Slashdot Mirror
Free Software, Free Society
What's between the covers Free Software, Free Society is divided into four sections:
- One: The GNU Project and Free Software (10 chapters)
- Two: Copyright, Copyleft, and Patents (6 chapters)
- Three: Freedom, Society and Software (5 chapters)
- Four: The Licenses
The book starts off on a good note. Key to understanding nearly everything in the book is a basic understanding of what source code is. Since Stallman's usual audiences don't need to have this explained, Richard E. Buckman and book editor Joshua Gay provide a three-page introduction ("A Note on Software") which is as good and concise an explanation as I've ever seen of the meaning of "source code," "compiler," "assembler," "machine code" and "operating system." Without quibbling over details that space has made them gloss over, this section is a good mental boot camp for anyone reading the book with no programming knowledge at all.
This note is followed by a topic guide which walks a prospective reader through the contents of the book better than a table of contents can, pointing out what concepts are dealt with in the book's chapters, a sort of micro-index. (And in a book this brief, it helps make up for the lack of a more thorough index.)
Lawrence Lessig's introduction largely repeats what Lessig has said in the past about the openness of software. One paragraph in particular sums up one of my favorite analogies when it comes to Free software, and one which I think translates well to those familiar with other fields, like art and architecture:
"... Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by someone else. The lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to the earlier."
Old hat, new hat.
Those familiar with Richard Stallman will no doubt recognize at least some of these essays, or at least their cores, because of the persistence with which Stallman has spread the word of the origins and underlying philosophies of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. The first chapters of the book may bore readers who have heard dozens of times the story of Stallman's experiences with the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) in the MIT AI lab, the dissolution of the software-sharing society there, and how it directly led to his quest for a complete Free operating system. Stallman is an engaging writer, though, and I found myself enjoying it even though I have heard the story several times before.
The chapter in this section most likely to trouble those set in conventional thinking when it comes to software is Chapter 4, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners."
Despite the title, the book does not consist entirely of essays; it also includes a transcript of Stallman's speech at NYU in May of 2001, which shows how consistent Stallman's speaking is with his writing style. Some people have derided Stallman (and the FSF) as too academic, removed from the realities of normal computer users and the business world which right now implicitly favors non-Free software, so it's interesting to note the context of that speech -- it was a direct, welcome reaction to the prodding of Microsoft Vice President Craig Mundie's speech on the same campus earlier the same month, in which Mundie casually referred to the "viral aspect" of the GPL, and declared that Free software "puts at risk the continued vitality of the independent software sector."
There's also Stallman's short story "The Right to Read" and even (Chapter 10) the text and score of the Free Software Song. 'The Right to Read" may be the part of the book most appropriate for reprinting in tract form to leave around public libraries: this is a story, not quite hypothetical enough, about a future where every time a book is read, it must be unlocked with a password and authorized by those who hold the strings of copyright -- and sharing books is prohibited. Replace "books" with "e-books" and the story becomes less an allegory as a description of current reality.
Just as current are Chapters 12 ("Misinterpreting Copyright -- A Series of Errors") and 16 ("The Danger of Software Patents"). Stallman's arguments here, despite his protests that practicality is secondary to ethical interests, are eminently practical and should be read by everyone whose work touches either copyright or patents. And contrary to disparagement sometimes heaped on the Free software movement, he does not dismiss either of these in toto -- he simply points out forcefully ways in which these protections can be dangerously perverted.
Some of Free Software, Free Society's contents may strike readers (whatever their level of interest) as needlessly pedantic. I'm thinking here specifically of Chapter 21, "Words to Avoid," which lists 14 words and phrases Stallman discourages in the context of Free software as he defines it. On second glance, I think even this chapter is well suited to the book, since the reasoning presented for his objections to each word on this list (a paragraph or two apiece) will be most informative to people not already steeped in the lore and leanings of the Free Software movement. Some of these (I'll tease by saying that the entry for "content" is my favorite) squeeze in some humor as well.
Stallman's philosophy is what drives his attachment to Free software, but this book is not just a collection of harangues -- there's a great deal of practical advice as well.
Chapter 8, "Selling Free Software" is an essay found in earlier form on the GNU website, which in a few hundred words obliterates a persistent myth about Free software -- that it can't be sold or can't make its sellers a profit. Stallman emphasizes the differences that the GPL has on distribution terms, but lays out the terms clearly:
"Except for one special situation*, The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."
Helpfully, that older chapter is preceded by one written earlier this year, "Releasing Free Software if You Work at a University." This is a particularly short chapter -- it takes up only two pages -- but the brevity is to Stallman's credit. I would like to see many more case studies beyond the single example presented (a GNU Ada compiler developed at NYU with Air Force funding, with a contract that specified its source code would be donated to the FSF) but these would probably be better in a book with a narrower scope. By not dwelling on unneeded specifics, Stallman has saved space to explain arguments and tactics which may be useful in persuading your school to endorse a Free software license. I also learned in this chapter that "The University of Texas has a policy that, by default, all software developed there is released as free software under the GNU General Public License." (Can anyone tell me more schools where this is true?)
The practical upshot of a philosophical book. Free Software, Free Society is not a book for casual reading, and has no thrills, cliffhangers or suspense -- unless you apply the thoughts within to current, real situations, in which case you can probably find more excitement than you might care for. When Stallman wrote "The Right to Read," no one had yet been arrested for making eBooks accessible or copyable. This book is intentionally didactic and persuasive.
Your library (local or school) should carry a copy of this book because it is distillation of ideas that are philosophically important but by no means abstract. And if the libraries available to you don't carry it, I suggest filling out a book request form -- which you may be able to do right from your computer. (Here are two online examples from Yale and New York City's branch libraries.) Likewise for (as appropriate) your school's computer science department, law school and business school. It would also make a nice gift to your Congressional representatives, since many of them seem to have forgotten that preserving a free society supposed to be their highest aim.
This is a book worth buying, reading, and passing on.
* That exception is when source code is not physically included with binaries; the source code must then be available upon request from the binaries' provider.
You can purchase Free Software, Free Society directly from the GNU Press site. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
..A new book from the GNU Press called Freee Software, Free Society collects several of his essays...
is that freee as in beeer, or freee as in--
ok, sorry, had to do it
I post links to stuff here
I think that keeeey is stuck on my keeeeyboard.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
..the online or downloadable version of this book?
there is too much of RMS-bashing these days, here on slashdot and on a lot of other places. Sure, whatever his faults, he has contributed significantly to the software community in general. How many people here can say that? It pays to remeber that even the greatest of minds (Edison, Newton, etc) were often on the wrong side; that doesn't detract from their acheivements.
I find Stallman instead to be one of the most persistently, relentlessly reasonable people whose thoughts I've ever encountered. Stallman may be a dogmatist,
Almost by definition, a dogmatist can't be reasonable, since dogma itself, as a tenet, is not subject to reason.
After seeing Cringely's Triumph of the Nerds PBS series, in which he pointed out that every person who became wealthy off of hi-tech in the '80s did it by exploiting the innovators, I've had a funny feeling that somebody's going to do the same with "free" software.
My colleagues tell me no, that's not true. But just yesterday we started looking into replacing our commercial database engine with MySQL. Lo and behold, for our commercial use, we have to pay for it.
That's fine, in itself. I think it's fine to pay people for work they did. But think about all the contributors to MySQL, who were doing it because it was "free" and "open" software. MySQL AB (the company who really does control MySQL) is going to make an awful lot of money from all that work. They wouldn't be backed by Venture Capital money if they weren't. But all those contributors shall see not a cent!
I don't mean to pick on MySQL, but I think it's an interesting example. Open source and "free" software is a disruptive technology, just as something like Shareware was when compared to the Freeware model of the early '90s.
But I think it's naive not to expect to see some people make an awful lot of money out of code that others contributed to free. I fear history will repeat itself.
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Regarding the comparison of free code to the law, I think Stallman (and Timothy) might be disappointed to read this at LawMeme. For those who don't want to follow the link:
Apparently, nothing is sacred. :-)
Interestingly enough, O'Reilly had a page devoted to the software that was used, and it sure wasn't open source (PageMaker or FrameMaker, IIRC),
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
the extra "e" is for extra freee
what's that extra "e" for?
Ah, the ambiguity of the English language. Free has more than one meaning. There's free as in freedom to modify, use, redistribute, etc.. and there's free as in no cost. They are not the same thing.
slashdot!=valid HTML
But seriously, is anyone other than those already converted gonna read this? Proverbialy, stop preaching to the choir. I'm afraid it's kinda like talk radio (yuck!!!) in that the callers just agree with whatever position the announcer tasks, or they don't get airtime.
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
is the book copyrighted? If not, is it under any license agreement? Or can i scan it in, and redistribute it on the internet (in its entirety, with obvious credit that RMS was the author and not me?)
obviously, since the book has physical attributes, i wouldn't believe or suggest that a physical book itself would be free... but i'm curious if he eats his own dog food.
tangental question...
how did it come about that Lessig's eBook was protected to the point of being unusable? Did not he write it? (/Yoda) And did he not have control over how its protections were to be set? I am a devotee of Lessig's ideas (not to the man himself), but this has always bothered and confused me.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Some people say vi zealots are unreasonable. I disagree, I think you should have to press a special sequence of characters before you can edit a document. ;)
Random is the New Order.
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
The poster has a completely valid point. If someone could explain to me the fundamental reason why software should be Free but a book should not be available in the same form, please respond.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
If RMS will use the proceedes to buy and use:a bar of soap, a razor, and nail clippers. Wash those filthy ankles!
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Stallman is often criticised as a fanatic ideologist. Do you remember Linus Torvalds saying 'ideology sucks' or 'linux is just for fun' ...
Well, today, linus is working for Palladium
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6487
so, although we don't know precisely ideology is leading us... we can get a picture of what absence of ideology leads to.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
And I WON'T post as a Coward!
"Ye can Mod me doon, but ye cannae take awey me Karma!"
No, wait, actually, you can...
regardless, I still think the book should be free (as in free beer) downloadable. Yeah, you have to cover costs of publishing, I understand you should pay for the paper book, but stallman should let people read it for no cost.
