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.'"
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
Additionally, recently Debian has decided that the GNU Free Documentation License isn't free enough for them, and that therefore many GNU manuals have to go to non-free. If this isn't a huge holier-than-thou contest, I don't know. Some people really need to get out more.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
I agree with you about Debian striking the right balance. I disagree with your comment on RMS being over-the-top. I am a big fan of balance, but in issues like this I take the viewpoint that we need people with very strong ideals that push for a model that is opposite of what society is doing. Ideals are needed because you never reach an ideal but if you aim towards it you can strike a balance.
But this is probably a symantics game.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
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.
"The rest of us???". As we Irish say, speak for your fucking self, dickhead.
Personally, I don't care about anyone's "IP" "rights", including my own:
Information does not exist independent of its impression on a substrate. Your "intellectual property rights" amount to a demand for control over my PHYSICAL property of the substrate. I take my physical property rights to be much more important than your "intellectual property rights", which amount to government interference with my physical control of my physical property - I would not presume to tell you what to do with your substrate and any associated information.
As to your straw-men about drug manufacture: Don't be absurd. First off, you have no idea what would happen without IP, as you don't have a parallel earth on which to experiment. I reckon drugs would still be developed, since there'd still be a market for them. The business might become a bit more cutthroat, and industrial espionage a little more "fun", but people would still want drugs, would still be willing to pay for drugs, and I would bet drugs would still be manufactured.
Likewise, software would still be developed. The vast majority of software is written to serve a purpose inside some organisation, the commercial boxed-product software world is a tiny fraction of the real market, and wouldn't really be missed. If anything, programmers would be richer, since we can actually write new code, and would be free to reuse any and all old code as we saw fit, as opposed to the current situation where asshole "businessmen" who, thanks to "IP" laws they paid to be passed, just sit around getting richer and exploiting naive and socially unaware geeks (I've copped on to their little game, and am quitting my job - I might go get a business degree and use their suit-fu against them...)
Choice of masters is not freedom.
As a Free Software zealot myself, I have problems with the GNU FDL.
Any section that does not contain subject related content can be flagged as invariant. Companies can add a spiel about what a great company they are and no one is allowed to remove this from the document. Ok, so they get credit. Big Deal.
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.
Also, if someone decides to translate a GFDL'd document, they are not allowed to translate the invariant section, so they have a 400 page book in spanish with 12 pages of some silly language that the readership cannot understand stuck at the back.
Invariant sections should be removable. (Copyright notices are automatically non-removable)
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I find the practical benefits of Free Software very compelling.
..be crippled to encourage me to buy more software ..throw ads at me ..disappear ..etc.
With GPL'd software, the distributor has to give the user what they want or the user will find a new distributor. And if a software package does things that users don't like - the package will be forked.
I can trust GPL'd software not to:
If the software did these things, it would be forked.
Free Software is practical, OpenSource (which is usually a mis-used term) generally means short sightedness. When an executive allows a companies data to be managed by a piece of software they have no control over, they are being impractical. For practicals sake, people should demand Free Software.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
> Does he also believe that non-free architects,
> authors, musicians
He distinguishes between technical works, works of art, and personal expressions. His "must be Free" mandate only applys to technically useful works.
He believes that non-commercial distribution of all works should be allowed. Some works should be alterable, some shouldn't.
He admits to not having a solution that he's completely satisfied with for non-software works.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
I think it is completely resonable to make decisions based soley on your ethics. To give an example, I have big feet. If the only shoes available in my size were made in 3rd world sweat shops, I would choose not to wear shoes, rather than rationalize "I need shoes and my only option is what comes from sweat shops." My feet would most likely quickly become worn and sore, I couldn't go into many businesses, yet I would still survive.
I see RMS as being disgusted with the proverbial "shoe sweatshops" of the software industry. The companies who pimp and profit at the dire expense of others. I think of his fanaticism as an equivilant to someone screaming "Don't buy Nike's! don't you know where they come from? Don't you know what you're supporting?!?"
It is up to each individual to decide if RMS is full of B.S., if the proverbial sweatshops even exist, but that has nothing to do with the idea of basing decisions off of ethics instead of gratification as being flawed.
--Part of Linux's appeal is the freedom to CHOOSE. If the *only* software that RMS ever uses has to be "free" then sorry, he's missing out.
Your last statement implies that "free" software might be the only thing RMS ever uses. I think it is quite safe to say it is the only thing RMS uses. He is quite the zealot, he not only started Gnu/FSF, but gave up his employment at the time due to his refusal to sign NDA's and use proprietary software. Many of his writings on Gnu/FSF's website reference his complete refusal to use any software that isn't "free" (speach). The whole point of Gnu/FSF is due to refusal to ever use non "free" software.
Lastly, I'm not exactly an RMS supporter, but I don't hate the guy either. I do believe in one deciding what their ethics are and standing by them. I also felt your reference to what "RMS might use" put into question his level of fanaticism so I felt obliged to respond that from reading what he's put on Gnu's website, I think it would be a cold day in the seventh ring before he used any software that wasn't "free".
Beware blue cats moving at
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
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.