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 :)
I didn't like the tone of the interview; RMS came across as very idealistic, with a very "hippy" view. I know this is not how the whole story goes, but that's the impression this interview gives. I'd have liked to have seen some more concrete discussion of what benefits there are to business users, or home users. I'd have liked to see the word "monopoly" in there and discussion about how much software is costing various users, how free software would affect business models. Better yet, I'd have liked to have seen discussion of how free software has and is affecting several fields - academic, educational, scientific, server-farms. The man in the street doesn't know that other systems exist, some quick pointers to some prominent e-business sites or famous projects would setup association between "free software" and "good" rather than "free software" and what Cartman would call, "tree hugging hippy crap".
Isn't he RIGHT?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It's a lot less complicated than worrying about proprietary licenses - and if you think license conditions are easy to follow in MS licenses, read this:
We sat down and tried to figure this out step by step by step by step. We actually looked up the license agreements to ensure compliance. We think we have a handle on this.
Here's the scenario.
I'm at my local municipal library, and I want to check my Groupwise address book for a name. So I quick connect to my Citrix server from the library Windows95 machine. Here is the thought process that every user must use to make this legal, and prevent MS from labeling you a software pirate.
Hmmmm. This machine is a Win95 machine, and the office Terminal server is a Winnt 2000 Advance Server, so because the remote OS level is less than the Terminal Server, I'm going to need to allocate one of my NT server CALs and a Terminal Server CAL (TCAL) to this library machine. I'll have to call the IS guy to make sure the licensing hofix has been applied to the server, just in case it isn't and the license allocation is permanent and unreclaimable. If I already have a TCAL assigned to my primary computer at the office, I can purchase a Terminal Server Work at Home license instead to save some cash. If I've never connected to the Terminal Server from my desk at the Office, then I'll need to allocate a full TCAL for this library machine. Hmmm... maybe I should check with Joe, because I know he connected from here a few months ago, and it's possible that the Work At Home TCAL, and the Office licensing we purchased for this library machine is still valid.
Because the Terminal Server has Office installed, even though I don't want to run the blasted Office software, I'll also need to verify whether Office is installed locally here at the library. If it is, I can get away with purchasing a Work At Home Office license. Wait. Better check first with the IT guys again to verify that we have not upgraded our Select 3 license agreement which implied home use licenses. I should probably also verify whether the Work At Home license applies if I'm not at home. If we have a Select 4, or 5, or Enterprise 4, or 5, agreement at the Office, then we can purchase and apply a Work At Home license to the connection. In any case, the IT guys should know whether they have more WorkAt Home licenses purchased than they own in full Office licensing, because Microsoft only allows one Work At Home license per full license. If they tell me that we only have an Open license agreement at the Office, Work At Home licenses do not apply and in this case I would need to purchase an entire Office Suite for the library computer so I can find the address in my GroupWise Address book. This is because it happens that the Terminal server has Office installed on it, and every device that connects to the server will also require an equal Office license.
...sounds great...until you mention GPL.
Quote RMS:
That's part of the freedom. You can make copies and sell it. Everyone has the freedom to do that.
Except that in addition to selling it, you have to offer it for free, too. (minus assembly, heh). Hmmmm, commerce through ignorance? That must be Rad Hat's plan. Sell shiny boxes for $70, don't let on that you can get it for free if you ask. (The gurus know anyway).
Yeah, great idea!
----
New sig:
free as in "shipping on orders of $99 or more of merchandise, excluding gift-wrap charges and taxes" or free as in "-fall"?
RMS on availability of source code:
It means that you can see what the program does. So if you are concerned it might have a back door, you can check what it really does. And you can study it to learn how you do those jobs. You can study it to see precisely what it does.
Yes, it might be free to have, but no one at my job knows Linux or anything else about free software, therefore we'd have to hire a consultant at perhaps $80.00 an hour to analyze the code and solve the problem.
This is major $ compared to the price of licenses. Sometimes the "free software" argument is grasping at straws, since there is cost to maintaing software, no matter whose software it is.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
"Fundamentally it means that you are free when your friend says 'hey, that looks nice, can I have a copy?', you can openly and lawfully make a copy for your friend. You are not reduced to doing that as an underground activity in fear."
Is it just me, or does this statement sound like if a friend asks you for some software, you will automatically give it out whether it is legal or not. I wish he'd be more careful with how he states things like this, otherwise it is going to be hard to shed the reputation that free software users are all a bunch of software pirates.
I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
There's nothing else happening?
I absolutely agree 100%.
You will probably find this amusing
Its about FUD && Propaganda - and RMS knows this, he may seem like a 'broken' record to "us", but he is spreading his meme well. Read some Chomsky - language is a complex tool.
How much more effort would it have taken to write "Richard Stallman" instead of just RMS? That is poor journalism, you never assume something like that. Even the DOD is usually written out as "Department of Defense" in the press.
RMS needs to be radical.
1st because that's what makes it newsworthy
2nd as a counter to the corporate control culture
3rd because he truly believes in his purpose. Going about it half seriously would be worse then appearing sincere but misguided.
Like it or not, we have too few spokespeople for free (as in liberity) software, and I'll take them all. Even if some of their views differ from mine. As long as the general thrust of the argument is the same. (Actually, I've come around to RMS's view, because I've realized that the alternative is worse!)
I do not know about India, but in Maghreb
(I think Algeria and especially Libya
which is more or less out of the world trade
system anyway) people couldn't care less about
pirating software. I think there is not even
a representative of Microsoft in some of those
countries ! so they end up working with age old
versions of pirated stuff. That's why indeed
they should switch to free software, to have something younger than six or seven years and
which actually works !
On the opposite, in 1st world countries, the
price of 1 licence of XP/Office Pro/whatever
represents maybe 4 hours of pay of an averaged
qualified worker, including overhead...
think installation and configuration
time for some free stuff !
Some businesses shell out 100K/year on some software to spare one or two workers, so free
software has really to be competitive in
performance and stability to convince some
management to switch.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
I have to shake my head at this kind of reasoning. It's something like this: We have to revile RMS at every possible opportunity, or else he will instantly force us all to live in some hippy commune. Boo, RMS!
I don't have a problem with RMS living his life the way he wants to live it. I have a big problem with his shoving his version of "freedom" down my throat.
The chance of this ever happening is miniscule compared to, say, Elvis taking over your brain by shooting zoobie rays from the flying saucer he got from the elves. Come on! It isn't going to happen.
If I want to use closed source, proprietary software, then dammit RMS stay the hell out of my machine.
What, did he come to your house, break down the door, and force you at gunpoint to erase all your proprietary sofware licenses? Or are you being just a teensy bit paranoid?
The best we can hope for is a world in which some free software continues to exist and is not made totally illegal under pressure by the MPAA, RIAA, international media companies, etc. It's like a tug-of-war, and if you're outnumbered, you have to pull the rope really hard. I'm not like RMS, but I'm very glad he's out there and getting interviewed.
It is good that RMS exists, and it is also good that he has extreme opinions, because they define the arena within which consensus is built. He'll never get his way, but because of him and others, the mega-corporations may not get their way, which would be no freedom for anybody, ever, under any circumstances.
That's the choice here. It isn't RMS's vision versus a more moderate one. Closed source, proprietary software isn't going away. Ever.
It has long been said that nobody would have listened to Martin Luther King if the Black Panthers hadn't been there as an alternative. I think this is accurate. Nobody would listen to Linus or ESR if RMS weren't there, either. Consensus-building just doesn't work that way.