"Except for one special situation*, The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."
Statements like this always seem to skirt over the issue that having sold a copy for however much there's nothing stopping the buyer from turning around and giving it away at no cost at all. So in practical terms the odds that someone will be soon be out there distributing copies at minimal or zero charge seems very high, and hence the probability of anyone else being able to successfully charge any more than that very low. Whether or not that's a good thing it seems to contradict the idea that that you can realistically charge for free (as in speech) software. (And I wouldn't consider something like RedHat boxed sets (which include manuals, possibly some support) a contradiction, a reasonable comparison would maybe be CheapBytes Cds but I would say then you're basically paying for a CD burning and mailing service, not the software)
What's the big deal with Free Software? Why can't he broaden his focus to other area's of engineering and intellectual property? Why is software the only profession that has a foundation (FSF) to make it free.
My theory is that other professions have a much larger barrier of entry then software development. It's easy as a software developer to cheapen the value of the time it takes to write code, whereas with an airplane you can't cheapen the value of raw materials. It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The parent post is not a troll!
He may be a smartass, but he makes a legitmate point.
If you criticize anything about RMS here the linux zealots who believe its the end all/be all OS will get mad and mod you down. His dogma is no more real or original than the guy at the supermarket who talks to himself while stacking the oranges.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How about redistributing the book then? There is PostScript, you know.
Free implies free. And besides that, even if you don't think so, FSF does:
(from gnu.org)
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
The GPL license puts restrictions on what you can do. They are well-intentioned restrictions, like the license mentioned recently here which didn't let you use the software to harm human rights. Or you could imagine a license that required you to donate money to charity. These are good goals but they are not free software.
Free software should mean software that can be used freely, without restriction. That means something like the MIT license. That is a true "free software" license. The GPL is a restrictive license that advances certain social goals.
My ideal world is one where there is a wide mix of software and sofware licenses in use. Some are free, like MIT. Some promote social goals, like GPL. Some are commercial. And some are facist. That way people can decide which licenses and which software they want to use and support. Let a thousand licenses bloom!
That's a dogmatic definition of 'dogma.' The word has the same root as 'doctor' (whose medical meaning is quite recent - the sense of 'professor' is much older) and 'doctrine,' which originally referred to teacher and teaching. So a 'dogma' is generally a received teaching, but that does not at all mean (1) that there is no reason behind the teaching, or (2) that the student is not encouraged to reason about it. The same root is in the Greek word dokein one of whose meanings was 'think.' It also shows up as both 'orthodox' and 'paradox.' Also, 'document.'
Basically, a dogmatist is anyone who professes to have a consistent teaching. While famous examples include Philo of Larissa's elaboration on Plato's Academy 4 and the doctrines of the Councils of the Catholic Church, these do not nearly exhaust the senses of the word. Your definition of dogma as not subject to reason sounds like itself a bit of dogma - something you have been taught, but in this case by someone whose reasoning about it is based on perhaps a judgment about the Catholic Church's instances of dogma, rather than an open study of the history of the term.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I'll post this as myself - I'm not going to hide.
I respect Stallman's right to earn money off of his works. But I've seen a lot of posts here that say "where is the on-line version" of his book. Why are they being modded down? It's an opinion that directly relates to the article.
Slashdot minds want to know!
"Ye can Mod me doon, but ye cannae take awey me Karma!"
Wait, actually, you can...
A lot of people get too caught up in his philosophy and overlook the fact that he's a coding god. I liked this article that sheds some light on his coding abilities.
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
My problem with FSF and RMS is actually the basic tenet of the moment: the idea that the producer (developer) has no more rights than the consumer (user). In this view, ideally, the developer really shouldn't have a say in what license to give their software. There shouldn't be a license at all (GPL should be a basic right to the user). I disagree with this. I think the developer has an overriding right to the product created. If the user doesn't like that, well, too bad. If the user gets to set the terms, then the developer could choose not to make the product in the first place. The world would be worse off in this case. Also, for all the talk about putting the users in slavery, the ideal which FSF ask for would put the developer in slavery.
/., I wonder how many GPL cheerleaders understand this difference.
That said, I do choose GPL over a BSD license because of its effect. The BSD license is a true gift license, in the sense it basically says: "take this product and use it as you see fit." With GPL, you are basically saying: "take this product and use it as you see fit, BUT the payment is, if you want to redistribute it, you need to give the source, and any changes you have made to it." To me, this a fair payment. But note, I had the choice to chose which license I would like to put in my product.
Sometimes, reading
Je ne parle pas francais.
the people who don't give a damn about the bits being free or recognize MSFT as evil are probably not gonna be the ones who'll buy the book, so this is pretty unlikely to change any minds.
On the other hand, Wal-Mart is selling a PC with Linux for $200, showing how the most expensive part is the Windows tax. Now THAT will do a LOT of good as it'll get middle America gets comfortable with Linux.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mods are huffing airplane glue again, but you can probably get most of the Stallman experience by visiting gnu.org, reading the GNU Public License and a couple of essays, and grabbing one or two of his speeches (.ogg format) from here. Or visit your library. No doubt he'll have a few paragraphs in the book explaining why the book costs money.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
What's so wrong with people with 4 digit UIDs? (of course this post will incite people with lower UIDs to run in to proclaim "What's the big deal about low UIDs?", all the while pointing a big arrow at their own, even lower UID) In my case I most certainly am not an open source advocate, I don't run Linux (though I have a FreeBSD firewall), and I've been called a Microsoft astroturfer countless times (which is the standard method of proclaiming "Go along with the flow lest we feel vulnerable in our `alternative' beliefs"). Indeed I got this account when a hippie, alternative OS friend recommended the link way back in the day, and I promptly then forgot about it. Some time later I set up a new account (ergo2000 I believe), posted from it for a while, and one day remembered this old account. Silly story, but I had to justify having a somewhat low UID.
The hypocrisy doesn't lie in the ambiguity of the word "free". It's in using the word "free" to refer to copyright-restricted software, such as the GPL is based on.
Insist on "free" as in Public Domain.
For the 1 hundredth BILLION TIME:
Free means, free to see how its made, free to use the source, free as in speech.
Free doesn't mean 'free' because had you read the goddamn article, you'd have read how RMS isn't opposed to charging for software.
God almighty. I don't think you were a troll, but I forgive the moderators for not having the "-1, Trite, glib, illinformed" mod option available.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Free doesn't mean 'free' because had you read the goddamn article, you'd have read how RMS isn't opposed to charging for software.
Funny... the GPL license seems to state otherwise.
the free version is still there, free for anyone else to use as they see fit.
RMS is intolerant of perspectives that differ from his own.
I believe you're stretching the meaning of tolerance a little too far here. Tolerance is useful when we are describing the ability of individuals to get along without significantly interacting. It is a stepping stone from hatred to understanding; i.e., if you can't accept or sympathize with homosexuals, you should at least tolerate them since they don't do you any harm.
But RMS gets very angry at people who try to harm his ability to create software by closing off avenues of inquiry through abuse of the idea ownership system. They are harming him, and they are harming his ability to contribute to the software community.
If there were no relationship between what he gets angry about and his contributions to computing, you would be right that the issues are distinct. But they have everything to do with one another.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
No it doesn't.
.. both of which promise (despite the model being broken today) that the ideas DO become available to the general public for 0$ after the author has been compesated enough for those ideas to continue working on his/her next idea.)
> The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
RMS's essays are available for Free as In Beer, all over the web. Also free as in speech, because you dont have to pay for the book to get access to the ideas and thoughts that went into them.
RMS isn't charging you because the only place to get the ideas in the book is buying the book. He's charging you because you should be free to charge whatever you like for you work; you simply shouldn't be able to sell the product by withholding the ideas in the product unless you purchase.
Today, we have tons of Franchise Pimps: companies that produce exclusive works and dont allow you access to the ideas of those works without buying those works. They hold the ideas hostage behind the distribution layer of those ideas.
RMS isn't doing that; he's charging you because some work went into collecting, compiling and publishing those works.
That is, you're paying for the BOOK, not the IDEA. Just like how software should be; you should be paying for the work, not the exclusivity of the ideas behind that work (because presumably, those ideas should be protected in some limited term by copyright or patents
Free doesn't imply free; you just assume, contrary to the very function of copyright and patent laws, that holding ideas hostage and manipulating your asking price because your ideas are exclusive to your distribution/publication layter, is required to make money. Nothing in history supports this view, although the current mindset in business has yet to take their beer blasses off (pun intended.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
bumpersticker : Slashbot's dogma ran over my karma!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
OK. You pass. But what about the 9999 asswipes out there?
P.S.: I am reading "4 digit UID" as "4 or fewer digit UID", for the anally retentive out there.
Although it would be great to type "cp ~/transport/airpanes/boeing747/TF1000 ~/transport/airpanes/boeing747/TF1001" and create a new airplane, its not possible. Software has no marginal cost, and therefore has a very small cost overall (1 person uses a program, which took 100 hours at $20 an hour to produce, cost of the program is $2,000. If 1,000,000 people use it, cost is still $2,000)
There are free documentation (hmm, wheres the online version of *this* book) licenses, as you can copy an electronic form of a book easilly. You cant copy an airplane.
So what if I try to sell software in this utopian world without providing access to the source?
Storm troopers gonna bust my door down to obtain it?
MySQL is dually licensed under GPL and a commercial license. MySQL AB can do this since they are the creators of the code.
If you wish to use the software under the restrictions of the GPL, you are free to do so. But if you wish to do something not allowed by the GPL, then, and only then must you purchase the commercial license.
This is clearly spelled out in MySQL AB's licensing section:
Had they made MySQL LGPL or BSD licensed rather than GPL, then this restriction wouldn't exist.
You can do anything with MySQL that the GPL allows. But if you want to do something not allowed, you still can, but you must pay MySQL AB.
I don't see how you can find any fault with this.
