Slashdot Mirror
RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
Letter writes "Open for Business has an interview with GNU founder and free software zealot Richard M. Stallman (RMS) discussing the SCO situation, the single RMS-approved free Linux distribution and DRM in the Linux kernel. RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"
That sounds like an awful stab in the back for Debian for the level of devotion and dedication the project has always shown for Free Software ideals.
Let the slander commence!
I'd like to see some nice ad-hominems please, countered with `argument from authority`. Under no circumstances should any facts pollute this thread!
I admire RMS but I think he's a little nuts for insisting that for a Linux distribution to be acceptable to him, it must not even include the option of non-free software in the basic install.
Debian is in my mind a scrupulous free-software-only distribution. If they include any non-free software, it's basically in the form of, "Okay, here's a directory of packages people have made to allow easy installation of non-free software under Debian."
I think considering Debian to be anything less than pristine free software is vaguely silly.
My bicyles
Here is a picture of RMS
http://www.linuxbourg.ch/rms/conference.jpg
Looks like your typical fat, lazy, bearded unix admin to me.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
From the RMS perspective, this makes perfect sense. One of his charms, if you will, is that he does not deviate from his ideals, even when it offends a large group. Free is free, and anythoing that compromises that is less than perfect.
Like any other outspoken issue-perfectionist, this grates on those who are less tough about that issue. But make no bones about it, he would be less respected in the end if he compromised.
So be it.
Soli Deo Gloria
...sounds like the Easy choice.
20 mil and I will! Learn Esperanto with 20M others.
- RMS comes out in support of trademarks and a company's right to protect its trademark (in this case Mandrake)
- On the issue of mutual defense clauses in licenses, RMS thinks they're a good idea in theory but suggests people considering adopting them be careful not to alienate users
Some "zealot."RMS has always struck me as being a fairly opinioned person who wants to stick to his principles. I see that as good in someone. I don't always agree with everything he says, but it's absurd how much abuse he takes for saying what he thinks. Suggesting that The OS That Includes A Linux Kernel And The GNU UserLand be named after both shouldn't, in my view, no matter how obnoxious some find it, result in the Z label.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Extremadura ??? Where the heck is that ?
...does Slashdot have to call RMS a "zealot" in the bloody description of the article?! OK - disagree with his stance on free software and all of that, but can't we at least *try* to distance our own *personal* views from those that are *appropriate* to be reported as news?!
Or have we all just said to hell with objectivity?
Who really gives a flying hurd what he says?
RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more.
Yeah, I know Mathematica and Lightwave sure keep me subdued in their jaws. It's all I can do to think freely.
*can't... roll... eyes... hard enough*
The coolest voice ever.
RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division
So anything not free is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division?
My MP3 addiction finally has a flag bearer.
http://use.perl.org
Apparently they're only one year old, too. Happy first anniversary slashdotting, amigos.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
the new geek order:
geeks: (sitting on arse..) This page was generated by a Group of Albino Elephants. (..nose picking)
SCO: OK you win, you win!!
After reading this article, which I found quite interesting, I did come to a rather shocking conclusion. Although RMS is obviously a very talented and intelligent individual, he seems hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others.
He refuses to have anything to do with anyone who even has the slightest relationship with a non-free program. In effect he and his cohorts are effective enforcing their beliefs on others or cutting them completely off from their organization.
How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose". Personally I think a person or company should be allowed to use free as well as non-free software together without reprimand from RMS and his organization.
It's better to use some free software then no free software, and RMS is effectively limiting his friends and support by enforcing his views on them. Maybe he needs to learn to respect that some people might want to go down a middle ground, and the results of doing that can be great neverless. For example, OS X, a brilliant combination of free as well as proprietary software.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Some RMS zealots who disagree, simply mod parents as flamebait? D'uh!
for the rest of the world, software is either an
.. whatever
end user issue or a "how do i feed my family?"
issue, not a "i'm an academic and for some reason
people listen to what i say and pay me to talk
about it so i'll hoark my sensationalist fud from
here to timbuktu forever" issue
fuck you, RMS
choke on your own
...is the kind of program I'd sell so that I can continue to make programs.
I prefer to work within a social order that seems to be in a "stable release" form.
What about non-free material goods? Does that also create a "...predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division."?
Does RMS even understand physics? It takes "work" to change random states of bits into useful tools and information. Work doesn't come free. Working a material good out of rock, wood, sand, etc, and working bits out of random noise, turns out to be equivalent.
People who do "work" probably are more deserving of the prizes. The betterment of one's self should always be our higher goal. Be contructive, not destructive. Lend a helping hand to those who are trying, but don't offer any favors to those who are not. In the end, everyone gets their just rewards.
Just my 2 cents.
GNU Questions: RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected."
RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don't like it to fork all our important software. The problem is complicated by the fact that most users have not yet ceased to consider Windows a viabl
Are future submissions always going to have some sort of character assasination buzzwords attached to them as well?
For example. "Bill Gates noted closed source zealot and pro-monopolist met with shareholders today."
Hmm, doesn't seem right does it? Leave the defamation to commenters, we do a plently well on our own thanks.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I think you are all mistaken here. It should be GNU/RMS, shouldn't it?
It is one thing to put amazing amounts of energy and discipline into one's work, as the Debian developers have done. It is something else to foresee the battle between free and commercial software, as RMS did, and try to plan a course through this battle.
RMS is pedantic, painfully self-righteous, and needs a shave. But he is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, a genius, and a mind to be treasured and revered.
As a programmer and the developer of many free applications, RMS is for me a hero, someone who has anticipated many of the problems I would face in protecting the viability of my work.
He once refused to accept a t-shirt with our team's logo on it, but he's a great man nonetheless.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I wonder if RMS actually only is a man searching for his own definition of freedom. The thing is in his lifetime and his age, freedom is measured versus the current surrounding. Can the GPL be flexible enough way into the future, or would the constant act of 'updating' this license end up in a paradox or grid lock of freedom?
Car dealer : She'll go 300 hectares on a single tank of kerosene.
Homer : What country is this car from?
Car dealer : It no longer exists. But take her for a test drive, and you'll agree: (states their slogan)
...
Car dealer : Put it in "H"!
GNU Questions: RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected."
RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutualdefense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don't like it to fork all our important software. The problem is complicated by the fact that most users have not yet ceased to co
Well, I expected to read some of RMS's opinions about the subject mentioned in the title of the article. Instead I got the same old political mantra once again. Why can't he answer a single question without turning 99% of the contents of answer to some pro-free-software political speech?
Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org
I admire RMS sticking to his guns, but come on! This is ludicrous. Every time I consider becoming an associate member of the FSF (i.e. donating them money), I remember the occasions when he says stuff like this and I reconsider.
Where's the freedom in trying to keep someone from using clearly indicated non-free software? I guess that's the problem with RMS - he wants freedom, as long as it's HIS freedom. It's not about freedom of choice, clearly.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Open for business is now officially closed for business.
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
that somebody mentioned DRM? It's gotten completely lost under the mountains of SCO crap. It seems like it's been months...
I guess we can only take one major stupidity at a time.
The problem with that, of course, is that GPL'd software isn't really free (as in speech). It's just a different set of requirements governing distribution and modification, and it relies just as much on copyright law for protection as any closed source, commercial product.
If some code were completely free, then anyone could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished.
The GPL is a great way for people with a shared philosophy to gain mutual benefit from their labours. I have absolutely nothing against that, or their right to protect their agreement via the legal system should that become necessary. If they produce software that is better than commercial alternatives, and choose to give it away, good for them. If not, well, we users can always choose to spend our money buying an alternative we prefer.
But please, calling this "free software" is just as much a misleading propaganda term as calling copyright infringement "intellectual property theft". It's about time a better term was coined.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I admire RMS but I think he's a little nuts for insisting that for a Linux distribution to be acceptable to him, it must not even include the option of non-free software in the basic install.
I agree. I think RMS would call me apolitical because my primary reason for being involved in open source is that I think it is a better development model. However, there is a deeply political side of me that has a vision and political agenda behind my support of open source. It is in no way as one-sided or as focused as RMS, but I can see where he is coming from.
IMO, I think that the real battle of our lifetime is the battle over proprietary vs open systems and information. This goes beyond computing and affects everything from our food supplies to our software. The problems include companies such as Microsoft holding the rights to the filesystems that are the lifeblood of companies and companies such as Monsanto holding the patent rights to foods which could become the lifeblood of countries. It is also about the CTEA and fighting against perpetual copyright of our cultural icons.
The thing is, though, copyright has its place if it is not overextended. And I am so confident in this that I don't even care that much whether a distro recommends non-free packages. As long as customers start to see the difference. That is important. In fact, it is GOOD IMO, that Mandrake, RedHat, etc. offer commercial software with their distros because it shows the contrast and can help people see why free software is important. On this point, I disagree with RMS.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
troll troll... aw man aw man.. [resists urge to respond.. fails] The important thing is not the free as free cost. Its the ability to modify the software. Adobe could overhaul photoshop and screw it up, you're at THEIR mercy. With free software, you can just change back what was screwed up. And besides, why would we pirate photoshop when we've got GIMP? And not all of the users of free software are h4x0rz, aka my sister and mother. And software is NOT like a car. You can't copy a car at no cost. You can't improve it at no cost. Software is something you WANT control over. Cars have specific ways in which they work, and specific components. Saying you dont need source code in a piece of software is like saying you dont need to know how to change a tire. Or saying you'd have to call Toyota in japan to get your tire fixed. yes yes, i know it was a troll! shutup.
Dedicated to RMS:
zealot
zealot zealot zealot
zealot zealot
extra
extra mad
extra madura
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Looks like they are not-so-open-for-business.biz now they have been slashdotted.
mental images conjured when something is "slashdotted"
*rodney king beating*
*Morpheus getting captured in bathroom in first Matrix*
*me and my gf when... erm erase that one*
GNU Questions: RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
Date: August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT Topic: Free Software
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected." RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don'
Well, now we know. That hippie, RMS, has been on SCO all these years. No wonder he is such a whacko.
