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.
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
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
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 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!
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. ;)
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!