*cough* Linucks *cough* :)
History won't get to laugh when RMS farts without shame in front of a room full of suits. History will find RMS to be a talented writer and visionary programmer, but they won't get to enjoy seeing just how little he cares what anyone thinks of him.
We teach our kids "be yourself". We tell them the fable of the emperor's new clothes in hopes that they will not let the tradition-bound opinions of their peers cloud their view of the truth. Well, this man truly, truly lives that spirit in a way that you and I can only imagine.
No, the public will when they realize you're holding ideas hostage in order to profit.
You're using scarcity to drive up your asking price; and market fundamentals state that using exclusivity and rarity to influence market price runs against the very notion of an open market where competition manages the effenciency of resources and work.
And what utopian world is that? The Utopian world of patents, where YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH THE METHODS OF YOUR IDEA TO EVERYONE ON THE PLANET before collecting a SINGLE CENT OFF OF IT?
"Old man yells at systemd"
So? If it can be cheapened, it will be cheapened. That's economics.
Once software writing becomes almost too cheap to support new software development, supply and demand says that it will stop getting cheaper. No big deal.
along with this message...
and on the first page of every chapter is this notice...Why can't he broaden his focus
What have you done that gives you the right to complain about RMS's focus? What example have you set? Why don't YOU start the Free Engineering Foundation and Free Aviation Foundation. RMS seems to have his hands full already.
the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS
No way. RMS wants to see the value of people's time set by the market, not by government imposed monopolies over ideas. It doesn't take any of your "time" to let someone download a copy of the software you've already written. The economy of software production needs to be restructured from a less monopolistic model to one that actually values a programmer's time according to what it is worth in the marketplace.
Some people call this "capitalism".
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The parent post answers a question that has been asked many times in this thread. There should be at least one answer for all the questions asked.
RMS has stated in the past that there are many battles out there more important than software, but that there are also people out there more qualified than he to fight those battles. He chose software because no one else was doing it and he was (and is) capable of doing a very good job at it.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Free as in Speech - you have a right to it, so it should be Free.
Of course it's easy to substitute one for the other (as many intentionally do). When that happens, you have people who suggest that the Beer (anything you want but usually have to pay for) should be "Free as in Speech", meaning that it is your right to not have to pay for the Beer.
I hope this clears up a common use/abuse of these popular terms.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, but in the leap to appear clever and insightful a bunch of posters though they could post something witty about not being able to download the book. Unless you're talking about downloading the physical book into that replicator you just invented, it's an idiotic question. Just about everything Stallman has ever written publically is on gnu.org and/or stallman.org.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
' You cannot "compile" a book into an unreadable format'
Sure I can, it's called PGP.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Free software came in the back door as sysadmins starting putting Linux servers all over the place in corporations. European development has been somewhat anti-corporate America in its orientation.
I think RMS would gladly trade support in broad base of technology workers over support from their bosses. He's trying to change consciousness not change software vendors.
Why should it be available for free download? Is it code? I don't think the Free SOFTWARE Foundation has any ideological interest in making content unrelated to code available for free of charge.
Note that they do want content to be unencumbered by license agreements, but there's no indication they think it should be gratis.
What doesn't the ACLU worry about rainforest decimation? Why doesn't the EFF broaden their focus to workers compensation?
An organziation needs a focus. If you broaden your focus too much, you dilute your message and risk alienating potential supporters who agree with part of your message but not all of it. And if you're a small organization (and compared to say the ACLU, the FSF is microscopic), you only have so much time and energy to spend. By focusing they increase their chances of doing good.
Furthermore, software has a certain special place in copyright law shared with few other areas. Software is both functional and expressive. Without the source, it's functionally impossible for an end user to modify it. I'd be hard pressed to modify my copy of Microsoft Office, but I can pretty easily modify my car or a book I've purchased.
This has nothing to do with the cheapening of developer time. Remember that RMS comes from a developer background. Many Free Software supporters (like myself) are professional programmers. He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use it?
Let's look at an idealized "perfect Stallman world" in which he gets everything he wants (as near as I can tell). It becomes hard to sell software, because once one copy is sold it will be copied and resold for increasingly smaller prices until it has a zero price. Does this mean no software will be written and software developers will starve? Certainly not. First, more software is written strictly for in-company use. There was never a goal to sell it. If the company is concerned that there are valuable secrets in their in-company software, they can use "trade secret" law to protect it from being spread just fine. This leaves the much smaller segment of software for sale. Will the market shrink? Perhaps. However, much of the value of purchased software has always been support and warrantee. (Well, that's the theory. In practice much commericial software has useless support and disclaims any warrantees, but anyway...). So there opens a market for selling support and warrantees, and who best can support and warrantee the product besides the authors? Also, if software is open, there opens a large market for developers who will assemble existing products to create customized solutions for particular clients. Ultimately, the software is needed. The people who write the software need to make money. Something will be worked out, be it the Street Performer Protocol, tips, sponsorship by a company providing support and warrantee (essentially what RedHat and many other distributors do now), or something else.
I'm a software engineer and I support Free Software, and I'm not worried in the slightest about Free Software destroying my career. I may need to remain flexible, especially when I take jobs writing software for sale, but the work will remain.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
My understanding is that this book is a collection of previously written articles and essays that have already been published on the Web.
That is the most well reasoned and thoughtful response I've ever seen to that argument. I know that argument has serious flaws, but I previously wasn't sure how to point out those flaws in such a careful and precise manner. Thanks.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think it's important to point out: while the GPL isn't entirely free, it's certainly freer than the default rules for works protected by copyright. If you're going to take a hard line position than any restriction makes software non-free, even MIT/BSD licenses aren't free (They require that the copyright notice and warrantee disclaimer remain intact). Ultimately the only things that are totally "without restriction" are things in the public domain. (And regrettably, you can be liable for things you put in the public domain, which is why the MIT/BSD licenses have the restrictions that they do.) At some point you need to draw a line between free and non-free. I chose to draw it at "United States copyright law is the beginning of non-free." It sounds like you draw it at "Anything more than requiring a copyright statement and warrantee disclaimer is non-free." But I think it's important to specify where your line is.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
If you ever looked at his consulting rates, you wouldn't say that. 10 years ago, his rates were (justifiably) $200/hr. Seems like he values his time and effort quite highly. I suspect he does of others too.
His point is that holding ideas hostage is morally wrong, and that you should find other means to recover those costs. Free Software most emphatically does NOT mean the programmer isn't paid.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
And here's the rub. If you believe that ideas can be owned, then there's nothing wrong with this. If you don't believe ideas can be owned, then there is something wrong with this.
This was the idea that the founders of the American Constitution had to wreslte with: How do you protect the rights of an innvoator to the fruits of his or her labor, but allow the advance of technology and art? That's why the American constitution speaks directly to the concept of "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;". It is compromise between allowing the innovator to receive the rewards of their innovation, but mandating that after a time those innovations be released to the public domain so that more innovators can build on those ideas.
I have a problem with people who say that everything I do should be free once I've been compensated for the time I've written something. I feel it's my choice how my labor will be disposed with. If I want to make a profit on my labor, well, that's my choice. With that said, I also have a huge problem with our elites trying to extend to effectively infinity the right of patent and (especially) copyright ("Melancholy Elephants", anyone?).
One existing solution here is arxiv.org, an online article repository. Its free, and has gazillions of papers. Unfortunately, its not peer-reviewed, which is a serious point in any scientific field.
You can do a lot as one person though -- e.g., I licenced my ph.d. thesis under the "open content" license, allowing anyone to copy all or part of it, but requiring my approval for changes (merely because I don't want nonsense inserted). Freely downloadable at
http://web.mit.edu/~dingus/www/theses/tue/thesis.p df
if you're curious.
Further, if you carefully read the transfer of copyright agreements for most journals, its trivial to revise your articles to the point that they are no longer restricted.
In any case, however, I don't think this is RMS's domain. For the scientific arena, someone who is already a major player needs to take this on -- someone with an intricate knowledge of the existing system and its problems.
My $0.02 anyway.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's making a perfectly reasonable statement as to why source code should be included with software binaries. That's fine.
How is that a thoughtful response to the redistribution argument, though? I'm serious (although perhaps something of a devil's advocate now) - why isn't the book available in a freely redistributable electronic format? I know there is no obligation to do so, but it seems like the most principled thing to do. And again, RMS is an evangelist for FS, and should practice what he preaches as best as possible. Instead it's a $25 book. I have to go back to work.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Fact #1: 90% of code -- or better yet, coding time -- is used in app customization and internal app development. This is conservative. There are zillions of smallish apps that boxed software doesn't cover.
Fact #2: Comercial distribution methods existing prior to OSS were unable to get software and software libraries on the hands of developers in a timely and costly fashion. I won't dwelve on the reasons for this, but it is a fact that if you worked in a company ten years ago and asked for a license of the XYZ library, 5/10 times it'd get refused, and 3/10 it'd take so long to purchase it'd be useless.
Consequence: Software developers working with closed code only, are destined to reinvent the wheel countless times. Creating the same XML parser as their competitor down the corner, reimplementing quick-sort for a smalish processor, etc...
OSS solves this problem. Granted, it solves it, costing a lot to the sellers of the 10% mass production code. Accidentally, these are also monopoly owners and own a much larger share of the software market income, by grabbing the specific software value, and selling it at mass production rates -- which would bring prices down in any other industry.
Overall, the whole economy is much more productive with OSS. Today, this is a fact. There are no signs that the rate at which software is produced is decaying because of OSS. If it is not, and if software is costing less, efficiency is rising. If efficiency is rising, I couldn't care less for the Microsofts and Oracles of this world.
Some of this could be transposed to other professions. But then again, I don't suppose civil engineers hide the algorithms for calculating suspension bridges. Not now, and not when those were invented.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
he has done great things for not only the FOSS communities, but comptuing in general. however, his philosophy is basically socialist in nature. and socialism is basically opposite of freedom. while i applaud his software contributions, i assume most /. readers like making money. we want to do it with FOSS, and many of us contribute in any number of ways for no pay, but we all have bills (no not him!!) to pay, kids to feed, mortgages, (ex-wives!!!), etc. he cannot be roundly accepted in corporate climates since he is the antithesis of corporate. i respect that. but i don't happen to agree.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use it?