For his sake I really hope that someone intervenes and enrolls him in some sort of detox clinic. Hopefully, while there, he will get off SCO, shave, bathe, dress like something other than a beggar, lose some weight and get a grip! At least GET A GRIP!
The actual interview is already slashdotted, but from the discussion it seems that he reserves his endorsement for the "GNU/Linex" distribution (Linex's site also seems to be down at the moment -- collateral slashdotting?), because it doesn't even provide the option of installing "non-Free" packages. This is just nuts -- it's clear to me why RMS uses the word "Free" instead of "free" at this point: because the meaning of "Free" (and I defy anyone to give a consistent definition of the way that RMS uses the term, aside from "Whatever RMS thinks it should mean at the moment") has shifted so far from what any reasonable person would expect the word "free" to mean.
(As an aside it's funny to see people denouncing michael for describing RMS as a zealot. For goodness sake FSF-guys, michael is on your side. That kinda attitude doesn't bode well for how this comment will be moderated, I suspect.)
[RMS/Bill Ballmer] also describes [non-free/free] software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.
I can say the same thing about public toilette systems! Blasted! We still have gender segregation in the public toillete arena! Someone let them know men and women can use the same bathrooms together! And on a side note, no I don't think that would make the world a happier place; I think women's farts smell worse then a man's, they eat the vegan and lowfat dairy stuff that just doesn't smell right.
Thanks, I really needed to see that.
Again.
People like you should be culled from the human race.
...when they are followed by consistent action.
:)
I find his stance re: Debian rather amusing in light of the fact that, when I was a grad student there, I caught him on the third floor of MIT LCS in 1998 playing Master of Orion at one of the Mac's in the hallway. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that---I play loads of non-free games and use one non-free application once a year (tax prep software)---but I'm surprised he's not having an ulcer from the contradiction.
Cheers,
Kyle
[ home ]
20 years later and we're still waiting for the HURD kernel.
No ethical compromise is possible with such a thing - some evil is all evil - that's why he won't support even "conveniance" non-free software or those that associate with it.
I see his point but I still don't know where I, as a programmer, am supposed to earn my mortgage payments. Telling me to become a marketing droid is not a reasonable answer.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
this guy is just an idealistic hippy
Okey, now how is that a bad thing? Idealistic yes,
but he also does something which is writing
free software, so he not just one idealistic hippy,
he is also a programmer, maybe a progammer just
like you. And that he is an idealist doesn't make
him bad in any way, it is often in the minds of
these radical people new ideas are made.
they do it because someone will pay them.
Horray for the good "if he jump in the ocean,
so will I" thinking. Yes, most people do write
software for money because we live in a society
based on money. Most people work to make money,
not to help out other people or make new
technology for the future. But yes, most people
to write software for money, but that doesn't
necessary make it the right thing to do.
Software is a product, just like anything else. When you buy a car, they don't include blueprints for free . . why include source code??
I really don't feel like i have enough knowledge
to answer this question, since I don't know how
easy the blueprints for a car is to get, but the truth
is that a car really isn't much of a technology
thing, sure, it is, but the technology for how
it works is free and available to everyone.
(Yes, you can also consider F1-Racing cars, but
that's another story, and they are not trying to
take control over a market with them, it's just
a sport where someone wins, and they
usually only make one or two models).
What the hell, I wrote a really long answer to some AC comment, I need sleep now. Watch out for
those spelling mistakes.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
Good gods. It's 2003, and the FSF still hasn't hammered this point into people's heads?
It's "free" as in "freedom", not "free" as in "Look ma, I don't have to pay for software!" It's a commentary on what you're allowed to do with the software, not how you have to obtain it. RMS doesn't care if you sell your software; in fact, he supported himself before the FSF became a reality by selling tapes of Emacs.
Why don't you put:
127.0.0.1 http://www.redcoat.net
127.0.0.1 http://www.tubgirl.com
and all the ghostse links in your hosts file?
You may view your thinking within Lightwave as free, but only as far as Lightwave will allow you to go.
It's a good thing I know how to use Maya and 3D Studio Max, then.
So now your used to the Lightwave program, price goes up, what do you do? Go find another proprietary software package or pay up?
I may switch, I may buy the newest version. Depends on what the exact circumstances are, but get this -- neither option is revolting to me.
This may be difficult to understand, but I have no desire to code my own graphics or mathematics site of applications. Nor do I wish to spend time manually adding features to what I already use. With respect to such programs, I am an end user; I am willing to learn the most popular software tools in my field -- there are several different non-free programs out there that I can learn and develop a wide range of skills with. And guess what? They're actually good enough for their intended purpose.
When was the last time you heard someone complaining about Maya's or Mathcad's lack of features? Or them hindering productivity? You don't hear such complaints because the programs, while proprietary and non-free, are (1) fantastic at what they do and (2) if one weren't to someone's taste, there are plenty of other choices. Don't like Mathcad? Try Maple, Mathematica, MATLAB. You'll have to pay, but there's a reason those programs are priced as they are -- they work well, they took effort, and they're the best.
The coolest voice ever.
You might want to give a little more background when you make that claim. Neither Emacs nor GCC, as they stand today, are entirely down to RMS.
Emacs was originally something RMS wrote based on TECO. IIRC it was James Gosling (of Java fame) who first provided an implementation that ran on Unix, though Stallman later rewrote it from scratch.
RMS was also the primary developer of GCC early on, but today's system has moved on way beyond the original, and a lot of the good stuff that's been added since and made GCC what it is today has nothing to do with RMS. Writing a simple C compiler and writing today's GCC are different things entirely.
So yes, he's certainly a talented developer who's prepared to put his compiler where his mouth is, but I think we should keep such things in perspective. He's not the only guy on the block with those credentials, not by a long way.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Survival not of the best but survival of the one who holds the source. This way Microsoft has successfully bullied hardware manufactures into submition. When the alternative is a hostile Microsoft manufacturers just bow down. That is the doing and competitive advantage of closed source ware. MS wanted to dominate business word processing so they just made it imposible for other office suites to compete, plain and simple, they did this because of closed source. If you have an innovation interface that MS really wants to encorporate in their portfolio you are first given a chance to build up demand then you will be cloned and dollars to dognuts your file format will be read by the MS clone but the proprietary MS competing format will be so tricked out that you have not got a prayer. That is the reality of what has been alowed to happen with closed source. It has become like giving someone a perpetual exclusive on all digital communication. You can bet MS lobby dollars will only go to keep the status quo Pax Microsoftis going, through bought out congressmen like Sen Fritz. So keep your Mirmidon thoughts about software needing to be closed source to make money. Just bow to Redmond and be a good bread and circuses ignorant software consumer.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
You predicted likely typos. I'm impressed (both as a libertarian zealot and as a GNU zealot.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Does anyone have any good links about this? It sounds like a scary crackpot idea, so of course I'm curious about it. If my interpretation of it based on the article is remotely correct it seems hypocritical of RMS/Perens to even consider this, as it would be a major freedom limiter. If I can't sue someone who actually did steal something from me for fear of losing my right to use a large amount of software out there, I don't have much freedom do I?
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
I guess this article was written before the ftp.gnu.org compromise. However, has there been *any* reason given on why ftp.gnu.org was running wu-ftpd ( which has a restrictive license) when there are at least 2 GPL ftp daemons ( proftpd and vsftpd) available? Especially given wu-ftpd's long, sad history of insecurity.
Way to back that up with your credibility, Analonymous Coward.
I know its just semantics, but its "semantics":)
(symantec is a software company)
"Can I test this binary file so we can tell if it has transgressed the (L)GPL?"
If so how?
You can of course sort of "free as in freedom" without "free as in beer". This would be if people published their file formats like Adobe have with PDF. I can write and manipulate these files programmatically, and a giant document tells me how to.
I can compete with Adobe, make my own PDF tools and sell them alongside.
Debian is recommended..maybe RMS should read the website..the debian link is still there :)
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Yes, even now, Richard Stallman is an entire bag of Oreos... for freedom!
Later today he'll be taking a dump to reinforce the 4th ammendment.
You're absolutely right. You have the decision to buy the software or switch to a competitor. However, what happens if all the commercial software developers instituted a pay-per-use scheme? Perhaps a pay-per-distribution setup where you have to fork out cash everytime anyone so much as looks at anything produced by their software? I'm not trying to say this is likely, but I don't think the scope of closed source is being addressed completely. Just as all the processor manufacturers are looking to install DRM components within hardware (something I really, really feel is crossing the line), software developers could get together to determine they "know best" when it comes to users. So what happens when Lightwave, Maya, 3D Studio Max, Mathcad, Maple, Mathematica, and MATLAB decide to implement the latest buzzword feature that cripples your productivity/business plan? It's no longer an issue of "Oh, I'll pick up a competitor's copy" or "I guess I could shell out a couple more bucks".
An open source piece of software may decide to implement that new feature as well. The difference is, somebody somewhere will feel the same way you do and say "screw that!" He/she/they will have the programming expertise to maintain the software without incorporating this new feature. You have more options (the capability to avoid forced changes from cooperating industry executives) than with closed source.
Is such a change likely? I don't know. I never would have thought all the processor manufacturers would have jumped on the DRM bandwagon though. If it can happen in the hardware world, then it sure can happen in software too.
The article should read:
Letter writes "Open for Business has an interview with GNU founder and GNU/free software GNU/zealot GNU/Richard M. GNU/Stallman (GNU/RMS) discussing the GNU/SCO situation, the single GNU/RMS-approved GNU/free GNU/Linux distribution and DRM in the Linux kernel. GNU/RMS also describes non-GNU/free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"
I really don't feel like i have enough knowledge to answer this question, since I don't know how easy the blueprints for a car is to get, but the truth is that a car really isn't much of a technology thing, sure, it is, but the technology for how it works is free and available to everyone.
