Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC interview with RMS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stuff-to-read dept.

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 :)

3 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Re:okay... by paulbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. You must have read a different GPL than I did. by Rupert · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Words of RMSdom by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.