There are many companies that sell products and services that you're not allowed to "modify." Renting a hotel room; leasing a car; taking a bus ride; borrowing a DVD; using cable TV and descrambler boxes; etc.
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
And you are surprised by this? RMS is clearly a leftist. The product of a single person is not something of interest to a communist. He has stated that he doesn't believe we have a right to IP. ANY form of IP. His belief is that an idea once it leaves the confines of your skull in any form is free to be used by anyone in anyway. Simply because it CAN be replicated he thinks it should without limits. If he could figure out how to replicate food and fuel and other tangible items I think he would.
As others have pointed out the main problem with FREE software or FREE music or FREE anything is that workers are exploited. Even RMS on some level realizes this or why would he get so pissy about insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux. He wants to make sure he gets the credit.(i.e. Please don't exploit me! I wrote it. Waaah!) But for ideas to be truly free you've got to surrender that right as well. RMS is a hypocrite. He finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings. Money equals ownership and if you don't want money then you can't have ownership. Yet he doesn't like to surrender the power of being the author of GNU gives him. At some level he owns GNU because he wrote it. But when he gives it away you give that right away too. You can't have it both ways.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
No, it's not available for free download in book form.
Even the review restates a paragraph that explicitly says you can charge for a product. To grossly oversimplify, the *only* requirement the GPL makes is that the source code accompany any binaries, and that the buyer has the right to modify and/or redistribute the binaries or source code under the terms of the GPL.
The *real* question is, can you OCR the text and post it on the net yourself?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
free to use the source ...
RMS isn't opposed to charging for software
Company X charges $100 for their product, but I'm free to use the source. I download the source, compile it, use it. Total cost: $0. How's that work again?
I think you're missing the point.
Free (as it's referred in FSF rhetoric, or libre) doesn't imply no cost. It only implies that once you have the information, you are free to do with it is as you please. Freedom of information once it's obtained is the key. The publishers of the book have decided that they want monetary compensation for a hard copy of their book, so pay up if you really want one. Once you have a copy, you're free to copy, repeat or whatever the text of that book as you see fit.
Sure, the copying of text from a book to a computer is highly less convenient than downloading a tar ball and distributing it on gnutella, but the freedom is there just the same.
arcane for life
I think you will find that the book is available in a freely redistributable electronic format. You should read the messages posted here again.
Besides, it isn't in conflict with his principles for the book to not be available in a digital format. It would be in conflict if the book didn't have a notice in it explicitly permitting you to make copies of it, but the book does have such a notice.
I think you will find it extremely difficult to impossible to find any trace of hypocrisy in anything RMS does. You are so conditioned to find it by the behavior of all of our other public figures in the US that I don't blame you for thinking RMS must practice this vice as well. But, as far as I can tell, he doesn't.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's easy. I did it. Here's the steps:
/ 1750232&mode=thread&tid=117 and http://www.gnupress.org/book13.html
t tp://plsinfo.org/
1) go to Google
2) enter library
3) click on the link
4) find their online catalog, and the link that says something like "If does not own an item, you can suggest that we purchase it."
5) follow the directions there, giving them a link to both http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/05
For those of you living in Silicon Valley, here are some links to get you started:
http://www.menloparklibrary.org/libcats.html
h
Can your IM do this?
Please show me any program produced in 100 hours that anyone will pay $2000 for.
God-muther-fucking-damnit! You moronic, muther-fucking, ass-ramming, cock-sucking, child-molesting, cross-dressing, illeterate, illegitimate, anti-social, dirty-hippie, goatse.cx-loving, toothpick-sized-dick-having, nazi moderators have fucked up AGAIN!
A first post can not be redundant, since it is the FIRST post.
not only does mr. stallman do an excellent watt tyler, he is even thoughtful enough to answer email from jus' folks. i'm sure the firmness of his skull, is a required part of his "job".
try doing that with some felonious gangsterious FraUDuleNT payper liesense stock markup FraUD megalomaniac.
surely you mean 9998 asswipes
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Given: This book is copyrighted.
Given: A book can be considered source code for ideas and/or information.
Given: RMS believe source code should be freely redistributable.
Can I make a book of RMS's essays and sell it for $2.00 over the cost of printing and give none to RMS?
Can I make copies of this book and redistribute it for $2.00 over the cost of copying?
I believe software and digital media should be treated like any other work that has a copy right. You buy one copy. You can make back-up copies. You can use bits of the item under general fair use guidelines. You can not make copies to sell or give away, unless the author gives his OK. If you sell the copy, you sell everything and keep nothing.
I do not believe that ALL software should be freely distributable. That is for the author of the software to decide.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Free software is only about economics. Will free software help open society in China NO! Will it ever NO! But will it help curb costs and help China and other countries compete in the global marketplace YES! Free software will help governments improve their place in the global food chain, but it isn't going to change how they treat their people. The quality of life may improve if the country's government cuts cost, but even that isn't guaranteed.
What made me sad was that he was right about most of what he was saying (though I don't know if Jonathan Potter really is a troll or not). Luckily, most of the time, John Perry Barlow managed to communicate the same things that RMS was trying to say, but in a more reasonable style, that actually were very effective in countering the IP hogs on the panel.
RMS is a man with high ideals and a strong sense of right and wrong. That I commend. However, in this world, it isn't enough to be right. Most of us live in a grey world and have enough self-interest to demand that someone please us with their message before we accept it as right. I am not saying that RMS should compromise, but good politicians (i.e., good people who are political, if such a thing exists) are able to convince people of the rightness of their message without distorting it.
Where is ..the online or downloadable version of this book?
No where. And it doesn't need to be. If the book was licensed like the GPL, then anyone who bought a copy could redistribute the text. But there is a separate libre license specifically designed to deal with documents, and so the GPL doesn't even apply.
Not only that, but Stallman has a long history of funding his open-source work by selleing books.
I recall when I first encountered emacs. Stallman was selling a manual for it to raise money - which I believe he was using to pay his rent.
The manual contained EXACTLY THE SAME MATERIAL as the free online documentation contained in the distribution. But the printed form was handy - and (depending on what your computer resources were) often cheaper than printing it out yourself, as well.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Software has no marginal cost, and therefore has a very small cost overall (1 person uses a program, which took 100 hours at $20 an hour to produce, cost of the program is $2,000. If 1,000,000 people use it, cost is still $2,000)"
Except most software takes thousands of hours to produce at far more than $20/hour. Try tens of thousands of hours at $80-100/hour. So your typical software product is in the millions of $ to produce.
A very small marginal cost does not equate to a very small cost overall. Producing software is not like creating widgets, you don't calculate cost based on marginal cost, but rather on recovery cost. Software is a high risk activity, for every product with an 85% profit margin you have more products with a 85% loss margin.
This is because after you've spent $10mil and you sold your first copy for $40, you are still running at a loss. Your hope is to sell 250,000 copies to break even on the initial development, but the reality is you have to sell more than that in order to cover cost of marketing, distribution and support and so forth. That's not guaranteed by any means, so you had better be creating something people want and are willing to pay for.
In RMS's world, the first copy should sell for $10 million, everybody else get's it for free. This works well if it's the Government creating the software, and it also solves the whole problem of having to please consumers in a market. This is why FSF proponents are typically found proposing ways to get the Government to fund all software development.
It is socialism at it's finest.
Why wouldn't he? Heck I would! The lynchpins of Trek-esque almost-utopia that we don't have are cheap, clean, near-limitless power; and replicators. If patent lawyers were running the show, we'd get Diamond Age instaid.
So? If it can be cheapened, it will be cheapened. That's economics.
No, economics is supply and demand of softare. RMS is saying make it free - not because the demand is free, but because it's the Right Thing to do. No one is screaming "software is too expensive", except for the people who's bread and butter is coming from it. I find this extremely odd - you won't find this in any other industry.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
If one believes in equality, democracy, and the drive to make a better humanity, one can easily be lead to believe that everyone's time should be equally compensated.
So your time playing XBox is just as valuable as my time being productive? I believe in democracy, and I believe that everyone is create equal, but if you want to be a communitist or communalist then why live in the USA, and why not fight the political fight instead of (excuse the expression) poisoning a legitimate industry?
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Start here: Free Software Definition.
Then look here for links to most speeches and essays:Philosophy
First of all, I don't consider reading all of Stallman's essays online equivalent to reading this book. Second of all, I have seen the posts regarding the notice in the book (it can be copied, redistributed with credit to auther, etc). It doesn't change my opinion, though.
My feeling is that if he believes all software should be GPLed, then GNU Press should release the book in a freely redistributable digital form in addition to paper. Software makers do not have the option of distributing their code in book form, which is much more difficult to copy and redistribute than source files. If he's going to harm the ability of others to earn a living (which the free redistribution clauses definitely do, IMO), then he should make as much personal sacrifice as possible (note: this also wouldn't be so much of an issue to me if the book wasn't clearly priced to make a profit. if i want to donate to GNU or FSF, i would donate). I think it is only honorable, considering he is the one calling for sacrifice.
Again, I'm not saying he's violating rules, just that he should follow them even more zealously than is necessary. I think all of the GNU Press books should be available in this way.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
You're missing my point when I used the word broaden. I'm saying, his philosophy is really not a software related philosophy, but it's a socioeconomic philosophy which involves all products and services, not just software. His focus on software, IMHO, makes him look like a utopian idealist computer nerd!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
And you can download the texinfo sources from anonymous CVS -- see http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/rms-essays for details.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of the book provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.
So does anyone have a URL for an online version of the book - scanned in or otherwise?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I will point you to any web shopping system (or whatever) created in-house by people paid $20/hour. They take about 100 hours to create, conservatively.
a) Stallman never talks about "Intellectual Property", accept to say that he dislikes the term. Instead he talks about patents, copyrights and trademarks as distinct concepts. He even recognises the differences between different sorts of copyrightable works. So to say that he doesn't believe we have any right to IP is plain wrong and downright mischeavious.
b) The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines of your skill" was first recognised by the founding fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world is enriched.