Non-consumer cars aside, one can argue that cars are essentialy closed source. I can't get blueprints for the car, I even can't get blueprints for any particular part of the car. Have you ever tried to meddle with the electronics that is in the car? You might not be surprised to find out that sometimes even the cars produced in the same year by same manufacturer happen to have incompatible INTERFACES (software is expected to behave somehow differently). I would sure like too se some source code for those embedded circuitry for the ignition. Then I might even design my own ignition cutoff system for home-brew car-theft protection. No source code, and no schematics mean no fun in this case. Yes, I think that cars should come with blue-prints as well.
Apart from that I think that metaphores suck. If one can't explain what he/she is talking about without using metaphores, then is either too stupid to explain anything or too proud to modify the thinking to the way of thinking of his/hers listener. This is not targeted at you, but at the original poster that you replied to.
Anonymous Cowards Unite
Has the Free Software Foundation ever considered publishing a complete GNU/Linux distribution?
Why *doesn't* FSF and RMS put out a distribution? He so adamant about his ideals, saying everyone should use only free software, but yet fails to provide a viable replacement and solution to my non-free software needs.Mr. Stallman, quit bitching and evangelizing and make your own distribution with only free software that I can download, install on my machine, and see if I can use it for my daily tasks. Why should I replace my current Debian desktop with some no name distribution from Spain? Give people a viable product with full FSF backing and they just might take you and your ideas a little more seriously.
No, I don't think we do. You keep implying that we don't see RMS's philosophical point, and that we think he's making some claim about "free-as-in-RMS" software being better than "non-free" software. I assure you, we (or at least I) understand his arguments perfectly; we (I) just disagree with them.
The problem is that most of us aren't going to accept that free-as-in-RMS software is a good thing if it can't produce better products than the current commercial (or other, free-as-in-beer) offerings. He claims that non-free stuff is inherently evil, IP has to go, etc. But unfortunately, if free-as-in-RMS doesn't come up with the goods, I see no reason to agree with him. As long as that's the case, clearly the commercial software world, current IP laws and other targets of RMShate do offer an advantage to the community as a whole, so why should we give them up just to match his code of ethics?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it. "
;)
Was he talking about us MS employees?
Yes and this is why MS has been hands off with Adobe, at present. However if you really look at the document encoding that is about to come with Longhorn you will find that there are huge internet document encoding measures that are being launched by Microsoft. I doubt that Adobe will be able to compete successfully with business internet documents in about 3 years. Yes Adobe has been great! But MS is working quietly to screw them too.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Whoops, maybe he shouldn't have previously mentioned both Windows and StarOffice in the same interview. I'm now vaguely motivated to go and purchase both. Thanks Richard.
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
I first used GNU/Unix and C in 1978. I rediscovered GNU/Unix in 1987. I have administered GNU/BSD,
GNU/Ultrix, GNU/HP/UX, GNU/SunOS 4.x, GNU/SunOS 5.x and more flavours of GNU/Linux than I can
remember although I started out using GNU/SLS with kernel 0.9.x.
GNU/Linux has progressed so much in such a relatively short amount of time that I am in awe at
where it is today.
To GNU/gentoo. Then I remembered someone on cola mentioning a new distro named GNU/gentoo.
Once this stage has been reached GNU/gentoo is as easy to maintain as any GNU/Linux distro I know.
There is excellent documentation on the GNU/gentoo website. There is an excellent GNU/document
describing the USE variable which should be read before installing GNU/gentoo.
Apart from everything being compiled from source so that it is optimised for your hardware and the
USE variable to tailor the type of system you want, GNU/gentoo has another little gem. This is the
GNU/gentoo init system. It is based on the excellent GNU/SYSV init system but enhances it and
makes GNU/gentoo a class apart from any other GNU/*nix system I have administered. To be brief,
GNU/gentoo init GNU/scripts allow you to specify GNU/dependencies. There is no need to GNU/worry
about S script numbering as in GNU/SYSV or where GNU/you place the startup code in GNU/BSD type
GNU/init scripts (I'm referring to GNU/BSD 4.3 here. I don't GNU/know if the free GNU/BSD's have
changed GNU/things).
To summarise: GNU/gentoo is a very special GNU/Linux distro. It may not GNU/be for the the
GNU/Linux GNU/neophyte (I'm sure GNU/someone posted to GNU/cola recently that GNU/gentoo was their
first GNU/Linux GNU/install) although if GNU/you read the GNU/docs and GNU/understand what is
going on GNU/gentoo is an excellent GNU/distro.
GNU/Support GNU/is GNU/excellent GNU/via GNU/the GNU/gentoo GNU/forums GNU/and GNU/mailing
GNU/lists.
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do
"The more they want to cooperate with us, the more we can cooperate."
:-)
Funny way of cooperating...
http://www.gnu.org/manual/coreutils-4.5.4/html_nod e/coreutils_149.html
Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group
(This section is by Richard Stallman.)
Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)
However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.
I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.
In the past 10 years _I've_ made a little over 1.3 million.
$1,300,000 / 10 yr = $130,000.
A world-class programmer like Stallman should be able to make that much per year. So STFU.
I can't believe you posted that without a link to alsangels
Free software is free as long as you don't get cease-n-desist letters from lawyers, or judges buying SCO Shakedown legal theories that say that you suddenly have to pay for a license on their intellectual property.
RMS's standards are stricter than mine by a long shot, but I respect his right to have those standards, and the freedom to express what those standards are. In a way, it's his uncompromising adherence to his standards that allows the rest of us the freedom to compromise ours if we choose to.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Uh... you can download and use x86 Debian/Hurd right now, actually. It's hardly as popular as linux, and has some irritating limitations on usable disk sizes, but it IS usable.
Of all the days not to have mod points...
*sigh* back to work...
Actually it is free in the most common sense of the word, much like "free" nations have laws. Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:
You can see how "Free as in Freedom" is able to fit into the defintion here. The GPL is sort of like a Republican form of government (as opposed to a pure direct-rule democracy) -- by having specific procedures, rules, and representatives, a Democratic Republic can exist much more successfully than a Democracy (ruled directly by and through the people). Likewise, while the BSD license (for example) may be more "purely free," its lack of protection to insure continued freedom in the future prevents it from being as free as the GPL in other senses.
-------------
"You would not get a high grade for such a design" -- Andy Tanenbaum on Linus' Linux design.
Why don't you just check where links go before you click on them?
>RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"
Does he also believe that non-free architects, authors, musicians, is a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'
I fully believe Stallman's goals do NOT stop at software.
Features. It is that simple. He wants the source to be available, so that he can add jazillion "features" to it. And if you remove one of his features, he wants the source available so that he can put his feature back into it. Once you understand that this is his motive, his rationale, for "free" software, you will understand him. If you love bloated -- err, featureful software -- you will love him, too.
RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura ..
I, for one, welcome our new Free Software using Extramaduran overlords.
Seriously, WHOTF are these guys?
True, dat.
I don't care what dumb yanks think, but Stallman certainly isn't dumb.
His ideas of free software have applications and implications far outside the narrow area of software - they could apply for instance to:
political writings, where free distribution is more important than profit from book sales
socially useful inventions, where the free dissemination of knowledge far outweighs the profit imperative
any area of intellectual endeavour where the producers of knowledge have enough conscience that they are willing and able to release their ideas without being influenced by greed.
It's idealism, I know - why else would the Founders have thought it necessary to implement the copyright and patent systems.
But the world needs idealists like Stallman (and Paine, Thoreau, Russell etc.) who have no interest in expanding their own personal power, but only a wish to see others allowed to learn and grow.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
A comparison between SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 with UnixWare 7.1.3 revealed some suspicious similarities between the two, particularly, but not only, between many new drivers which suddenly appeared in the SCO's closed-source Unixware, but previously existed in SuSE Linux.
SCO recently licensed several hundred drivers to Sun. Nobody knows for sure, but could they be the same ones?
While it might be premature to allege copying without access to Unixware source code, the investigators do say "I feel these issues need to be investigated further."
TRB: Would you say that easing into Free Software slowly (as opposed to jumping from completely proprietary to completely Free Software environments) by using software such as WINE is acceptable ever?
:-)
RMS: Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.
TRB: Do you have any closing thoughts you would like to share with Open for Business readers?
RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it.
Though at one point (when he goes at Debian) I was about to consider this guy a real prick I changed my mind. After finished reading this interview - which gives a good insight into RMS for those who don't know him or his motives that well - I must say that he has a rock-solid point in case.
I allways like to say: Thought is free. And with machines around that somewhat emulate basic algorithims of human thinking we have to be very carefull not to permit companys to patent thoughts.
RMS actually does make sense when he emphasises his Freedom thing. Oh, sorry, was that GNU/RMS?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe by the time you're a release candidate, you'll have stopped getting pissed off by PC language usage.
There are egregiously stupid examples of politically correct usage, but using 'she' interchangably with 'he' is one of the less offensive.
When Babbage was creating his Difference Engines, who do you think was involved in working out with him how algorithms could be implemented on them?
Ada fscking Lovelace, that's who. Byron's niece, and definitely a human of the female gender.
From contemporary engravings, she was damn attractive, too.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
The free software movement is like a group of people who decided to become vegetarian out of ethical concerns about animal rights. Not everybody thinks like them and they're practical enough to understand that. But suppose a Free Vegetable Movement starts a foundation to make vegetarian utensils, publish vegetarian cookbooks and so forth, and get a lot of followers. If non-vegetarians now start also using the recipes, that's fine with them. There's even a splinter "open vegetable movement" of people who don't care about the animal rights issues but have discovered the benefits of eating more vegetables (such as having fewer heart attacks). The OVM may have mixed meat/vegetable diets but the FVM doesn't want to have anything to do with that.
What's happening in these threads sounds to me like non-vegetarians somehow claiming the vegetarian foundation is foolishly restricting people's options because it won't link to restaurants that serve meat dishes, and no longer recommends a particular cookbook with good vegetarian recipes, because that cookbook also has meat dishes and there's now finally a comparably good cookbook which is 100% vegetarian. IMO it would be crazy for the veg foundation to do anything else, given its values. All you can decide is that its values are not your values. Asking them to turn against their very principles by also presenting the "meat option" is ridiculous (do you also ask your xtian church to present the "satan option"?). They did a lot of work making their cookbooks and recipes what they are, and the changes you're asking for show that you're trying to impose your values on them, not the other way around.
