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 :)
"Yeah, we posted this cause it was a damn slow news day" Totally makes my day seem a bit less boring.
What, me worry?
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".
Stallman interview
By uptight British network
Meant to excite me?
I have an uncle who looks outright like Richard, minus 100lbs or so...Is this 'Free Software' idealism a genetic thing or what?
On another note, we should have an RMS-shirt watch...There's that maroon one again!
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
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.
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!
From the article, excerpted by the BBC themselves:
S'funny, I would have said the single biggest criticism of free software was that it doesn't usually measure up to commercial alternatives in terms of power. Most of it is either "good but not great" or "it'll be finished one of these years..."
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
One day a friend of mine told RMS in a chatroom interview "RMS! You're my hero!" to which RMS replied: "Bite me, Fanboy." Priceless.
Uh, I count 31 instances of "free" or "freedom" in that interview. Is anyone else getting a strange blind spot in their brain when they hear or read those words? The word means so many things to so many people that we're in serious danger of it losing all meaning, and simply becoming a synonym for "good", which is pretty much the way politicians and industry use it already.
Perhaps the FSF could consider coming up with a new angle. I mean, I'm marching firmly behind the Freedom Flag, but it seems like we're slipping into a weird Braveheart parallel universe when two sides rush headlong into battle, both screaming "Freeeeeedom!" at the top of their lungs.
There are other words, and other concepts that represent the FSF's ideals. Open. Shared. Community. Perhaps we could embroider some of those words onto our flag for a while, just until the Freedom Fad blows over.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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).
Two words:
"Bottled Water".
'nuff said.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
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
So, a printed manual, tech support, a pressed CD, a guarantee to be shipped new binaries when they become available, a guarantee to be sent security fixes.. You can't sell these?
Just because the source is in the box, and is available for download, doesn't mean that the product isn't worth paying for. The product has to be *more* than binaries, that's all.
This is my latest gripe with the gaming industry. They are using smaller boxes now, boxes too small to even cram a decent manual into. SimGolf shipped with *no* real documentation whatsoever. ADD VALUE!!!! Or noone will want your product.
This story is hilarious... I half expected to see it posted so we could get in our usual Microsoft bashing in for the day...
As I write this, they still don't have that wehavethewayout.com web site working yet.
Also, be sure to check out wehavethewayin.com site....
"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.
Does anyone have the sneaking suspicion that Richard Stallman is Karl Marx reincarnated? I think Marx would have had the same views about free software that Richard Stallman does. And did you see the picture? Give him a few years and some gray hair and he'll be a dead ringer for Marx. I mean, has anyone ever seen them together? Eerie.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Why? There have been periods where there were 4 versions of Windows knocking about and I don't remember any "Scanners" incidents. People just use what they have at work or the cheapest. Sysadmins will know which one they need (ie the one with the penguin on it).
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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
RMS and others have not yet brought up the underlying reason that Open Source is so important in the OS and in common large "container" type applications.
:)
If you view a computers running environment as a software universe, with rules which govern its operation just like the laws of physics govern our physical universe, then it becomes a lot more obvious why closed source is really, really bad.
Unlike the physical universe, the rules in a computer environment can change. If you can't trust the person who is controlling the properties of the universe (the OS provider), and you can't change the environment yourself, then you are at the mercy of that person, group, or company. Imagine if there were no God, and Bill was controlling the universe. He could and would simply make everyone who didn't agree with him have to breath water instead of air and we would all quickly asphyxiate. The same thing is true of the OS. It is simply too much power to place in the hands of any one company, person, or organization. Thus the solution is to have it be completely open with everyone working together to ensure that no one person abuses the rest of us.
This philosophy should be extended to all container-model software applications. Apache is better than IIS because it is a container for web services (SOAP, CGI, mod_*, HTTP, etc...) and those services are not directly provided by the container. Just like in the case of IIS, any product that becomes popular is quickly either purchased and absorbed (often by less-than-honest means) by the owner of the container, or choked off and killed because it is a threat.
This is my problem with Weblogic, IIS, Microsoft's OS and any other system where I am writing code dependant on someone else's proprietary idea of how I should get things done. I simply don't trust anyone unless they trust me first.
This philosophy can even be extended to entertainment with very little modification. Our real problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that we can't trust anyone with the power to dictate what we are allowed to see and hear because they abuse it. They abused it when they started brainwashing us to listen to their idea of what was good music and by restricting and controlling the artists that produced that music. They are like the OS of the music industry.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any container model is absolute power over the contained objects. OS, J2EE, Web Services, Entertainment, News and the list goes on.
Free the source in all cases, not just the OS.
Of course, when you start applying this to government you get the whole Democratic system and we all know how terrible that turned out...