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
GNU
You can check out the source from CVS. Also, most of the essays are already on the GNU philosophy page, and the rest are being put up this week.
We do request that if you download the book rather than buy it, that you make a donation to the Free Software Foundation instead to help offset the cost of producing and formatting the book for publication. Indeed, I am frankly afraid that our meager savannah resources will collapse from the slashdot effect.Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it, you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car, or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of appropriate public laws, naturally).
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the power. Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long defunct. I happen to If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of luck. If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in providing it, I'm out of luck.
If software publishers are interested in providing a service instead of a product, they could at least be honest about it. Of course if they were honest (before you pay for it, you have to sign a contract agreeing that you are purchasing a service and that you own nothing), I expect customers would react negatively because people don't like living under leases and licenses. The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that only persists because everyone ignores it.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Fact #1:
.NET, XML, Web Services) you'll see more code reuse without the need to open up the source - just the need for reflection and/or documentation.
Please site your references for this "fact" (actually, I suppose that you're not far off but I'm not interested in what you or I "feel", I need real references).
Fact #2:
This has some truth, but the bottom line is it's MY software, not yours to decide what's best for society. Thanks to OOP becoming more and more useful as well as common platforms or communication layers (Java,
Oh, and go ask any civil engineering company for even some details on the physics modeling software used for the last major bridge that they built. These companies compete on designing bridges that take up less space and raw materials while achieving incredible levels of structural integrity. It's the physics modeling software that let's them do this, and we'll see how likely they are to let the competition in on any of the details, let alone the source code and algorithms for their models.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
With any discussion about RMS and his myriad of contributions, it's great to look up a little history in order to keep perspective.
In particular, I recall the era of Emacs vs Lucid Emacs vs Epoch (basically 3 variants of Emacs, some incompatibilities, a lot of confusion, and a bit of a dropped-ball on the part of the FSF).
Wind your way-back machine to 1992, via deja.com: Lucid Emacs threads
You may even see a few familiar names in there, such as a kid named Marc Andreesen...
My example is: RMS has given us Emacs and GCC as two of his best efforts. But, he's also been pretty difficult to work with over the years (aside from meetings and other examples others have posted). I have to wonder how this has affected the development of HURD, which started in 1990.
My perspective is... He's a great coder, and has made lots of valuable, tangible contributions. BUT... He should not be a front-man for the idea of Free Software. It's difficult for a lot of people to get past the poor messenger, and to the message itself (think "business decision makers" for a moment)
Sorry this is unfocused. I am orbiting around the "great contributions, but still makes me cringe" vibe of RMS.
The problem is that when I buy a TV, it is not easily modified. The manufacturer does not give me the production notes to help me dissasemble it. But legally, I CAN dissamble it, for educational pruposes or otherwise. OSS is totally different. I can make a change to it, but I can then sell multiple copies of it. This has nothnig to do with personal ownership, and everything to do with corporations profiting off of the backs of programmers who work for free. EULA's aside (which have yet to be proven that they have any weight in court), no one is stopping you from using SoftIce on a program and recompiling it for your own use - I essentially do that all the time via NOCD "Cracks" so that I don't have to use my CD for games that I OWN. I don't need the entire source code to Quake to make this modification. The difference, again, is that I'm not selling this software to people on ebay. Heck, even Microsoft is not going after people who modify their personal XBox's - they just won't support you. (Note: They ARE going after _Businesses_ who are makeing devices for the purposes of piracy - this is seperate from our individual right to open up the box).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
"Except for one special situation*, The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."
Yes, but the first person who buys it from me can turn around and sell it for N - 1 dollars (where N is what I charged for it), thus undercutting me.
I feed and clothe my family with the money I make writing commercial software. I write desktop software which ships in the millions of copies, and no, in general consumers are not willing to pay for consulting services, support, or documentation like they do in the corporate IT world.
Free software works best when the software itself is of secondary importance and tied in with something else (service/support, hardware, etc.) that people actually buy. When there is nothing to tie in with, then there is no way to make a living doing it. In other words, in RMS' opinion, software has zero value. Thanks, but I choose to believe that the time I and my co-authors invest in our software is worth compensation.
When Richard Stallman's screeds start acknowledging and accomodating my way of life, get back to me. Until then, he has no relevance to me.
I think you're expanding his view unfairly. He feels that many products and services aren't appropriate to cover with his views on freedom. (Stallman says as much in this Slashdot interview, "The ethical issues about copying and modifying works depend on the kind of work and how people can use it.")
Software is a special case (not the only special case, naturally, but definately a special case). Software is functional and expressive. If it was only functional, you couldn't copyright it. If it was only expressive, you couldn't patent it. As a functional device, you should be able to modify or repair software you've purchased (like you would a car or a house), but you're denied the ability to do so. As an expressive form, you should be able to deconstruct it, analyze it, and create derivative works from it, but you're denied that ability as well. For better or worse, software has ended up as a weird crossroads in law, in part because it so new laws have been clumsily thrown at it, and in part because it's a unique creative form. As such, it deserves to be discussed and considered as a special case.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
So if you could build a little replicator you'd still go to Safeway, Shell, Ford, etc. for stuff?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
from the OED online:
[a. L. dogma philosophical tenet, a. Gr. , -, that which seems to one, opinion, tenet, decree, f. to seem, seem good, think, suppose, imagine. At first used with Gr.-L. plural; the forms dogme, dogm, represented F. dogme (16th c.in Hatz.-Darm.).]
1. That which is held as an opinion; a belief, principle, tenet; esp. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought; sometimes, depreciatingly, an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion.
[a1600 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. VIII. ii. 13 [tr. D. Stapleton] Power to proclaim, to defend, and..to preserve from violation dogmata, very articles of religion themselves.] 1638 SIR T. HERBERT Trav. (ed. 2) 267 The grosse fanatick Dogmataes of the Alcoran. 1640 G. WATTS tr. Bacon's Adv. Learn. III. iv. 3 Those Dogmaes and Paradoxes are almost vanished. a1652 J. SMITH Sel. Disc. VII. iv. (1821) 350 Our dogmata and notions about justification. 1676 R. DIXON Nat. Two Test. 21 Prophane Dogms and impure Worship. 1704 HEARNE Duct. Hist. (1714) I. 400 Their Dogmata and Astrological Doctrine..we shall not enlarge upon them. 1843 RUSKIN Mod. Paint. I. (1844) p. lii, The dogmata of the schools of art. 1874 GREEN Short Hist. v. 3 (1882) 229 To assert the freedom of religious thought against the dogmas of the Papacy. 1893 J. ORR God & World I. 26 note, Dogma I take to be a formulation of doctrine stamped with ecclesiastical authority.
2. The body of opinion formulated or authoritatively stated; systematized belief; tenets or principles collectively; doctrinal system.
1791 BURKE Fr. Affairs Wks. VII. 13 The present..is a revolution of doctrine and theoretick dogma. 1856 EMERSON Eng. Traits, Lit. Wks. (Bohn) II. 111 If, going out of the region of dogma, we pass into that of general culture. 1871 KINGSLEY Lett. (1878) II. 368 If you wish to save Christian dogma. 1871 MORLEY Carlyle (1878) 191 It places character on the pedestal where Puritanism places dogma.
filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
Please take the time to learn the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements. It is not at all appropriate or helpful to associate Richard Stallman with the Open Source movement or disassociate him with the movement he started--the Free Software movement.
Digital Citizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's my line of reasoning. One of the key points of Free software is free redistribution.
Note that it is software that should be freely redistributed, and also note that this means without restrictions, not without cost.
That people often give Free software to others at no cost is due to kindness or other considerations on their part and not to any legal requirements of the GPL. (Other Free licences may differ but since it is RMS I will refer to the GPL.)
You want to apply what RMS says of software to other works of authorship. If you do, I tend to feel you are right, but, if I remember correctly, when RMS has been questioned on this, he has basiocally said that he does not know if other works should be treated the same as woftware but that he knows that software should be. I think he feels software documentation should be treated like software though.
So, if you or I were to release a book like RMS has, would anyone read eithr of our books, we would perhaps be guilty of being inconsistent with out stated beliefs, but in this case, RMS is not being so with his stated beliefs. NOTE - I am not saying that he is under no obligation to think about other works more and to come to some conclusion on those as well, but he seems to take the position that software is his area and his fight and that others can deal with other areas.
Now, if we were to release our book in this fashion, our guilt would lie in not providing machine readable copies to those who bought the book, not in the fact that we refused to supply the book in whatever form free of charge.
This is a common misconception with the GPL. If i distribute software under the GPL, I do not have to do so for no charge, I can charge what I like os long as the buyer is willing to pay. If he is not willing to meet my price, I can lower the price to one that he finds acceptable, or I can choose not to let him have a copy. What I cannot do is sell him a binary price at an agreeable price and then try and charge a bunch of money when he asks for a copy of the source.
A Nony Mouse
It's big of you to call for "a somber, factual, reasonable, respectful debate" after calling RMS a "rude", "interupting", "unpresentable", "shrill", "adversarial", "divise" and bigoted messenger. More name calling, how typical. Go away no one here needs closed source binaries and I'm tired of your form of debate.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First of all, nobody was forced to contribute to MySQL. You can have the source code, you can read it, you can understand it, and you can patch it. Nowhere does the license force you to publicize your patches.
But let's talk about Free Software, not MySQL. The GPL forces me as software publisher to allow you to exploit my free software commercially. It also forces you to allow others to do the same. I don't see how this is exploiting anyone unfairly. Except maybe me, because I wrote the software, and I'm (in most cases) not getting any money out of it.
Sending you patches for bugs I found in your software could even be considered as payment! After all, you giving me the source code gave me the opportunity to have this bug fixed. So instead of saying the poor contributor was screwed, I'd say he got paid (he got to use my software in the first place) and he thanked me for it by sending me a patch. Using the patch is no less exploiting than him using my software in the first place!