That little contry in the south of Europe. I'm from there, and as far as I know, Linex is a Debian Woody based distribution heavily modified to be used in a local administration (Extremadura).
Please excuse me for my bad English, as I've said, I'm from Spain.
Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software.
Sorry, but where is Extremadura?
Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.
Debian is a general purpose system. It is meant to provide as much functionality to as many people as possible. This is not as much of an issue for distrobution like LinEx - similarily Red Escolar and the BU distro - which can be (and, I presume, are) highly customized for the locales which use them. In the case of Extremadura, I presume the powers that be simply decided they didn't want/need non-free software. In the case of Debian, non-free (and contrib) software is a compromise which is required by the larger, more varied user base it supports.
RMS should be careful where he brushes his tar. Many software packages under non-free in Debian differ from FSF guidelines in only small ways. For example, the security auditor Bass has a license which is substantively the compliant with Debian Free Software Guidelines, with the exception of having to notify (not ask permission of) the author if you use his software in a commercial product or business.
If you're a commercial entity using Bass, you might email the author, tell him that his utility is cool and what you want to use it for. This would bring you into compliance. According to FSF and DFS guidelines, and therefore RMS, this makes Bass somehow immoral. I don't know the author's motivation for this (perhaps he's just interested), but I don't think he wants to prevent anyone from using his software.
For that matter, what if I created a product and licensed it in such a way that it was free, except it couldn't be used by 'repressive' governments? This 'ethical clause' would make my product non-free software, and RMS would therefore condemn it (although Amnesty International would not). However, I would consider this to be an improvement, as it would not only promote software freedom, but possibly physical and political freedom as well. Would this be wrong?
I agree with the fundamentals of the Free Software movement. I just find RMS's general arrogance repugnant. It stinks of radicalism; frankly, radicals scare me.
--- ---
A note on names. GNU/Linux is a product. Names like Debian, Redhat, etc. are brands. I may use brand names at times to refer to products. This is culturally common, acceptable, and comprehensible as well. Don't hold it against me.
All kidding aside about his often abrasive personality, he is way too idealistic to ever be happy with anything that is offered.
The pursuit of achieving that mythical point is good, but it isn't practical to demand it to happen. This is the real world, and there must be allowances for reality or you never move forward.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Unfortunately, that's a rather unhelpful definition. Who decides what rights you have, or do not have? You? Your Founding Fathers? Your Constitution? As someone not living in the US, I really couldn't care less about these things, so how do I know what your "inalienable rights" are?
The only inalienable rights you truly have are those you're prepared to stand up and protect, by any means necessary. Anything else can be taken from you.
And yes, according to my definition, you can do something as stupid as sign away your "rights" to things. With freedom also comes responsibility for your actions. As I said, complete freedom all the time isn't necessarily a good idea, and the law is there to mitigate it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not kidding.
Look at the world of software today and trace how much impact he has had. Emacs, gcc, gdb. The GPL. The idea that people can give away what they want, and other people (or the same people) can charge money for making distros and providing support.
Entire companies operate now in the intellectual eco-sphere that Stallman invented.
To be sure, several other people have also had an impact bigger than Stallman's. So what? Out of the millions of people who have spent their careers working with computers, he's easily in the top 0.1% of impact -- of people who made the world more like the way they want it.
That's practical.
RMS promotes his views too strongly.
What on earth does that mean? Maybe if he was buying billboard space by the mile and putting ads on TV and on the back of cereal boxes, I'd agree with you.
he seems hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others.
I don't think you know what it means for one person to "enforce" ethics and morals and another. Hint: it doesn't involve uttering words in a magazine interview, it involves guns and punishment.
Don't confuse a person with a strong moral position with someone "forcing" you to do something! Maybe RMS annoys you but you can ignore him.
te has sobrao con la respuesta majo. No le pidas peras al olmo, recuerda que son americanos... X-D
You are correct on the he/she usage being less offensive than other examples of that sort of thinking, but it is also more pernicious. It is sort of a gateway drug, and the other side knows that too.
Ada Lovelace is a romantic figure. She is beautiful like you say, and I am in love with her, of course. I first learned about her when I started programming in the computer language that bears her name. I would be careful, however, in trumpeting her as an icon of female computer programmers. The extent of her 'involvement,' as you put it, was reworking a few of Babbages old calculations as student problems.
But my point was never that computer programming was an exclusively male thing. Only that it is substantially male. Perhaps the case could be made that genius in the field is exclusively male. The feminist Camille Paglia once wrote: But I would be hesitant to make so sweeping a claim myself. I would say that there really is a asocial element to mathematical greatness, and it certainly is "masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness," but I would not go so far as to say that there will never be a great female mathematician. On the other hand, there has not been one yet.
The problem with your analogy, from my own ethical point of view, is that in your case, there is a "victim" in the current situation: an animal dies to become food. I don't think closed source code suffers hurt feelings by not being released. :-)
My point was now to argue either for or against free-as-in-RMS software. It was that the reason many people here disagree with RMS isn't that they don't understand what he's saying, it's that they don't buy his arguments. To follow your analogy, it's as if he's trying to convince me to become a vegetarian even if accepting my place in the food chain and eating a balanced diet currently keeps me healthier, and without the animal rights argument.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
involve RMS insisting that it be called GNU/SCO?:)
For someone who's so goofy about naming (insisting on adding the GNU part) RMS doesn't seem too worried about changing a different trademark - Linux. Wonder what Linus has to say about this, but my guess is he doesn't mind too much, he seems very pragmatic about all the GNU naming thing.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Any of the popular open licences ensures that the code stays free. I can't take someone's GPL'd, BSD'd or otherwise licenced code and somehow remove it from the community, or prevent someone else from using or extending it themselves.
The GPL also imposes restrictions on what I can do after I've decided to use the code, however. It doesn't just affect the code it originally covered, it affects anything I add to it as well, even though that extra material is a result of my own efforts and nothing to do with the existing code. This isn't keeping the original code free -- it already is -- it's just forcing me to make my additional code available as well, whether I want to or not.
If the original code were truly "free", I could use it in this way, and do as I wished with a derived work. This doesn't affect anyone else's ability to use the original "free" code in any way. With the GPL, this is not so, and thus calling GPL'd software "free" is deeply misleading.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I detected a distinctive ducking sound right then as the subject whooshed by, but I think that I will bow out here as well. I do not have any experience with opera beyond watching Wagner's Ring trilogy on PBS a few years ago. Thank you, however, for actually replying rather than engaging in mad bomber style moderation.
How would that help when the domain was a legitimate one that allows redirects to be displayed within a frame?
In all seriousness, I think RMS has a good concept. Free software is a great idea. However, implementing free software would require changing the thoughts of every person in the entire world so they see that free software is a good thing. Take the following, for example:
TRB: One difficult thing for end users is proprietary codecs and plugins. Two examples that seem especially prevalent are Macromedia Flash and Real Networks' RealMedia files. Without these technologies, a lot of interesting content becomes unavailable. What do you think the short-term solution for this problem is?
RMS: I think we should modify browsers to encourage and help users to send messages of complaint to those sites, to pressure them to change.
Why? Media-types think flash and real media are a great technology. RMS is suggesting taking a step backward through this suggestion. What purpose could it possibly serve? Unless you can change the mindset of the folk at Real and Macromedia, you're stuck. Comply and remain interoperable or just don't view it.
By this same argument, folk should quit using Quicktime, WMV and WMA. Does anyone see thing happening anytime soon? I think not. People will go where their technology takes them, be it a Mac, Windows, *nix or *BSD user.
The key, at this point, isn't to subjugate the masses and foisting Linux on them. It's to make Linux interoperable with the other operating systems first. After Linux has gained, say, 50% of the market, then Linux can make demands. As it stands, if every Linux user were to send a letter of complaint to every site that used Flash, RealMedia, Quicktime or WM*s, people will probably more or less laugh. What purpose does it serve to suggest alternatives when there is no reason for said people to switch?
Linux is great. But it isn't so great that it will inspire change in the mind of everyone in the world. At least, not yet. ;)
It's called file permissions. Of course, it isn't the Hollywood-wet-dream type of DRM...
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
People do tend to misunderstand what is really ment by how the people who are critical of open source icons aren't programmers.
Given a random sample of Linux users you'll find a large number of people who have in fact contributed code. Rob Mulda who has admitted to being not the best programmer let alone one of the smarter Linux users has contributed code.
I've contributed code. A lot of people have.
So when a whole group of people in what is admittedly a very programmer orented community in some cases even hostile to non-programmers turns up a whole group of critics who can't code you get to wondering if they are part of the community at all.
The point being made here is that RMSes critics are on the outside they aren't involved and don't know much more than what they are told by individuals who are themselfs quite hostile to Linux. Often the very programmers RMS is critical of.
I'd be simpathetic but I've seen the code they write and I wrote better programms when I was a kid bored at the store with only a Vic20 on demo to keep me entetrained and I'd walk off with my game still running for other kids to play.
You'd be right if programmers were a rare commodity on the Linux community or if only a select few of the open source critics were non-programmers it would not make sense to doupt the critics. But the truth is most of the Linux community are active contributers and the critics aren't.
Like the comment "Don't be critical of Microsoft untill you've writen an os". You realise only a tiny handful of people have actually done that? I find it most telling that of those who have writen an operating system I'm probably the most forgiving of Microsoft.
(Yes.. I wrote an operating system all on my own and it sucked)
I don't actually exist.
RMS is always clear, coherent and on-message. Someone should nominate him for office somewhere.
RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it.
Could a more principled, and matter-of-fact statement be made? I love this guy.
> Henry V.009?
> Maybe by the time you're a release candidate, you'll have stopped getting pissed off by PC language usage.
Exactly. Why the need to get upset at Policatical Censhop usage? It's JUST a word for fuck's sake.
Deal (with it) Henry.
a "predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division"
So it's a cancer then?