Imagine if anyone who wanted to could just plug into the kernel CVS tree and change the current distribution source to fit their proprietary purposes. That's why there is a governing body of people with the ability to decide what does and does not belong in the kernel. Thus: a republic.
So we have come full circle peeps: Let's create a on-line open-source republic with independent governing bodies for every single container system out there, from open source to government.
Hell, I just solved the worlds problems... time for a coffee break.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Did RMS just give them a list of questions he wanted to answer, so he can easily voice his dogma? What about the glaringly obvious question:
"If software can be freely distributed, how can developers be assured of making money from their software?"
Also, RMS's assertion that "inertia" is the reason everyone isn't using free software ignores the fact that the bulk of free systems and software packages have lousy usability. But it goes unchallanged in the interview.
Oh well. RMS continues to live in his little fantasy world, while the real world shrugs its collective shoulders and ignores the true benefits of free software.
dinner: it's what's for beer
There's nothing else happening?
It is nice to see that open source is getting into the mainstream press. RMS is our usual spokesman, but unfortunately his views are a bit to radical....I mean he almost preaches the evils of closes source. I do not think that that is the view that we want the CEO's and the public to have.
Perhaps RMS should yield the layman press to someone with more moderate views...perhaps Linus or Alan Cox.
I am sure there are probably more people with decent public skills who are also moderate OSS activists, unfortunately I do not know their abilities that well....perhaps Bruce Perens
(all I know about him is that he has some ties with the business world, and he has contributed many great pieces to the community--thank you for efence, it has saved my life many times).
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that we need to find moderate representatives, not radicals. We want to advertise (ughh, bad wording, perhaps promote), not preach or threaten.
badness 10000
Yes you're right this would be a business user scenario - it was orginally a question posed to a microsoft licensing rep make sure we were understanding the issues correctly.
When was the last time you tried Mozilla?
I won't debate the merits of KDE or Gnome, but I must say that I find Mozilla to be as fast or faster than MSIE for most important things on Win98 and Win2000 (PIII-933 or Athlon XP 1600+ systems).
Open office certainly isn't equal to MS Office, but it's only terrible if you need some specific little feature OO doesn't have, or if you're too stuck in the MS-rut to adjust to a few small UI differences.
Anyway, I won't even start on all of the ways Mozilla is superior to MSIE on Win32 feature-wise. I'll just say that for my needs, Mozilla is the best browser by far. Ask my girlfriend - I nearly explode with irritation every time I'm forced to use MSIE on a PC without Mozilla installed. But that's just me...
Christopher
Mozilla
Not much happening today ... man ...
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
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
If toilet designers invent a method for creating a toilet that uses 50% less water when flushed, and never back up, should they not be allowed to market and profit from this method?
When your employer sells a license - do you get a royalty? You are paid for the time you write code -- as am I -- why do you expect to be paid again, and again, and again - see the plumber point again please. Further, think about "Intellectual Property" (which is borne by a moment and act (like anything else)) vs "Property".
I make a contractual agreement with my employer: what I invent is sold to them, and becomes their property. It's called terms of employment. What they do with their own property (e.g., put it in shrink-wrapped boxes and sell it) is up to them. I don't expect to be paid again and again, because I've agreed to sell the rights to another party. If I don't like the arrangement, I can go work somewhere else, or become a plumber.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Bottled water is not free. If it was there wouldn't be so many people out there selling it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Gosh you are right, we would hate to have the confusion that exists in other consumer products like cars. Nobody I know can figure out how to operate cars, it would all be fixed if only Ford was a monopoly, I'm sure.
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.
Did you get an answer?
A binding (on Microsoft) answer?
If there are many many many people who could serve some function, any function, then we, as the human population benefit: we possess an unlimited and inexhaustible amount of Human Resource. The "employers", therefore, are merely facilitators that make use of this resource.
But spare me the ego and bravado you are encouraged to have. Non-Americans can tell by observation and casual contact that Americans are recipients of copious amounts of propaganda which fosters this illusion of personal power.
I don't understand this conception that there is an adversarial relationship between the employer and the employed. There isn't, anymore than there is an adversarial relationship between a field of corn and the farmer who farms it. Business, corporations, capitalism in general -- when it is properly adjusted and regulated -- is nothing more than a means of extracting a raw resource, i.e., human capacity, and using it to generate finished wealth.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Does anybody know how to get 60 Minutes or Consumers' Reports to do a story like this? Here's how I imagine it. You find a typical or even sophisticated user who is trying to do an ordinary thing. Preferably it should be someone who is adamant about how bad pirates are. Then you get a lawyer to go over the EULA, find out how much he had to do that was illegal, and explain it to him.
Not at all. The water from my faucet is of a completely different quality than that provided by bottled water distributors
Yep, you are right. Numerous studies have shown that bottled water is of poorer quality than regular water from your faucet.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.