Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the pontificating dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has written a piece on the state of free software and where it needs to go now, in celebration of GNU turning 20 today. It's available both on NewsForge and Linux.com."
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community."
This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.
The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents.
Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users.
After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance?
First of all, Open Source is a movement and Free Software is another. They have completly differents phylosophies and objectives as well.
The main concept of this kind of freedom is to give users the power to copy, modify and redistribute a software or a manual. This improves life quality and the karma (not the/. one) of the human beans. This is all the GNU Project is about: try to improve socially the humans.
If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.
People need to see free software as a social movement. It gives you a chance to be a better human being by sharing your knowledge with your neighboor.
Your assertion fails when you state what open source developers should and should not do in order to gain end-user acceptance. Whereas a commercial outfit has a motive to sell as many copies of the software they create just in order to survive, and must therefore carefully think about and target their audience/market, most open source developers are simply "scratching their itch", and if others can benefit from that, then fine. If they can't, then, well, tough... Projects that directly target the non-developing enduser, such as OpenOffice, and to a lesser extent KDE etc. should, of course, take the non-developer end user as their main audience, something that is very, very difficult. If you are an end user and you need easy-peasy, non technical, non developer software, you can always go for the paid-for open source software (not Free Software, usually) such as Xandros, Lindows, StarOffice, etc. there is plenty of hand holding there.
Unless, of course, you expect handholding for free, a different case alltogether.....
-- People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Apparently you didn't fully RTFA. Stallman doesn't believe the goal of getting people to use free software is popularity but because they want the freedom that comes with it. As copyright enforcement through copy protection or other means becomes progressively harsher for the end user, it'll become more clear that the reason that can motivate people to use free software isn't that everyone else uses it but because they don't want to live in an entrapped world of software. To that end, Stallman admits that people will end up using free software that's inferior to non-free software, but given enough users some might begin to help with the project. Maybe it'll be only words of support or a little money to add a feature they want, but the free software can be made superior to the non-free one and people can choose to use the free software as encouragement until it gets to that point. If anything, Stallman is encouraging the communitizing of the people in free software, not the simple leeching of something that's free. In the long term, the former will help everyone. And if end users realize that, they can accept inferior software until it becomes superior.
-- Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
Tell that to people in developing nations that can't afford to buy licenses for proprietary software. Those who wouldn't have access to a computer or the internet at all if not for Free Software.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Simonetta
·
· Score: 1
End users currently don't have any place to suggest improvement to open-source programs that they would use.
We should set up a web site for each major open source application where people can e-mail suggestions for improvement. [And do it without derision from the hard-core nerds].
First of all, Open Source is a movement and Free Software is another. They have completly differents phylosophies and objectives as well.
For those curious about the differences, ESR's take on it is here. ESR is adamant that there's no philosophical issue other than a simple issue of how to frame the movement so that people's prejudices aren't rankled.
Stallman himself writes quite a good bit on why he's not happy with the Open Source movement and believes the framing is doing more harm than good which someone quoted in my journal:
"At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom."
You've only demonstrated to me that Free Software is a religion to you and the slashbots.
I use closed and open software, I see value in both. The idea that only free software can improve humanity or betters society reminds me of the socialist progaganda the hippie college students pass out.
It's really fascinating to see such disdain the free software folks have against people who used closed software. Do you not think we know what we are doing?
It's just possible that people aren't buying this utopian fantasy of yours, and choose to use and purchase what they want. Freedom works both ways. Just don't feed me the bullshit that we are lesser people because of it.
If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.
And it sounds great in principle. It's in practice that it runs into trouble. Imagine, for instance, that I'm a freelance graphic designer, or do 3D visualization work, or whatever. And imagine that there are features of Photoshop or Quark or Maya or AVS that aren't available to me in the Gimp or Sodipodi or Blender or OpenDX or whatever (actually, I think the latter two are open source but not free software, but anyway). The suggestion above would be to roll up my sleeves and program in those features. But, in our example, I can't: I'm not a programmer. Nor do I have the time to become one and do that work when all my time is spent doing the actual work for which I get paid.
So then the second answer is to ask a programmer friend. But, even assuming I have said programmer friend, and assuming that programmer friend doesn't have something he/she would rather be doing, these aren't trivial enhancements we're talking about and such functionality will take a while.
So then the next suggestion above is to hire someone. With what money? And how can I justify spending ten times or more the cost of some proprietary software package hiring programmers to improve (or create) a free software competitor? Especially when my hypothetical freelance business probably isn't exactly rolling in the dough.
Well, RMS would say that the justification for spending that money to improve free software options is a dedication to freedom. And if it's really not possible to spend that money on that purpose, because I simply don't have it, then dedication to freedom demands foregoing that proprietary option, and simply doing without that feature set. But in my hypothetical case, that means doing without that client, or that income. So much for my hypothetical business; time to find another way to feed my kids.
My example is contrived, of course. For many (most? dunno.) users of proprietary software, free software alternatives exist that will do everything they want, and do it well. But for many others, that's not true. And telling those users to simply forego doing what they want or need to do as a stand for a cause is a very big request. Of course, people have sacrificed their economic health, and much more, for the cause of freedom before. But not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software; rather, it's been the freedoms accompanying equality of race or gender or religious background under the law.
Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing their financial security for that freedom.
Oh, and it shouldn't matter, but just in case it does: I don't have any propriety software installed on my machine, and very little open-source-but-not-free-software stuff as well. I'm not making this post because I don't believe in free software; rather, because I don't think some free software advocates really realize just what big a thing they're asking people to do, and consequently how large a burden of justifying it they have.