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
A better example of how closed source softwarereeks of Stalinism would be to point out that you, as a customer, is not permitted to purchase (under Stalinism, there is no ownership of physical goods) a copy of software, but is only "licensed" (permission granted by an authority) to use the software as the provider (under Stalinism, the provider is the government, in closed source, the provider is the publisher) sees fit.
The parrallels are simple and obvious, yet many ignore them, ether because they are ignorant of how the Stalinist system functioned to enforce it's oppressive control of the soviet citizenryand how these techniques and ideas are being applied today by people who call themselves capitalists, or because they imagine that they will benefit from such a system.
Read, L
I see you are new to computers.
Finally, someone who read the license before flaming Debian!
If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite being the author of most of the content.
I agree with your assessment. I call it a poison pill.
There are other problems. You can't excerpt text into a derived work without including the text of the license; Not just have the license as a separate file, but the actual license text must be included, and it's pretty long. Imagine trying to make a reference card ou of that.
Another thing that annoys me is when the main documentation for a GPL'ed work is licensed under the GFDL. Anyone who forks the project cannot cut and paste text between his version of the code and manual. The licenses are incompatible. Now consider that all the FSF manuals are under this license! Yuck.
The Linex distribution does nothing to prevent you from installing a non-free or propietary application if you wish to. It simply does not package and distribute non-free software.
If non-free for Linex is an issue of serious enough concern for you, perhaps you should consider creating a distribution of non-free software that would be compatible with Linex. If you think that it would be foolish to put your unpaid time and energy into promoting and distributing somebody else's comercial product, then you perhaps can understand why it would be foolish for Linex to do the same.
Read, L
OK, so free-as-in-free is the most important thing in the universe, and there is only one distro on the planet he recommends due to "ethical considerations"... but he runs Deb on his laptop because it was "the best at the time." what fucking bullshit. if it's so important to you, switch distros right-fucking-now. OTOH, why didn't you just go with LFS or something in the first place? c'mon, if absolute purity is your number one concern, why use a distro at all? oh, you're too busy? using a distro is more convenient, you say? so you're saying there are practical reasons for not being as pure as pure can be, and that real life must sometimes intrude? So it's OK for you to be impure for practical reasons, but not the rest of us? OK, now I see.
"When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations."
Practice what you preach, brother.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Take, for instance, IBM. IBM wants to make money selling rack after rack of servers. Now, they need a good OS to run on these servers, or else people won't want them. So they want Linux.
Now, people buying servers want an OS they know they can get compatible software with, etc, etc (see the whole Oracle approved distro debacle). So they have an incentive to support (i.e. give money to) a popular distro (i.e. RedHat) so RedHat doesn't go tits up and leave them searching for something else.
And that doesn't even get into bundling proprietary software with the known free software.
So, basically you can make money selling something that's available for free by selling your brand. Sure, people could buy the systems bare and install software themselves, because it's free, but then IBM can just put support terms in their contract saying stuff like 'you need to have bought x.x version from us, or we laugh in your face', because they can make more money by selling a complete package.
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium. Just like it doesn't matter if you're a popular artist getting jacked by your record company, if you can sell your cool/sexy/creepy old man image to Pepsi. There is nothing left to sell except your own mark of quality and authenticity. Which can't be taken away from you even if people copy you/your software.
This isn't very GNU/Funny (it's rather GNU/Overrated), and some GNU/Moderator is going to get SCO/Cockslapped in Metamod.
That is M$/All
I remember that the real issue with non-free was about
"Free Software" vs. "being popular". Although
enough developers were also Free Software activists,
I am afraid, the majority was more interested
in the "being popular" and "adding functionality" through
non-free software.
In the mean time, Slashdot articles would
typically portray Debian as a pure Free Software
project because, well, because they had GNU on
its name, and Bruce (although he was gone by then),
would insist on Slashdot that Debian only
distriutes fee sofware because the non-free
are not part of the distribution, so they don't count. (unbelivable!)
I left Debian, not only because of their weak
Free Software stance, but mostly because "popularity"
was becoming more important to them and Free Software developers were
ridiculed on debian-privite. But publically on
Slashdot they were re-inforcing the perception
of a strong Free Software project -- got to
keep the donations coming
Also at the time, there was an insergence within
the ranks of the anti-Free people into
positions of Policy -- the same people who
would also lead the anti-Free crusades (people
like Manoj, and the author of apt in Canada).
In Free Software projects we vote with our feet,
the Debian project was no longer a place for me.
RMS recommending non-free software is too good to leave unnoticed.
It's a great distribution and RMS uses it. The thing is that if a distribution comes out that's more free, RMS is going to recomend it. Why not?
If they include any non-free software, it's basically in the form of, "Okay, here's a directory of packages people have made to allow easy installation of non-free software under Debian."
Ah yes, but why not put the effort into making your own free package? I understand that it can seem practical to use a non-free package like xanim to play movies from your digital camera. It's impractical to make such a thing because M$ will have simply changed the format before you finish writing the free code. Yet RMS is right to say that everyone would be better off if no-one bought into AVI to begin with. It's caving in to little things like this that puts you firmly in the hands of people who would take all your rights away. You should not be comfortable with junk like that and RMS is right. Freedom is not easy because there's always someone who would like to screw you with something silly like, "If you use this camera, you must do as I say or I'll take it away from you."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
greatness, and it certainly is "masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness," but I would not go so far as to say that there will never be a great female mathematician. On the other hand, there has not been one yet.
Emmy Noether was a great female mathematician.
I AM MR. DARL MCBRIDE CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCO GROUP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, IN LINDON, UTAH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I KNOW THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOUR BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS OR BUSINESS DEALINGS BEFORE NOW.
MY ASSOCIATES HAVE RECENTLY MADE CLAIM TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES WORTH AN ESTIMATED $1 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. I AM WRITING TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS.
IN THE EARLY 1970S THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION DEVELOPED AT GREAT EXPENSE THE COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE KNOWN AS UNIX. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWS OF MY COUNTRY PROHIBITED THEM FROM SELLING THESE SOFTWARES AND SO THEIR VALUABLE SOURCE CODES REMAINED PRIVATELY HELD. UNDER A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT SOME PROGRAMMERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY DID ADD MORE CODES TO THIS OPERATING SYSTEM, INCREASING ITS VALUE, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY TO DILUTE OR DISPARAGE OUR FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THESE CODES, DESPITE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH AND THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY, WHICH AGREEMENT WE DENY AND DISAVOW.
IN THE YEAR 1984 A CHANGE OF REGIME IN MY COUNTRY ALLOWED THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION TO MAKE PROFITS FROM THESE SOFTWARES. IN THE YEAR 1990 OWNERSHIP OF THESE SOFTWARES WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. IN THE YEAR 1993 THIS CORPORATION WAS SOLD TO THE CORPORATION NOVELL. IN THE YEAR 1994 SOME EMPLOYEES OF NOVELL FORMED THE CORPORATION CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, WHICH BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE AN UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM KNOWN AS LINUX. IN THE YEAR 1995 NOVELL SOLD THE UNIX SOFTWARE CODES TO SCO. IN THE YEAR 2001 OCCURRED A SEPARATION OF SCO, AND THE SCO BRAND NAME AND UNIX CODES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL WAS RENAMED SCO GROUP, OF WHICH I CURRENTLY SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
MY ASSOCIATES AND I OF THE SCO GROUP ARE THEREFORE THE FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARES KNOWN AS UNIX. OUR ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT NO FEWER THAN SEVENTY (70) LINES OF OUR VALUABLE AND PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODES HAVE APPEARED IN THE UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM LINUX. AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE, THIS GIVES US A CLAIM ON THE MILLIONS OF LINES OF VALUABLE SOFTWARE CODES WHICH COMPRISE THIS LINUX AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT GREAT PROFIT TO VERY MANY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. OUR LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED US THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE CODES IS WORTH AN ESTIMATED ONE (1) BILLION U.S. DOLLARS.
UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY EXTRACTING OUR FUNDS FROM THESE COMPUTER SOFTWARES. TO THIS EFFECT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MANDATE BY MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTACT YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE PREPARED TO SELL YOU A SHARE IN THIS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WILL SOON BE VERY PROFITABLE, THAT WILL GRANT YOU THE RIGHTS TO USE THESE VALUABLE SOFTWARES IN YOUR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT ABLE AT THIS TIME TO SET A PRICE ON THESE RIGHTS. THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPECTFUL SUGGESTION, THAT YOU MAY BE IMMEDIATELY A PARTY TO THIS ENTERPRISE, BEFORE OTHERS ACCEPT THESE LUCRATIVE TERMS, THAT YOU SEND US THE NUMBER OF A BANKING ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS OF A SUITABLE AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS ENTERPRISE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE YOU MAY SEND US THE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR MAJOR CREDIT CARD, OR YOU MAY SEND TO US A SIGNED CHECK FROM YOUR BANKING ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO "SCO GROUP" AND WITH THE AMOUNT LEFT BLANK FOR US TO CONVENIENTLY SUPPLY.
KINDLY TREAT THIS REQUEST AS VERY IMPORTANT AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I HONESTLY ASSURE YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL AND RISK-FREE.
The only piece of work of Noethers that I am familiar with is a theorm from physics having to do with conserved quantities associated with gauge transformations. Perhaps you could point out one of the papers which she wrote which you consider 'great.'
It seems to have gotten you and others pretty upset. I wonder which of us can't 'deal'?
RMS is promoting free software in much the same way as RIAA seems to be promoting musicians.
When is somebody going to take that fat fuck aside and politely inform him what a psychotic fucking asshole he is? Seriously. He needs to be beaten mercilessly. RMS is just as repulsive as Bill Gates.
Turn off the non stop 'reality' television and get to know your world. Its a BIG, interesting place full of wonder, as well as unkknown countries with their own linux distributions.
In fact, the world of Linux truly is a *world* of linux. Much of which exists outside "America's Top Model" and "Who wants to have a four way with a trillionaire".
Serious.
