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 :)

16 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Words of RMSdom by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ponder this, from the article:
    We're going to replace them. To have freedom to live as part of a community, to have the freedom to treat other people decently, you must replace your propriety software with free software, software that lets you have those freedoms.
    It would be easy to dismiss this comment as hippy-dippy-there-he-goes-again. But consider what we are seeing now, with attempts to control people and programmers via the DMCA and similar ilk.

    Isn't he RIGHT?

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

    1. Re:Words of RMSdom by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      you must replace your propriety software with free software, software that lets you have those freedoms.

      When he says "must", he means it as in, "you will be required to use free software."

      Is there anything worse than a zealot who requires everyone to conform to his beliefs in the name of "freedom"?

      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. If I want to use closed source, proprietary software, then dammit RMS stay the hell out of my machine.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Words of RMSdom by rho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe he's a dictator; rather, he's a polarized idealist. His represents the viewpoint of the other side. This necessitates him being stiff and uncompromising most of the time.

      He does compromise, however. The LGPL is an example of that.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    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.

  2. The argument for free software by terrymr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Peace & Love by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In short, you wanted to see an interview of ESR, not RMS.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  4. Free Software? by Dead+Penis+Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Free Software? by dvdeug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it [the source] 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.

      That's a non sequiter. If you don't want to pay someone to maintain the software, or check it for backdoors, then don't. You're at the mercy of upstream, but you're always at the mercy of the upstream with proprietary software you can't get the source to. All free software (and other software that gives you the source and the right to modify it) does here is give you the ability do so if you chose, for example, if you need something the upstream isn't willing to supply.

    2. Re:Free Software? by room101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps we should have marked this as "funny"?

      RMS is talking about "liberty", not "cheap".

      With traditional "closed" software, you can't see or understand the code for any amount of money. (sometimes you can, but those are exceptions)

      With "free" software, you are "free" to understand the source as well as you can/want to. So if it isn't worth it to you, don't. If it is, you have the option. With a "closed" system (like M$ code), all you have to go on is a sales pitch on how great it is, with an "open" system, you can find out for yourself, if you want.

      Also, you still have to hire consultants on closed systems to fix most of your problems, but they are more limited as to what they can really do for you. With a typical commertial software package (M$), they aren't going to help you with problems with the software (for free), unless they actually have a bug in the software (if you are lucky). If you are having problems with integration (most problems a company runs into) or something like that, guess what, you hire a consultant.

      Don't believe the hype.

      Also, if nobody knows Linux, either hire someone, retain an integration company (small local consulting shops do this is large cities), or maybe Linux isn't for you.

      --
      room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
      (they always break you eventually)
    3. Re:Free Software? by neo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      But you need to compare that to the software that Microsoft gives you. Are you telling me that you have authorized developers on site? If you don't you can't even open the code.

      More to the point, since open software is looked at by literally thousands of people, you don't need to hire anyone... it's already been looked at and the information is available online, again for free.

      What Richard is saying is that Free Software allows you to know what the code does, exactly what it does, and perhaps change it. What Microsoft is saying is that proprietary software is fine and you don't need to know how it works and you certainly shouldn't try to change it, and only use it in a particular manner that benefits MS.

      Take the car analogy. What if every Ford care came with a user license that said you couldn't change anything on the car... and you could only have it repaired at an authorized dealer. No oil changes, no wiperblades, no air filters, nothing. Well obviously they wouldn't sell well, because everyone would buy something else. Now imagine that Ford is the only company that can make cars that work on the highways. Ah... taste the monopoly.

  5. Freedom numbness by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  6. Re:okay... by abe+ferlman · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. Not much happening today? by weave · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not much happening today?!

    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....

  10. Nothing? Really? by llamalicious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's nothing else happening?