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.
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
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
- 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.
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."
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
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
Its in Spain.... I'll post the URL this time....
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
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?
Open for business is now officially closed for business.
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Okay, RMS might do a lot of spouting off of his political/social/moral views, but let's not forget...
This guy is a real bad-ass programmer. He wrote Emacs and GCC, among other things. I would say those programs have stood the test of time and now are critical to the productivity of developers (yes, many use vi, but many use Emacs). How much less free/opensource software would there be today without those two programs?
For that matter, how much less software overall would there be without gcc and Emacs? I used to work at a proprietary software company and all of our Solaris and Linux development were done with gcc, gdb, Emacs, gprof, bash, perl...
My bicyles
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
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'
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.)
...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 ]
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"
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
Extramedura is a province in Spain, just west of Madrid. Its quite a poor mountainous farming province, but where my mate lives (Jaraiz de la Vera in Extramadura) they grow one hell of a lot of tobacco - I visited the area before moving to Madrid and everywhere I looked were fields full of tobacco.
For what its worth, the monks in De Yuste (same province) make one hell of a fine beer - very unusual for Spaniards!!
>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.
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?
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
But the GPL does compel me to behave in certain ways if I use the "free" code. That's my point. As your dictionary definition suggests, free implies a lack of compulsion, and yet this "free" code carries extra requirements with it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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.
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.
ok AC, I'll back it up. Without the GNU tools you still have an OS, without the kernel you don't have anything.
It's not GNU that runs embedded devices, it's linux. RMS is waay overboard. Free software is a great thing, I hope RMS doesn't destroy it.
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.
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.
Yes, that's correct. Animal rights people are happy to learn that vegetarian diets lead to fewer heart attacks, but they'd urge you to stay vegetarian even if it were established that that caused more heart attacks. Of course you're entitled to not take their advice, but asking them to start recommending non-vegetarian diets will take a much deeper and more fundamental argument than "you're not giving people enough options".
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.
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
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
Funny, RMS says the opposite...
Apparently, GNU without Linux can still run on three kernels!
Remove GNU from Linux and you don't have much left... Sure, you've got yourself a kernel, so what?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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."
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.
Writing and supporting in-house applications.
That is the way most programmers earn a living.
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.
> 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!