I think that the things that RMS says and does contradict a lot of what he stands for. If you wish to provide software that is open and free completely so that others may use and abuse this software in virtually any way conceivable, you should be willing to accept that people are really going to do it. Its like the US Army. They fight for freedom, and one of those freedoms is to dislike USA. They may or may not like it, but by fighting to allow people to feel they way they want to feel, to experience "freedom", is to accept the fact that some people will use this "freedom" to do things that the fighters disagree with, but are not necessarily wrong. Free really is free, and if you want to promote it, you shouldn't be prejudiced against those that take it at face value and use it to its fullest. I think its pretty funny that he was speaking out against debian in one of his answers, then revealed that he himself uses debian followed by a convenient excuse as to why he doesn't use GNU/LinEx (The availability of GNU/LinEx is a recent development). I know that if I was a FSF zealot I would not be using a system that I do not agree with. I also don't see why RMS felt it necessary to point out that Ximian has a product that is "non-free". There was no place in the discussion to bring u and deliberately put down Ximian the way he did. RMS is hypocritical and I think he is just as bad as everyone he speaks so harshly about. Using Debian because there is no "free" alternative is no excuse, at least according to him. And that is only a fraction. Anyway, this is just my annoyed 2c after reading his interview (and the one linked off of it).
// Ziekke
What does this mean? How would you distinguish "hellbent on enforcing his ethics and morals on others" from presenting and implementing a compelling argument for free software?
Is it required that RMS' deal with those that work against the goal to supply software freedom for all computer users?
Choosing a license is often cited as the freedom to choose but can easily become the power to dominate users; choosing a free software license definately helps society. Choosing a copylefted free software license helps secure these freedoms for derivative works.
RMS and the FSF help help people choose licenses and software more wisely via the concept of copyleft. The FSF's licence list is quite informative and discriminating so people won't pick a license that doesn't serve their interests in the short and long term. From the look of some of the other posts in this /. thread, I'd say some still don't get the concept of why it is important to pay attention to the freedoms of derivative works.
Your subject header ("RMS promotes his views too strongly.") and this sentence suggest you are in favor of stopping RMS' freedom of speech. Is this what you are trying to convey?
RMS would agree here--in fact, he reiterated this in the interview when he answered a question about using WINE, a popular way to run Microsoft Windows programs without running Microsoft Windows:
Saying this twice doesn't make this more clear to me. RMS clearly explains how non-free software divides users and keeps them helpless. The social movement he started has worked to create an entire operating system people use every day. This movement has inspired others to do good things (including the Creative Commons and the Free Library of Science. Even the Open Source movement, which stands for different things than the Free Software movement, works to bring people to use and develop free software). Do you have more specific counterarguments to raise?
Digital Citizen
I apologize, in advance, for my possible ignorange. But, I was going along, just fine, reading the RMS interview(with my RMS/zealot filters on) when I came across this: "Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software."
I'm sorry, but where or, wtf is the governmment of extramadura??? A ggogle search brings up links in Espanol, and me, being the ignorant AWM, cannot understand their content. Can someone please elucidate upon this preivously unknown country, or heretofore unrecognized goverment leader? I'm fairly well versed in geogrpahy and in some areas of politice; but, this has me stumped. Is it somewhere near erewon??
According to this Wired story on the distribution, Extremadura GNU/Linux is a Debian GNU/Linux install.
/etc/apt/sources.list configuration file.
I'm calling you out, Richard Stallman. You claim that the GNU project website will not link to the Debian project because the Debian project provides for the description and download of non-Free Software. Yet, you can recommend a Debian install?
Most certainly Extremadura Linux contains the standard dpkg/apt facilities. Just like with a standard Debian install, a user must explicitly specify that he or she would like access to the seperate repository which contains non-Free Software, in order to access these repositories with the apt system. This is done either at install (in the case of a standard Debian GNU/Linux install), or after install by modifying the
The default of a Debian GNU/Linux install is to provide for the installation of only software which is Free Software.
Extremadura GNU/Linux no doubt provides in its package management system to describe non-Free Software, and to provide for the download and installation of non-Free Software. These are the same reasons that you have stated you will not link to the Debian project from the GNU project website.
Mr. Stallman, how dare you take a stab like this at the Debian project.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Hi! ...that were out of the ordinary. (These are not urban legends, these are all based on bug reports or other support requests we received first-hand.)
g apps.htm l)
Happy Sunday! The founding fathers had a lot to say about freedom. One thing they generally agreed upon is that "free" doesn't mean free from responsibility. You have resposibilities as a citizen based on services rendered to you by the state. This is why you have to pay taxes. You are not free of this responsibility. Yet, if you read the GPL it states " This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Imagine, if you will, elevators were shipped with such a "free" notion? Who would ride in such an elevator? Imagine if a Nuclear Power plant used GPL software. Paul Aoki has a link on his website where he states, "Prototypes have a life of their own. Some University POSTGRES applications that gave us pause." and he goes on to list:
" * cruise missile "threat assessment" system (Johns Hopkins APL / U. S. Navy Tomahawk Program Office, 1991)
" * "evaluation of automatic target recognizer (ATR) algorithms" (U. S. Army Night Vision & Electro-Optics Directorate, 1993)
" * "a jet engine measuring system" (General Electric, 1993)
" * "an asteroid detection project, which aims at discovering earth-grazing asteroids which are potentially dangerous for the Earth." (Observatoire de la Cote d'Azur, 1993)
" * "Geoinformation Systems for the problems of the Chernobyl accident" (TechnoSoft, Ukraine, 1992) and other unspecified applications (Russian Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, 1993)"
(http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/~aoki/.admin/p
Now, imagine Chernobyl melts down because of some GPL software? Is this an appropriate use of the term free, free of responsibility?
But things are even more absurd. The Open Source community would have everyone believe that software shipped without any warranty is more secure than software shipped with warranty? Really? If a company warranties its software for fitness and could be sued for the melt-down of Chernobyl, then said company would supply less secure software than Open Source who is free of such a responsibility? Postgres is NOT GPL license, btw, it is Berkeley License, but still "free".
What the Open Source community and FSF is asking the public to do is to "trust" without responsibility. Hey, ride this elevator controlled by GPL software, but you can't sue us if the thing breaks. Why should the public do this?
The lawsuit FSF should be worried about is not SCO, but rather the notion that one can ship software without responsibility. While nothing directly in the Constitution states this is illegal, Constitutional writings by the founding fathers make it clear that responsibility comes with freedom. Thus you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. The question remains, can you write "free" software that causes fire in crowded movie house and not be sued?
"Hey, get in our GPL/Open Source elevator, we are screaming at you that its safer than the one under warranty. Money is not an incentive. The fact that you can't sue us for bad code has no bearing on our motivation to write quality code."
"You can do whatever you like with....as long as you...."
means that it is not free. Open yes, free no!
Extramadura is a hot southern region with a bloody huge swamp in the middle that is one of the most important water fowl habitats in the world. It has a population comprised of very rugged Spaniards who have a wonderfull musical heritage. I highly recomend you go there to broaden your sense of humanity and learn the great truth about rugged Spanish life and incredible hospitality and human warmth. Leave your American flag waving at home and have a good time with sangria, festivas, flamenco, Spanish musical plays and great Spanish hospitality. It is also the real Spain not the tourista version you see on television.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Since this is a story about RMS and his values and goals, I'd like to comment briefly on his values and goals.
I believe that share many of Stallman's political and ethical goals and committments, but I question his committment to the apparent grounds of his ideals in the case of non-software copyright issues.
RMS does not appear to believe that the right to Freely modify and redistribute "software" is an absolute right, and likewise does not believe that one's moral obligation to make "software" available in a form which is Free is an absolute right.
I agree. This is not an absolute right. It is a right which arises from more basic rights of all humans, and this obligation from obligations to satisfy these more basic human rights.
Stallman appears to ground our moral obligations regarding copyright, like myself, on the value that those rights which these obligations satisfy have to society at large.
Unfortunately, Stallman openly appears not to be consistent on these grounds concerning novels, music, video games scenarios, and certain embedded software.
See this 1999 interview as a reference.
That an "offer to obtain the source" of a piece of software be provided is not an obligation to those who can not benefit from obtaining the source code, but rather it is an obligation to society, that the source code be made available so that those who can benefit society by obtaining the source code, can obtain it. It must be offerred to every one, because the original software distributor has conflicting interests and can not be trusted to, and may not even be capable of, properly determining which individuals or institutions particularly can benefit society by obtaining the source, so as to provide it only to these individuals and institutions.
For this reason also, I disagree with Mr. Stallman. I believe it is unacceptable that source be provided only to those who are also distributed a binary or other copy of the application. All institutions and individuals must have the right to request and obtain a copy of the source -- whether or not they have been distributed another copy of the software -- again, at a fair price for the material cost of doing so, and within fair time constraints.
If you have written a piece of software, the source of which could benefit society were a copy of it obtained by some individual or institution, then you are without excuse for not providing this source at a fair material cost and within reasonable time constraints. Whether or not you actually distribute your software does not significantly affect your obligations to advance and better society, which you has a software creator have the full ability to do. It is because of society that you are alive, have prospered, and have had the sort of education and upbrining which you have had, and so in the sort of environment which you have been in. To say that these obligations to society only arise when you actually distribute software, is at the very least to give the appearance of inconsistent, arbitrary demands and goals. I can see no justification for them.
To the other matters which he is asked to comment on in the above interview:
Being able to modify a novel, to make it suitable for a more particular audience or culture, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to modify a musical composition, to make it better, more satisfying, or more targeted, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to correct, maintain, or modify embedded software is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Only took a single google search to find this out.
Only took a single google search to find this out.
The potential problem with this is that if you are shipping something based on a CPL'd project -- say an IDE built on Eclipse -- and a contributor to the project starts blatantly infringing on one of your patents, you can't sue them without having your license to any of their patents used in the project revoked. Of course, if you've contributed your own code to the project and have patents to cover it, then the first contributor can't sue you for infringing on their patent whose license was automatically revoked. If they did, their license to use your patent would be revoked too. At that point, I think the whole project would reach some sort of event horizon, consume all lawyers in the vicinity, and disappear into a black hole.
