Slashdot Mirror
BBC interview with RMS
An anonymous reader submitted an interview with RMS running over at the BBC. Doesn't really say much of anything
that you haven't heard before but it's a nice little interview, and its
not like much else is happening today :)
Except that in addition to selling it, you have to offer it for free, too. this simply isn't true. whenever you distribute GPL'ed software, you must offer the source code as well. you can charge whatever you want for the software, but either way, it must include the possibility of getting the source. you are not giving the source away for free, you are giving the source code along with the executable, and you are free to charge for that if you want to. the only difficulty arises because anyone you sell to can undercut your own price, creating a natural price point of zero, unless you believe in the natural good of humanity.
You only have to make the source available to people you distribute the binaries to. So if you sell source & binaries in the same box for $70, there is no need for you to provide either for free. Of course, you can't prevent your customers from giving it away for free, but that's a separate problem.
--
E_NOSIG
I don't know. I'd call Linux and Apache pretty powerful. Emacs is certainly a powerful editor, wouldn't you say? PERL is a pretty powerful language too.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
there is one catch.
yes, you can sell the software, yes you do not have to give it away at the same time, and yes others can resell copies, but brand names can not be redistributed. if I was to buy a copy of redhat, and then repackage a bunch of copies and sold it as redhat, I would be liable for tradmark infringment. and if I made up a new name, people would not notice me as I do not have brand recognition, value added (as people would say "why not just go with RH since it is the same thing") and services.
so realy, people are drawn in to distrobutions becasue of brand recognition mostly. with tradmark and services that RH offers, it will be hard to get into the market.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
You sort of chose the worst possible example of obtuse licensing to make a point, and I don't think that's helpful in the big sense.
I didn't make the license obtuse - I simply decided to research the licensing on a product that is one of the more useful products that microsoft produce. Windows Terminal server would get a lot more use if people could read thre license and comply with it without spending a fortune on licenses they don't really need.
The biggest problem with RMS is that he has said several times that not only does he think all software should be free, but you should be required by law to make your software free. There is no room in his philosophy for people to choose what type of software they want to use.
It's an internally consistent philosophical view. Proprietary software doesn't just involve a person or corporation "choosing" to make their software non-free; it also involves a government apparatus that helps them out.
If I want to use closed source, proprietary software, then dammit RMS stay the hell out of my machine.
But what gives you the right to create proprietary software in the first place? If I get a hold of your software, why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever I want with it? It's like if I bought a candy bar, and was told that I was not allowed to share it, or use it in a recipe of my own, but had to open it carefully then eat it in a certain way.
I think what RMS is saying is that the kind of contracts which limit the free use of software you obtain are inherently immoral.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with it, but I do understand the position.