of "You give me money and I give you a copy of my software" is never, ever going to go away, and Stallman could make many inroads simply by taking a more pragmatic view and admitting that to himself.
> 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"?
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
O'Reilly has reviews of the book available. Among them, is a 'review' by Bill Gates:
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.
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.