It's quite public-spirited of IBM to put something like this in the CPL -- they're trying to keep people from using software patents. (The IBM lawyers I talked to when I worked there said that's why they put this clause in, and I have no reason to doubt them.) But some people see this as hypocritical given how many software patents IBM files every year. An open-source project I organized when I was at IBM eventually had to switch to a different license to keep from scaring away potential users.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been somewhat less vigilant in the past little while in that regard. This was a mistake.
My lack of vigilance, however, is not the point. Posting tubgirl links on slashdot is the digital equivalent of shoveling dog shit onto the sidewalk. It's someone's disgusting and bizarre amusement, and I just don't get how they get off on it.
Is it just me or is RMS mega-preachy? It seems that I would have to spend my days flipping (veggie) burgers or something and just do coding for free on my spare time to avoid being a servant of the prince of darkness, from his POV. Did I just misread him or are only hardware guys allowed to sell any products according to him?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem can be pseudo-mathematically formulated:
The restriction problem
Design a SW license with the smallest amount of restrictions in order to assure that time will not cause the set of initial restrictions to increase.
The answer is GPL. This solution was found by Mr. Stallman when nobody was even aware that the problem existed. Usually, a genius solves a problem which has been well defined for decades/centuries. The fact that only now we start appreciating the dangers imposed by propietary SW make his contribution, done 2 decades ago, all the more valuable.
I believe you're misunderstanding him completely. I think Stallman places an exceedingly high value on software; it's because he sees software as very important and very valuable to society that he is so determined that it should be free. It matters desparately to him.
There's no doubt that Stallman is a difficult person to have around the place, and I'm sure I'd hate to share an office with him. But the older I get and the more I think about what I'm doing the more convinced I am that he's right about most things. In a software mediated future access to and control over software will be essential to active participation in society. Consider the voting machines issue. Without open, free, publicly auditable software on voting machines, how can the process of democracy in an electronic age be trusted?
I've always considered the GPL to be a very imprtant document, and I've recently switched from using the BSD license for most of my work to using the GPL. I agree that Stallman is an extremist. But we need extremists and without him we would not have the opportunity to discuss differing purities of free software - because there would be no free softare at all, and we would all of us be microserfs.
In short, you owe Stallman a beer (and so do I)
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
.... if you don't allow for the freedom of some people to enslave others.
Honestly, there are people around here that would not understand a principle if it hit them on their a@@.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Show me your matter duplicator please, that one that duplicates stuff at almost no cost.
Now, show me the person that came with an invention completely out of the blue.
What the commercial companies want is that you can't write software, share it with others and impose the restrictions that you want on the use of that software. Don't believe me? What do you think this upsurge in ridiculous patent claims is all about? That is to price out of the system the small developper, you, I, anybody. What about GPL bein "unamerican"? Etc.etc. You are being surrounded by the enemy and you decide to have a go at the guy that is fighting in your side. What a clever strategy.
What RMS and many other hackers want is that you can share software with others without companies with big bucks making it illegal or prohibitive to do so.
Oh yes, and also that if you stood in the shoulders of giants to write your greatest application you also lend your shoulders if you want to distribute the results (hint, you can even make working applications like this site and be mega rich without ever giving anything back).
So I think Stallman understands more about the real world (Including physics I supposse) than some people around here, who see their freedom to create code being eroded away but do nothing but attack one of the few consistent voices in defense of their rigths and freedom in the IT field.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Writing and supporting in-house applications.
That is the way most programmers earn a living.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I see a Mr Mandela saying this: "lets interoperate, we need to keep interoperating until the ANC wins 50% of the vote in apartheid South Africa"
Sometimes you can't take compromises, specially if the compromise means to bend your principles.
Why so meany people fail to grasp this? I am not saying people should agree to these principles, they are of course debatable, what amazes me is how so many people fail to grasp the basic idea that somebody may have principles and be willing to live by them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This was in December 1999, in NYC at an open source conference. I spoke to a few familiar faces, but RMS struck me as the only truly serious person there. OK, it was the heyday of the dot-com boom, everyone was throwing money around, IBM had just decided to go with Apache, Corel was pushing their Linux, and there was RMS, hacking on his little Toshiba, saying "no, I won't wear a t-shirt with a slogan on it".
We'd been making free software since 1995 or so, under a BSD-like license. It was only in 2002 when I re-read RMS's article on why the GPL was better (even for libraries) than the LGPL that I realized what a clear thinker he was. We have since switched all our packages to GPL, pure and simple, with a commercial opt-out license for customers who want it.
When RMS speaks on a subject - like software patents - you see an amazing mind taking complex issues and clarifying them in terms of freedoms, lost or protected. Now maybe he has excellent speech writers. But somehow I think it's really RMS speaking.
Perhaps it's a shame he spends so little effort on playing political correctness. He does not mind annoying an entire generation of geeks with his "GNU/Linux" arguments, and somehow I suspect GNU/LinEx gets his vote mainly because of the name, but these are minor foibles.
The fact remains that free software exists today largely because of one man's vision and struggle, and this man is RMS. The GPL is a constition for protecting the freedom of intellectual thought as expressed in software, and it's a document that demands reverence, or hate.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
All kidding aside about his often abrasive personality, he is way too idealistic to ever be happy with anything that is offered.
The pursuit of achieving that mythical point is good, but it isn't practical to demand it to happen. This is the real world, and there must be allowances for reality or you never move forward.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I doubt that he would agree with this but I know what you mean. However, it's easy when you live off grants and the products of self-promotion. In the real world it's not that simple.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
RMS seems more and more wise every year. He hit the nail on the head on DRM and non-free software. Right now it seems the cost benefit works in non-free software's favor... but this is changing.
-- $G
... were not revolted by slavery.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
but what you describe is not 'power' as such but 'influence'. 'power' is associated with violence, self interests or interests of a segrageted group - be it political, economical, racial etc. RMS and FSF do not fit that description. the group whos interests the fsf protects are everyone - some people might not understand that they are (some people on ms's payroll, for example..) but they are non the less.
I most definetly think that in 10, 50, 100 years RMS will be viewed as one of the most influencial people of the late 20th century, and early 21st.
of coarse it depends who has control (or the power) over the 'ministries of truth' of the time.
Hey you hippy! Lets bend your principles a bit here.
Hey and also a bit there, you have to allow that because it is the real world you know, those things called principles are a nuisance you know.
Those pesky principles of yours get on my way of doing things, so can you bend that other principle a bit as well please?
What do you mean you can't bend any principle anymore? What do you mean you are not willing to compromise[tm]?
You know what, you are a zealot, a radical, you should know that principles are there to be ignored, specially if they are your principles, because mine are uncorruptable, well not really, I can bend this one a little bit, and this one also....
And so on and so forth ad nauseam.
People with no understanding of what a principle is are repugnant.
It stinks of apathy and complacency; frankly apathetic and complacent people scare me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
this guy.
/.ers is that he is not after yOUR monIE.
pay attention. the confusing part for most
don't come crying to us when there's only won channel/os left.
the posterbouys for grand larcenIE/deception would include any & all of the walking dead who peddle phonIE stock markup payper to millions of hardworking conservative folks, & then after stealing/spending/disappearing the real dough, pretend that nothing ever happened. sound familiar robbIE? these fauxking corepirate nazi larcens, want us to pretend along with them, whilst they continue to squander yOUR "investmeNTs", on their soul DOWt craving for excess/ego gratification. yuk
no matter their ceaseless efforts to block the truth from you, the tasks (planet/population rescue) will be completed.
the lights are coming up now.
you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.
as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...) methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.
cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.
no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.
the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.
pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.
each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.
pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.
good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.
Errr..sorry, i meant: "GNU/Debian".
As much as I respect RMS for his concepts and ideals I can't shake the feeling that he's just trying to look smart by pointing to a rather unknown Debian derivate (the only difference being they don't link to closed software).
This is unconfirmed, but I BET that the reason why LinEX has no such links on their homepage is rather laziness than FSF-Ideology. So I can't see why Debian is a wrong decision. He is just beeing smart. RMS keeps forgetting that some people are smart as well and are totally capable of installing Debian WITHOUT any closed software. So, pleeease relax, RMS
cu,
Lispy
Of course you have the right to criticize. However, in a meritocracy such as the Open Source community, your opinion is weighted against your contributions.
So if you take position of an armchair critic, don't be surprised when the community will neglect your opinion.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
I advocate gnu should change its name to something which more accurately reflects its nature : Gnubile is not unicks but isnt linux either
-- P'thk! http://radbrad.rucus.net/
"A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it."
Well gee...I wonder when Dodge is going to start handing out free Vipers and the grocery stores will start giving out free beer. Afterall, non-free cars and non-free food keeps people in a state of domination...
> It is clearly not the minimum required to let
> people use what you produce
Allowing people to use what you produce is simple, protecting your freedom and preserving it for others is the hard task that the GPL trys to solve.
The jungle is "freeer" than the city because I have the freedom to kill. In a society, we trade certain freedoms for other benefits, we trade the freedom to kill for the benefit of a safer living environment. When a freedom is of little use to use, we will trade it lightly.
The GPL restricts people from making proprietary versions. Since making proprietary versions is not important to free software developers, most choose to trade this freedom for the benefit of preserving the freedom of the code they release.
This is the basis of copyleft. The GNU GPL is the cornerstone of the GNU project. The success of the GNU project shows how solid it is.
> The whole point of it is the infectiousness
The GNU GPL is a sharing agreement. "Here's 7.8billion lines of code, you can use it if you like but you have to share any relevent parts of your code". No one gets sent to Guantanamo bay for saying No.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'" ...nonfree software, nonfree food, nonfree housing - only in a government run kennel will we all be truly free. Idiot socialist.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Let me clarify, then. You said that Apple should be "leading the market". I assert that leading the market, and making money aren't necessarily the same thing. The original post provided logic that said you can make money selling a brand, and your rebuttal offered an interpretation that seemed to indicate that the original post had actually said that you should be able to lead the market by selling a brand. If this tenuous length of logic holds, I actually have to agree with both of you.