If a contributor has a problem with MySQL selling his contributed code, he can ask them to get paid for it. They can refuse to integrate his code then. Nobody will be the wiser. And this waste of resources (several people fixing the same bugs independently) is one of the things the GPL eliminates, because the first one to patch it knows that his patch is covered by the GPL, so he might as well send it back to the software author.
MySQL is a bad example because they sell non-GPL licenses. So they can't incorporate external fixes without explicit permission from the contributor to sell licenses of it.
Some people say vi zealots are unreasonable. I disagree, I think you should have to press a special sequence of characters before you can edit a document. ;)
M$ Word zealots think they should pay for an editor they can not use from a remote terminal without having special software installed that displays a desktop so you can mouse over a link that tries to call software on the local box anyway. Brain dead.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
FROM: Richard Stallman
DATE: 04/13/1988 00:50:42
SUBJECT: Apple
Because of its lawsuit, Apple is now the primary enemy of free
software (and other kinds of software as well). I hope that instead
of porting GCC to their system you will port yourself to another
system.
If the principle that someone can have the power to stop others from
writing a broad class of programs becomes established, no programming
project will be safe. For our own protection in the long run, we must
be willing to make sacrifices now to make Apple regret its attack.
One way to do this is to look for one aspect of your dealings with
Apple that you can put an end to, to cut Apple`s business. For
example, if you were thinking of developing software for Macintoshes,
don`t start. If you have been doing so, start porting your programs
to other systems. If you are about to buy a computer, don`t buy it
from Apple.
If you do these things, you will not be alone. There is a great anger
building against Apple, and each of us who rejects Apple in some way
will encourage another to do likewise
So communists and fascists are reasonable too - their reasoning is persistent and relentless
Oh, well, one more high school book review...
Yes, as long as you credit RMS as the author.
Yes. As long as you leave the bits in the book that say who the authors of the individual essays were.
Without the protection afforded by a government granted monopoly, the author wouldn't have a choice. Absent a government, the author wouldn't be able to enforce copyright at all.
Besides, I don't think proprietary software will exist in 10-20 years. It's horribly economically inefficient. It won't survive. It's the wrong way to do things.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Not that we as Americans are consistant about this but:
You are not compensated for anything but the value you provide to someone else. That compensation is the point where the amount you are willing to accept for it crosses the amount someone is willing to pay you for it. Since the amount of value you can give someone by spending your time is different depending on person and task, people get compensated differently.
It is not what you should get, it is what you can get.
The reason people are willing to pay for software as it is cheaper than paying with their own time to create the software. Open Source and Free software affiliates have recongnized that the gentleman's agreement (sorry for the sexist connotation, we need a new word here) about sharing code is in the best interested of all involved. I write code, let you use it, but you provide insight/code back that increases my value to a greater degree than if I had merely sold it to you.
Put it this way. If a competent Software Developer can get paid $50 and hour to customize code for a client (no value to anyone but the client and a potential hacker) Then selling code for $25 bucks a pop versus something that will save him thousands of hours of development time makes the free software route worth while. Developing software is time ($) intensive. THe more code that is in the publically usable pool, the more time that can be spent on the customizations for a particular client.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
I find Stallman instead to be one of the most persistently, relentlessly reasonable people whose thoughts I've ever encountered.
Someone please tell me why this falls under either:
1) News for Nerds
2) Stuff that matters
with specific emphasis on 2) with respect to the personal opinion of a Slashdot editor.
-JT
No I'd be going to Anti-matter R US to get fuel and Raw Matterials R US to get the base matter that a replicator would need. The idea that Star Trek style replicators would eliminate all commerce is foolish. It would have an effect personal commerce by changing the things you work for but all commerce would not be eliminated.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
RMS has made an enormous, enormous positive contribution to the entire world.
But he is unbelievably poor at marketing. He is terrible at helping create a connection between his valuable ideas and the minds of other people.
It is common that technically knowledgeable people are terrible at marketing, but RMS is even worse than normal. (I've had minor personal interaction with RMS.)
The answer is to find a philanthropically-minded person who will fund a PR department for RMS.
It is good to remember that Bill Gates is unbelievably poor at marketing, also. Mr. Gates once yelled at Time Magazine editors in a meeting with them, for example.
That's the point.
People like him are. The problem is that you don't NEED to be that
`persistently, relentlessly reasonable' in order to get things done. SO LONG AS YOU GET YOUR FRIENDS ( so long as you have them ) TO HELP YOU GET IT DONE. Just so long as it gets done it doesn't matter (even if it happens after the person who wants it done passes away... not that I'm wishing that upon ANYBODY.)
Well, if software should be free, then how come the book is going to cost me $25?
The only people that get GPL software 'free as in beer' are end users. Anyone who modifies the code cannot profit from his additions because he is forced to give away the code for free. So I'd classify GPL as 'not free as in liberty' whereas a BSD license is 'free as in liberty'. Of course you have the freedom to accept the model or not, but if you buy into the model, you would be naive to say that it doesn't restrict your freedom.
Vote for Pedro
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
I have read it and RMS's personal site as well. It is what led me to my opinions about him. If you think I'm wrong then go over it point by point. I not unwilling to be convinced of my so called errors.
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world is enriched.
Then why does he (RMS) care what I call Linux and why does he insist that all works that derive from the original be GPL'd as well? If "ideas" are truly free and I wish to take an idea modify it and profit from it how is the original owner HARMED? If I choose to be sellfish and keep all the benefits to myself, how does that stop you from taking the original free material and using IT anyway YOU want to? It isn't the fact that he gives away the product that is a problem. It is the fact that he wants to CONTROL the use of the product.
The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines of your skill" was first recognised by the founding fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
I assume USE is a typo and you meant U.S.A. The founding fathers put IP protection in the consitution. You statement is unsported by the exsistance of that document. Please clarify your point because I don't follow or agree with you.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
In the year 2000; in the year 2000!
Richard Stallman is hired as the new CTO of Microsoft, earning a salary of 1 billion dollars.
In the year 2000; in the year 2000!
"Stallman may be a dogmatist, but the dogma is sincere and his own, not borrowed."
Funny because I seem to remember Lenin saying a lot of the same things as Stallman.
Hrm.. Stallman.. Stalin.. Wait a minute!!!
The word "software" refers to computer code, any document, film, video, music or any other "information" that is cheaply reproduceable as an object such as a CD, disk, cartridge or datastream that can be used by a piece of "hardware" such as a computer, VCR, or CD player. This term has been used in such context for decades.
I would say that this applies.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Basically, all rights to published works belong to the public (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.), and it takes Article I, Section 8 for Congress to be able to restrict the public's rights for "limited Times".
Thomas Jefferson put it thus (in a letter dealing with patents):
"But RMS needs to become a little better at how he shows himself to the world, or listen to those who can help him do so."
I agree. How do we: 1) find the money, and 2) convince RMS to accept a PR department?
North American city halls, county offices and public libraries appear enmeshed in ms where GNU/Linux would be better and more secure. Boston Public Library is one example of resistance to even learning about GNU/Linux where BPL President Bernie Margolis talks a good game but has failed to use the advantage of proximity to our uniquely local resources
s e.WebLogs.com
W ebLogs.com/ stories
oo__ don saklad
Weblog guide to problematical library use
Updates
http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryU
http://zork.net/~dsaklad
Stories
http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.
With regards to payment, you are very wrong. This is a mantra of almost biblical proportions by now, but I shall risk repeating it: Free as in speech, not in beer.
He doesn't. There are many, many works that are GPL'd but are not considered to be part of the GNU project.
The question of why he refers to "Linux" as GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, is answered in Stallman's various speeches (and I presume, in this book). I shall endeavour to clarify.
Prior to the formation of the GNU project, the world of free software, as Stallman knew it, was declining. Stallman alone decided to rectify this. He began by writing the software which would allow a "free" version of UNIX to exist. This software consisted, amongst others: a text editor (GNU emacs), a compiler (GCC), binary tools (binutils), and so forth.
Naturally, an entire Operating System written by one man would take a great deal of time. So the GNU project, embraced that software which would help complete the free version of UNIX that the GNU project envisioned. Notably TeX and X11 -- both massive projects that didn't need to be re-implemented because of the licences which both where distrubuted under. ie. they were "compatible" with the GNU philosophy. (I mention this because it highlights that the GNU project doesn't lay claim to "ownership" of these very important parts of the free operating system Stallman initiated).
By 1991, a complete UNIX system existed except for the kernel. Enter, Linus Torvalds: Linus' implementation of a UNIX kernel fitted precisely the kernel shaped hole in the GNU project. Initially, the GNU project didn't notice the Linux kernel, but other people did, and saw that it was good. However, a kernel on it's own is useless. For a working operating system, various tools need to exist. So, when people started looking around for tools and other software that they could use with this new kenel, they found the GNU project. This is not a coincidence.
Whether or not you believe the Operating System is "Linux" with a few GNU tools added on, or the GNU Operating System completed with the Linux kernel is a matter of perspective. Personally, I believe it is the latter. Stallman's suggestion that you refer to the various operating systems that utilise Linux as GNU/Linux is simply a request that you recognise my perspective -- the work of the GNU projet.
I like the following analogy: The forest is populated by many trees. One of those trees represents the compiler, another represents the tools that manipulate binary files, or text files. Yet another tree represents the kernel. The entire forest however, is the GNU project. It is acknowledges that if this forest didn't exist there would be a few unconnected copses or individual trees representing non-proprietary software but the forest as a whole wouldn't exist if Stallman hadn't planted it.
The request that you refer to the Operating System as GNU/Linux is a suggestion that you see the forest and not that single tree that represents the kernel. In other words, the people who reject this request, metaphorically, can't see the forest because of the trees.
He's not, and the GNU project never claims otherwise. However, to take that idea, to modify it and then to deny other people to view those moderations (as the BSD licence allows) can "harm" original author as he is one of those people to which access has been denied. Other people have benefited from his work, so why shouldn't he (or more pertinently, society) benefit from the work of others? Especially when their work has utilised his? The GPL addresses this.