Exactly. Nowhere did I say that branding would make you the market leader, just that you could make money. Which the original poster was saying you can never do. Just look at Apple's commercials. Or VW's or the Gap, for that matter.
Also, it's hard to assert Microsoft isn't selling a brand, either. With their rollerblading butterfly people, and turning the CN Tower into the world's tallest free-standing advertisement.
The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org. [...] I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux
He'll enjoy the benefits of using Debian, but he'll try and stop anybody else using it? My, what a high moral stance.
Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps
Well, you should know, Richard. You keep taking those baby steps.
As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.
Dear Richard; please stop parasiting off of a distribution that you aren't prepared to even give the courtesy of a link to. Further, please put up or shut up. I might do as you do, but I'm not much minded to do as you say.
ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist [non-free software] and put an end to it
Unless it's on your laptop? Lousy hypocrite.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
As a financial support of the Free Software Foundation over the years, and also a Debian user, I have sometimes been amused at the conflicts that arise between the two organizations. However, the conflicts have never really been an issue for me, including the recent GNU Free Documentation problem in Debian.
However, I must say that RMS is seriously missing the point in recommending the Extremadura distro. There is some incredible irony is favoring a distro pushed by a governing authority and saying that is the most free option (I am sure that George Orwell would have some thoughts on this). Don't misunderstand me, I think all governments should be moving toward linux. However, I will never look to ANY government as the standard bearer for free software. So Extremadura uses nothing but GNU software right now. That is great. But what keeps them from changing that down the road when it is most convenient for them?
RMS may not like Debian anymore because they have a non-free branch. But if he so desired, he stands a much better chance of getting involved with the Debian project in an effort to influence them to drop the non-free branch. Debian is a non-profit organization run by the developers, not big-brother. Free software purity will never come from government. In this case, RMS is "not seeing the forest because of the trees".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree. +1
Actually, I misread your post. I do agree with what you said insofar that it related to propriety software (as opposed to just generally selling software, which is what I thought you had meant) but again, I'm not talking about locking anything up, just requesting payment for work done. I don't care if you go off and use the code in your own project; I just don't see that its immoral to ask that you pay for the code. There are practical, policing, issues with this too but I'd rather see a system that rewards creators more than the current GPL does while still protecting the next user down the line's rights too.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The female whores aren't free so we must settle with free male whores since my morals say so. Might explain why most nerds don't have girlfriends since they are never free :)
I am not sure that what you have been reported to say, or what is attributed to you, is what you actually said or meant.
... and the necessary education and resources to fulfill that long list of needs. ... ... Yeh, I already covered that topic. ... Oh said that one, too.
So I am writing this to clear up any misunderstandings I may have, and, perhaps, to illuminate some small things for you.
You appear to feel that free software is a critical freedom, and a very high priority.
I get the impression that you have dedicated your life to it, and have little time for anything else.
We will get back to that.
You list four freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
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.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
There are many and varied assumptions hidden in these statements, which I would like clarification about.
Hidden assumptions are always mistakes. If they have been at some time in the past uncovered and decisions made about them, then hiding them simply to get the point out in a simple form is completely ok, as long as at some time they were not hidden.
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
This assumes the necessary hardware and training to run the program.
This freedom is denied to over 90% of the world's population, who do not even have electricity, much less any type of computer, or any education.
This assumes the time to run a computer program.
Most of the world is trying, unsuccessfully, to survive and progress. They have no time for entertainment. Wait a minute; did I just imply that a computer is entertainment? We will get back to that one.
This assumes all possible purposes are moral, ethical, and constructive to society as a whole.
Much of what most governments, ours included, do cannot be considered moral or ethical or constructive to society even in part.
Most of what most computer programs are used to do, GNU and Linux included, are to dominate and divide people, subjugate them, collect spoils from them, and perpetuate their power over the people.
Hmm, I seem to be using many of your hot button terms here...
The governments, the entertainment industry, and indeed most of businesses in the world fall into this immoral, unethical, destructive, subjugative, and predatory category.
They are by far the largest usage base of programs, even GNU and Linux.
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.
This assumes the necessary hardware and training to run the program.
This freedom is denied to over 90% of the world's population, who do not even have electricity, much less any type of computer.
Or any education.
Oops, I appear to be repeating myself. I am truly sorry about that.
Wait a minute; you are very repetitive as well. Ok, I withdraw my apology. Never mind.
This assumes that your programs, or any programs, have any relation to any of a person's needs.
What a person needs is air, water, food, room, safety,
Why would a person need a computer?
They would need a computer to communicate with others, to learn about others, even to get an education.
These are admirable goals, which GNU and Linux do assist those who have access to them to achieve. Wait a minute, most of what is currently communicated on the internet is pr0n, spam, scams, cheap goods and other rip-offs, "entertainment", lies by big government and big business
Oops. Did I say immoral,
The time to run
The freedom to
wake up and hold your nose
I'm sorry, but you're so stereotypically open-source-biased it's scary.
Microsoft Word got where it is precisely because it was better than the opposition, and for a long time. Microsoft's position today may be dominant, and they may abuse it, but you don't get to 90+% market share by being mediocre. You get there because no-one else has an alternative worth using for so long that most of the market switches.
And please stop equating closed source with the sort of service you get from one or two large companies. I work as a software developer, on what you'd probably call a closed source project. We write technical libraries to sell to other software developers, who typically make end user products themselves. Our company and the service it offers are nothing like what you describe.
If one of our clients has a problem, they get straight through to skilled support staff, who are in direct contact with the dev team if need be. Typical turnaround for a critical bug is same day (that's everything from first contact through to shipping a fixed library that's been through several hours of tests to verify its correctness). This happens because we have a team of professionals who take their job, their products and the service they provide seriously.
And we're not alone. For a more mainstream example, consider that Apple has been known to release patches for vulnerabilities in common Unix tools faster than even the open source community since OS X came out.
Frankly, I find your generalisations about closed source problems to be unfounded and your implications about the attitude of closed source developers offensive. Open source clearly has some advantages. I use it and I have nothing against you if you wish to support it. But closed source doesn't imply all the problems that certain organisations exhibit today, and open source doesn't imply all the benefits of a major project like Linux or Mozilla. If you're going to compare the two, at least do so fairly based on typical examples, or what's the point?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
momentum conservation - translational symmetry
energy conservation - time translational symmetry
angular momentum conservation - rotational symmetry
I don't think that you know what you're talking about. Those are trivial results that are apparent long before you pull out a heavy gun like Noether's theorem.
I don't know too much about her, but I do have a page and a half biography of her in my copy of Hassani's "Mathematical Physics." On pg. 997, he writes "She was particularly influential in the work of B. L. van der Waerden, who continued to promote her ideas after her death and to indicate the many concepts for which he was indebted to her." That seems to indicate to me that she was dead when van der Waerden was writing his "classic treatise," though it's too classic for me to have heard of, I'll admit. Now Hassani has a list of her accomplishments as well, but I don't notice anything of "greatness." The only place that I've ever come across Noether's theorem is chapter 30 of his Hassani's book, actually, where he shows the proof and gives some of its applications for field theory.
Free software is about making the products of software development free (in the sense of freedom) for use, free for examination, free for modication and free for combination with other software. Good software developers, especially good architects, are relatively scarce and scarce resources are chased by $$$ and or other incentives.
As a software architect/developer for 23 years in the mainly proprietary world, I would greatly welcome more free software dominance. In the proprietary world I have created and have known of so many things others have created that have become effectively the proprietary property of the company we were working for at the time. Much of this became shelf-ware as it was outside the company's primary business. Much of this code is of great general usefulness and would have advanced the state of software art if it were generally available. Instead, each of us ends up creating much of such code over and over again for specific uses in specific proprietary settings. This is a huge and growing waste of talent, time and money. Much of this code is middleware, system services and other reuseable components. These things are notoriously hard to build a proprietary business model around. So in these areas espeically, free software is the only reasonable way to go.
It is a personal great sorrow to see many problems that were addressed 15-20 years ago still being struggled with today. It is a great sorrow and cause for some anger to see the floundering mess that most software languages and development environments still are after all these years. It is not that the people are stupid. It is that the proprietary model of software does not work very well to truly advance the state of the art and practice. This lack of much real advance seriously limits every area that software touches. I will get too nuts if dwell much more on what has been stillborn because of current proprietary software practices.
The problem is that you're making a Boolean argument where a quantitative argument is called for. It's not enough for the occasional OSS company to make a profit. Unless OSS companies in general can (on average) create an ROI of ~10% per year, investment in selling OSS is going to dry up.
I think your misunderstanding the scope of what's going on. Software companies as in companies that make entirely orignal software WILL fade into the background where they belong, just like all pure R&D (not knocking R&D, I do it myself, but it shouldn't be frontline). Software engineering companies, as in companies that put together well known parts to make a customized solution, will be who is making money on a regular basis.
Consider when humans started building shelters. It used to be all about finding the strongest stuff to make your hut out of (i.e. materials science). Eventually materials became well understood, and civil engineers started working out the trade-offs of each material, and when it was appropriate to use each one, and the materials scientists retreated to their labs in much smaller numbers. Occasionaly they'll come up with a revolutionary product, but they're not making a steady 10% ROI.
The money's going to be the meta problem, which is why free software is not a hinderence, any more than everyone using standard sizes of wood and screws is. It's how you put the pieces together to solve a particular problem that's important for steady income, not finding radical new ideas.
And they will be undercut by some other company that doesn't have this stipulation. The problem with your theory is you believe that customers are gullible rubes and will remain so forever.
Hello? Accounting for inflation, there's now a sucker born every ten seconds. And they're being cranked out faster than the old ones can wisen up. And there's a difference being gullible and wanting something that is guaranteed to work. Every business could saves tons of money by overclocking slower processors, but they don't. Because they are gullible rubes? Nope, because they run things at spec, so they have a right to complain when it doesn't 'just work'.