It doesn't. But don't you consider the re-implementation of something that someone else has already achieved as wasted effort? Again, the GPL addresses this.
I don't see this as a fact. Please point out instances where Stallman wants to control products that he isn't the copyright holder of.
Of course it is; and looking at my keyboard, it astonishes me that I that I managed it.
The constitution of the USA doesn't include IP protection -- IP is a nonsensical term. It does however, include the concept of copyright.
Copyright was intended to provide the creators of copyrightable works with an incentive to create. It was never meant to be a mechanism that granted ownership. The "for a limited time" statement supports this. In other words, copyright is a meant to be a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I'm really not the man though, to discuss this in any great depth. I implore you to read the writings of Lawrence Lessig if you wish to explore this subject further.
doesnt matter, thats how much it cost to produce one copy of the program
Stallman may be a dogmatist, but the dogma is sincere and his own, not borrowed
;-)
Not that it should matter whose dogma it is - if software should be shared freely, surely dogmas should too!
(I'm looking for a new dogma, because my karma ran over my old one
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've heard Stallman complain that the biography Free As In Freedom has a lot of inaccuracies in it, but I'm not clear on what he really thought was inaccurate. I think the only example of an inaccuracy that he gave was that it presented things as RMS/GNU==cathedral and Linux==bazaar, whereas he says GNU was doing bazaar before Eric Raymond was. Other than that specific example, is there anything in this book that shows what he think was wrong with Free As In Freedom?
Find free books.
Actually the MS "tax" isn't really that high.
$100 more gets you a floppy drive and windows. OEM versions of windows XP Pro run around $130.00(home version is even cheaper)....way less than the cost of the hardware.
MS software is cheap; sure the quality isn't great, but look at Microsoft's competitors: Oracle, IBM...etc. All these guys compete in the corporate space with better, much more expensive products.
The only time Microsoft's software looks expensive is when you compare it to free software. Then everything looks expensive.
My point is this: Run software that suits your purpose for the lowest cost...free or otherwise.
-ted
Further, most software shouldn't be treated like an airplane -- a big price tag for a complete product. Software development is most effective, and most cost-effective, when it's done incrementally, building on other software that accomplishes a similar purpose. OSS facilitates this model of software development in a way that closed source absolutely cannot. In this view, rather than buying a $10 million package, a company spends a few hundred thousand enhancing an existing package to make it better suit their needs. They do this because the cost of doing it is less than the profits that will be generated by the resulting system. They can choose to keep their enhancements to themselves for competitive advantage, or they can publish them, allow them to be incorporated into the public version of the package and get ongoing enhancements and bug fixes for free.
This model isn't viable for all software, of course, and Stallman tries to push it a little further than it can really go, but it does work just fine for many kinds of software, particularly infrastructure software, like operating systems, desktops or basic productivity applications. And the net result is software that is not only less expensive to everyone but is also more flexible and reliable (though generally not as polished).
I'm a programmer, and I get paid (very well, actually) to write software, yet I'm not in the least bit afraid of OSS. On the contrary, I see it as a marvelous opportunity to be able to reduce wasted programmer effort so we can focus on newer, cooler stuff. Why does it not frighten me? Consider Eric Flint's comments about giving away fiction (Eric is an author of Sci-Fi novels -- good ones):
As long as people want software, people will get paid to write it, manage it, distribute it, fix it, improve it, etc.
Free software isn't socialism, it's just a different business model.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No one is screaming "software is too expensive", except for the people who's bread and butter is coming from it.
What? Are you trolling? Insane? Unable to leave the house?
*Lots* of people complain about the high price of software. Go talk to any CIO at any of the vast majority of companies in the world (the ones who are in business to build something other than software), and they'll tell you that software is bloody expensive. Look at the budgets governments have for buying and developing software -- they're huge. Go read some books on software engineering or software design, and you'll find that the underlying theme of all of them is precisely: How to build and maintain software more cheaply.
Of course, the current cost of the software must generally be less than its value, or all of these people wouldn't shell out the bucks to pay for it, but that in no way means they don't think it's too expensive. Companies are constantly looking at problems and saying "Gee, we could save a ton of money if only we could automate that, but it'd cost more to automate it than we could save... if only software were a little cheaper..."
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it, you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car, or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of appropriate public laws, naturally).
So what's wrong with calling software a service?
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the power.
It's not clear to me that lack of material ownership of items necessarily implies "living at the mercy of others."
I may not own the house in which I live, nor the car I drive, nor the restaurant where I dine nor even the tuxedo I wear to parties, yet you would be hard pressed to assert that I "live at the mercy of others." Indeed, when it comes to competing for the cash in our pockets, we may observe that it is businesses who live at the mercy of the consumer.
Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long defunct.
If you want to be able to modify the source code of a product, nothing stops you from asking the vendor for it. If you can't negotiate a deal with them, you can ask other vendors, or write the software yourself. Just like automobiles, there are (s/w development) kits available.
If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of luck.
You can purchase the rights to the code. When businesses fail, assets are typically liquidated.
If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in providing it, I'm out of luck.
As I mentioned above, you can approach other vendors or develop the software yourself.
The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that only persists because everyone ignores it.
Agreed. Software isn't really a "product" in the common sense of the word as it's sold like a service.
Thanks to OOP becoming more and more useful as well as common platforms or communication layers (Java, .NET, XML, Web Services) you'll see more code reuse without the need to open up the source - just the need for reflection and/or documentation.
Uh, huh. Ask any experienced developer whether he'd rather have documentation or access to the source code. Documentation is always wrong.
And if docs and reflection are enough, then why is it that I commonly find myself decompiling Java classes so that I can understand *exactly* what they're doing?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
For the 1 hundredth BILLION TIME:
Free means, free to see how its made, free to use the source, free as in speech.
Free doesn't mean 'free' because had you read the goddamn article, you'd have read how RMS isn't opposed to charging for software.
God almighty. I don't think you were a troll, but I forgive the moderators for not having the "-1, Trite, glib, illinformed" mod option available.
what you fail to understand, is that "free", in the software sense, means beer and speech. If company X decides to release a piece of software under the GPL, and sell the binaries, he must also give the source away for free. What stops someone from re-releasing the binaries for free (as in beer)? nothing.
So in conclusion, yes, you can sell GPLd software, but it's pretty much useless from a profit standpoint.
"The vast majority of software is not developed on a speculative basis (build it and hope they buy it), most of it is built on contract or in house, and the only risk involved is to the buyer, because the guys writing the software are on hourly wages or salaries. "
Huh? You ask me to widen my horizons, and yet you clearly don't grasp the concepts.
Whether or not software is built on contract or in house, there is still cost involved. That cost is still speculative in nature. The only difference is how that return on investment is calculated. One way is unit sales, the other way is increased business opportunities.
"In this view, rather than buying a $10 million package, a company spends a few hundred thousand enhancing an existing package to make it better suit their needs."
This is called buying off-the-shelf software. It may not literally be off a shelf, but it was developed by a third party. You pay them to customize and deliver it to you. The extent of the customization determines the cost. OSS doesn't make much of any difference to this model because it is rare to find OSS software in the specific niches companies would need. Most OSS software addresses general purpose needs, or needs specific to admins and developers because of the lack of motivation to go beyond those needs.
"I'm a programmer, and I get paid (very well, actually) to write software, yet I'm not in the least bit afraid of OSS."
I'm not the least bit afraid of OSS. I am, however, afraid of the FSF and their attempts to lobby governments into nationalizing software development.
"As long as people want software, people will get paid to write it, manage it, distribute it, fix it, improve it, etc. "
The difference is whether you work in a Bill Gates world where you receive a goodly salary and stock options, or you live in Richard Stallmans world where you receive $40k a year and 3.1% federal worker cost of living increases.
"Free software isn't socialism, it's just a different business model."
A business model which has thus far failed, resulting in it's proponents working harder and harder to lobby government agencies to outlaw commercial software and nationalize software development.
After all, that has been RMS's goal all along...
"What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. "
- Richard Stallman in the GNU Manifesto
In the future I think it would be wise for you to stop confusing FSF with OSS. The two are not the same, and if you need clarification on that you need only ask Stallman.
Back in the end of XIX century, Gustavo Eiffel built a record arch bridge in my home city, the D. Maria Pia bridge. Back then, naturally, the design method was a secret, and Eiffel was known for rigid safekeeping of those secrets.
How long did it take for the record to be beaten, with the same construction type, the same construction methods, and a different engineer? Eight years. The time to build the D. Luís bridge. Did Eiffel lose a lot with the spreading of his construction methods? No! In fact, on the contrary. He was at his time regarded as an innovator, and spawned an era of iron and steel constructions of epic proportions.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Everyone should read Ross Anderson's FAQ. Palliaduim is about restricting freedom, so this is on topic.
Huh? You ask me to widen my horizons, and yet you clearly don't grasp the concepts.
Nice assertion. Care to support it?
Whether or not software is built on contract or in house, there is still cost involved. That cost is still speculative in nature.
I believe I said that there is risk to the company who pays for software development. It's a very different kind of risk with in-house or contract development, though. A company that builds and sells packaged software has to make assumptions about the number of people who will buy their software, how much they'll pay for it and whether or not competition will beat them to it. A company that builds software in-house knows to a very high degree of certainty what the return is going to be, their major risk is the investment required, and it's much easier to effectively estimate software development costs, or to shift the risk to a third party by negotiating a fixed-price contract than it is to gauge the whims of a fickle marketplace.
This is called buying off-the-shelf software. It may not literally be off a shelf, but it was developed by a third party. You pay them to customize and deliver it to you.
Are you considering a company's own employees as a "third party"? If not, then you completely missed the point. If so, well, I fail to see the utility of that view.
OSS doesn't make much of any difference to this model because it is rare to find OSS software in the specific niches companies would need. Most OSS software addresses general purpose needs, or needs specific to admins and developers because of the lack of motivation to go beyond those needs.
Wait a few years. Companies have only just recently started to understand how Free software can benefit them. There are several projects out there working on building business management systems, inventory management systems, etc. Right now, it's operating systems and application servers that have good OSS solutions. In a few years Peoplesoft and SAP will be fighting with OSS competition.
The difference is whether you work in a Bill Gates world where you receive a goodly salary and stock options, or you live in Richard Stallmans world where you receive $40k a year and 3.1% federal worker cost of living increases.
Bull. I live in a world where I do customization of OSS and build proprietary software on top of OSS (mostly GPL'd) for more than three times that figure, plus stock options.
Software development requires hard work by smart people. If that work only pays $40K then those smart people will do something else and software won't get written. But the demand for software exists. Ergo, the people who can do it will get paid well.
A business model which has thus far failed
Yeah. Tell that to IBM. Or to Sun (who has adopted GNOME as their standard desktop). Or to Apple. Or to any number of smaller companies like Sleepycat and Trolltech.
Bwahahahaa!! Thanks for the belly laugh! You've got that completely backwards. It's the likes of Microsoft, with Palladium and their support for the CBDTPA who are trying to legislate Free software out of existence.
With regard to the article you linked to, I have to say that I think it makes perfect sense for governments to choose open source wherever possible, because a government's data shouldn't be controlled by a private company. And keep in mind that the proposed CA law has been proposed in response to an egregious abuse by the world of proprietary software.
I do think a government that restricts itself to only Free software is doing itself a disservice, because Freedom doesn't work for every category of software. However, governments should absolutely *insist* on open file and data formats.
"What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. "
Yeah, Stallman has some ideas that are silly, unrealistic and socialist (continue on down the manifesto and read about the Software Tax). No one gets everything right. What's your point?
In the future I think it would be wise for you to stop confusing FSF with OSS. The two are not the same, and if you need clarification on that you need only ask Stallman.
Of course they're not the same. At work I constantly have to deal with the subtle differences in licensing issues and sometimes we choose to write something ourselves rather than use a Free alternative because the license requirements are unacceptable. Most of the time, however, Free software is a better deal -- costs next to nothing, permits us complete freedom to fulfill our customers' requirements and, if we contribute our changes back, provides a steady stream of bug-fixes and enhancements at a very low ongoing cost. BSD-style licenses are often a little easier to work with, but it's no accident that software with BSD-style licenses tends, in many cases, to have a less robust community supporting it.
Again I ask, what's your point?
Frankly, I think you make the same mistake that Stallman does: you think software must all be developed one way. Free software, BSD-ish licenses, shared source licenses and closed source all have their place (restrictuve EULAs, however, should be shunned). Competition among business models and licenses is good.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You are talking about large commercial programs there. What about
1) Small programs like text editors, webcam software, etc? Low initial cost (usually 1 person in his/her spare time over a month or two
2) Large specific programs for one client
"Zealot: someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Oh sorry - should that have been GNU/Zealot?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Nice assertion. Care to support it? "
That's supported by my responses to your ridiculous assertions.
"Are you considering a company's own employees as a "third party"? If not, then you completely missed the point. If so, well, I fail to see the utility of that view. "
No, you brought up the example of using OSS software developed by others and then customized. I pointed out that's being done today with third party companies, furthermore it's rare to need to modify any general purpose software such as what OSS creates.
"Yeah. Tell that to IBM. Or to Sun (who has adopted GNOME as their standard desktop). Or to Apple. Or to any number of smaller companies like Sleepycat and Trolltech. "
These are what you term successes? IBM is in the hardware and services business. Apple is a hardware company. Sun has become a complete failure in competition against OSS. Where are Sleepycat and Trolltech balance sheets? Neither are publically traded unlike VA Linux and Redhat which are both bleeding red.
Where's your comparable Symantec, Microsoft, Adobe, Compuware? Anything?
"Bwahahahaa!! Thanks for the belly laugh! You've got that completely backwards. It's the likes of Microsoft, with Palladium and their support for the CBDTPA who are trying to legislate Free software out of existence. "
Ok, now you are clearly a troll. You can't even evaluate the present state of the tech market correctly, how could you possibly try to forecast the future?
"Yeah, Stallman has some ideas that are silly, unrealistic and socialist (continue on down the manifesto and read about the Software Tax). No one gets everything right. What's your point? "
This thread is about Stallman, is it not?
Why do people hold him in great esteem if he's clearly a lunatic and not working for your best interests?
"BSD-style licenses are often a little easier to work with, but it's no accident that software with BSD-style licenses tends, in many cases, to have a less robust community supporting it. "
Yeah, Apache has been a complete utter failure.
You're obviously mistaken, the best examples of OSS software in widespread use have been under the BSD licenses.
"Frankly, I think you make the same mistake that Stallman does: you think software must all be developed one way. Free software, BSD-ish licenses, shared source licenses and closed source all have their place (restrictuve EULAs, however, should be shunned). Competition among business models and licenses is good."
There's a difference between competition and coercion.
Microsoft promotes competition.
FSF promotes coercion and tells you it is competition. They're very communistic in their aims and tactics.
That's the point.
No, you brought up the example of using OSS software developed by others and then customized. I pointed out that's being done today with third party companies,
Now I see what you were getting at. Sure, it can be done that way. It can also be done the OSS way. In a free marketplace, the most effective approach will win. Care to place a wager on the outcome?
furthermore it's rare to need to modify any general purpose software such as what OSS creates
Why do so many people spend so much time, effort and money doing it then?
Do you build everything from scratch? Or are you even a developer? Based on some of your posts, I wouldn't be surprised to learn you're a professional astroturfer.
These are what you term successes? IBM is in the hardware and services business. Apple is a hardware company.
Precisely. I never claimed that selling OSS was a good business, but selling services and hardware built on OSS is very good business. You said there was no business model. There most certainly is a business model; it doesn't involve a direct exchange of software for cash, but programmers still get paid, and the software still gets produced and end-users get it all for less money and have more ability to make it do exactly what they want. So what's the problem with that?
Regarding Trolltech and Sleepycat, they are a couple of companies that demonstrate that dual licensing can also be profitable. You complain that they're not public. Why? Wise, conservative companies stay privately held unless they need large infusions of cash for growth and can't get it any other way. Are they profitable? They both claim to be, and small, privately-held companies tend not to live long if they're not consistently profitable, so there's ample reason to believe them.
Why do people hold him in great esteem if he's clearly a lunatic and not working for your best interests?
How do you get from "Many good ideas mixed with a few extreme ones" (and the extreme ones have softened over the last decade, since the 1993 GNU Manifesto) to "clearly a lunatic"?
You're obviously mistaken, the best examples of OSS software in widespread use have been under the BSD licenses.
Apache is the exception that proves the rule. Do you think Linux would be more successful if it were under a BSD license? Linus doesn't. It's the guarantee that other people will be forced to give back their enhancements that makes many programmers willing to contribute their own efforts to a project. It certainly has a large effect on my willingness to contribute my time to a project.
Microsoft promotes competition.
Oh, come off it, how much do you get paid for writing this outrageous crap? Microsoft has been convicted in federal court of anti-competitive practices, and the conviction was supported on appeal. And all this in the very pro-corporate US court sytem. The Europeans aren't going to be nearly as nice. How much more evidence do you want?
FSF promotes coercion and tells you it is competition. They're very communistic in their aims and tactics.
Coerced? Exactly *who* does the FSF coerce?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Has contributed is a misnomer. 'Is contributing' is vital to an understanding of the choler surrounding RMS. Edison, Newton, and (maybe) Einstein (not sure about him) pissed off people around them, gratuitously attacked people holding opposing views (gratuitously as in outside the arena of the dispute), and generally were difficult to get along with. They, however, have had the grace to die (no, I'm not bashing RMS here; just couching things in terms that the enemies of the Great Men would have used) so now we can don our rose-coloured rear-view glasses, and see their accomplishments, and not their personalities. RMS' greatest accomplishment likely will be a co-operative software agreement wherein members contribute code and are compensated in proportion to the use that other members make of that code. Code in code out. Others might create co-ops where some monetary exchange is made for free-lance coding on community projects. The variations are endless, but the outcome will come about as a result of the reaction to Microsoft and its behavior. The GPL/FSF/RMS is just the first wave of reaction, and it won't be the last because RMS just doesn't get one thing: reality doesn't give a damn about his ideal. The rest of us, flexing under the impact of day-to-day life, aren't going to find the rigors of his aesthetics appealing. RMS started the backlash against Forces of Evil in the software industry (with their behavior, they would be the Forces of Evil anywhere, really). There will be a backlash against him and his, as well as a continued reaction to those digging for gold in our meagre pockets, and so forth. His most significant accomplishment is going to be the definition of the OTHER extreme. Most of us won't want it, either, and we'll happily settle our differences in the middle. It will leave Darth Gates and Archangel Richard scratching their heads wondering why we don't want to join them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I think about OS/3, oops I mean Linux, I find myself wondering just how all the people who support the free software movement are making their living. From 9-5, Mon-Fri, they earn their livings from proprietary software companies, then on the weekend, oooh, they fool with some open source code. It's nice that they have a hobby but let's not pretend this is sustainable. Without IBM's support Linux would be dying. They're supporting it because they want to sell cutomers endlessly rising amounts of services getting it all to keep running. So if you support the free software movement, but get a paycheck writing proprietary code or billing endlessly for services getting the free stuff to run, take a hard look inside...Looking forward to the replies, no I don't work for M$, I just know a monopoly when I see it and (as the feds decided decades ago) it is Big Blue. Don't be their tool!
congrats on the constructive first hopeful comment "Foop". Nice to see another optimist.
Since we both obviously share a common (non-gay) interest in RMS I thought i would invite you to login/register and be my first official friend in this: "jumbie" my exiting new guise.
Anyways; RMS is one of my all time heroes too. IMHO Linus is just a hobbyist who got lucky ( a big hobby and very lucky), but RMS is a bonefide genius who's fixed moral compass over the decades has been a shining beacon in space 5 miles long to us all. (plus his GNU hobby is even bigger than his life)
Seriously IMO RMS is as awesome as... i dunno, cancer even !
do not judge a man solely by his odor.
Quit Slashdot Today!
chill