It's not suprising that a guy named "Pave Low" - a designation for a helicopter widely used by U.S. Special Forces - would make derisive "hippie socialist" comments. That alone has most people tuning out his argument.
But I'll humor him. People who contribute to open source don't have disdain. That's just paranoia on your part. Many people straddle the fence between closed and open software. Some people se the educational aspects of using open source as a means to be self taught. Many Linux users hate Microsoft, but I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations like that.
Now, don't you have some Japanese people to round up and put into internment camps or something?
Ah, but your example is NOT contrived. I'm a programmer by living, and encounter that all the time. The idea of "you can just fix it" isn't really true. If it's a minor glitch in a simple program, no problem. But even small problems in arelatively naiscent project management programs are too large for me to spend my time on - for the same reason you cite. Sure, I could fix them, and I'd love to, and we'd all be better off in the long run, but somehow the mortgage company isn't so concerned about that, so I have to use something else in order to complete my current project.
The idea that only free software can improve humanity or betters society reminds me of the socialist progaganda the hippie college students pass out.
Yes! I've always found the idea that closed source in a free market can increase wealth and better society as evangalized by kinder, gentler republican party propaganda to be much more palatable.
Stallman has changed his tune a bit. I saw him give a presentation a few years ago in which he said that it was OK to use proprietary software until there is an open source alternative. He even mentioned a few examples of such software that the GNU project had used in the past.
Thanks for bringing up exactly the reason why I think Stallman is talking total bullshit nowadays - the assumption that "people wants 'freedom'".
The truth is that most people couldn't care less about that kind of freedom. Most people are however interesting in the kind of freedom that Stallman is not interested in, monetary freedom, the "gratis" as he puts it. This is also the kind of freedom that grants you popularity.
The free software movement is self-righteous. They may proclaim loud and clear that they are trying to save man kind, but the ones they are trying to save isn't even aware that they need to be saved.
People wouldn't care less about who made the program, a capitalist nerd that got paid to do it or a communist nerd that did it out of... eh... belief?. The only thing that matters in the end is quality of the _program_ (_not_ the code) and the price (which is effectively being nullified through filesharing).
Let "free software" be a goal and concept for the people that want's to be a part of that movement but honestly, it just isn't the way for most of us.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
jeremyp
·
· Score: 1
I'm willing to bet that most people in say Bangladesh have no access to a computer of any kind.
Richard Stallman has totally overestimated the importance of this issue to society as a whole. There was no free software before RMS came along with GNU (except in the ivory tower that RMS inhabited at the time). To the average person in the street, Free or otherwise software is simply not an issue to be bothered with if they've even heard of it. If society is collapsing, the reasons have nothing to do with the fact that most software in use today is proprietary.
-- All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Stallman also believed that it was ok to use proprietary software for developing Free Software (the idea was that since it was impossible to operate a computer without proprietary software at the time, it must be acceptable to use proprietary software for the purpose of developing Free Software to replace the proprietary software with).
not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software
This is your most salient point.
The stuff about paying for development... if you can afford several hundred dollars for a Photoshop license, you can afford to contribute to a development fund which will work with a programmer to get certain plug-ins written for the GIMP (or to rewrite the internals, or whatever). Obviously Photoshop did not start out as the program it is now, and it was only the act of people paying for it that allowed it to progress. I think worrying about how the software will get developed is a straw man.
It's the freedom issue and the esotericy (?) of it when it comes to software that is the more difficult and up-front issue. Americans, lately, don't seem wedded to a lot of more obvious forms of freedom. But even if we can find someone who will agree that basic human rights are important, we still need some persuasive arguments about the need for free software.
I suppose we'll need to hone our "car with the hood welded shut" and recipe analogies in ways that are more understandable or convincing. And further we have to start showing that there are explicit dangers to less esoteric liberties lurking in the background of proprietary software (e.g. Diebold's voting machines). I also find distinct advantages to using free software that I believe are directly related to the free-ness of the software.
Best example I can think of is Mozilla. Look at how much more pleasant the web is when you can feel like you have control over cookies, when certain JS functions can be turned off (so that deceptive JS cannot be used), when pop-up control is part and parcel of the browser, tabbed browsing is available, etc etc. I think these features exist as part of the core software because Mozilla is Free Software. It is clear evidence to my mind that the process of respecting freedom works. As RMS says, it takes time.... but look at it go!:)
Do people only use computer's at work? At work, the person who makes the choice for the end user is normally the boss, so I don't think those people's opinions really matter in the discussion.
For everyone else, the whole choice thing is something you just make and live with it. It's not about having every little thing being written as free software. It's about using free software when it's available because you want to support free software because you're willing to accept the means of using software that is superior in the end.
In a less abstract sense, GNU has done an amazing job at fixing a lot of the problems (though not all) of the user-land unix environment. I personally would prefer using gcc over a proprietary unix's cc compiler just because gcc is superior (being free is also nice). And yes, I've used proprietary unix's because there are times you don't have a choice.
But when I make the choice, I almost always choose the free solution. And now, when there *is* fully free systems available, it's a lot easier than 20 years ago when there was nothing available. I still make concessions, so I'll admit I don't reach Stallman's ideal. I don't believe I need freedom in console games or the firmware on my keyboard, but I made the choice that I'd rather use a few proprietary things until something non-proprietary comes along (the one exception is nvidia's drivers, though thanks to patent laws there's no way a GPLed driver can become superior to nvidia's drivers -- a great example of why software patents are evil).
I have been using Linux for two years on my computer, and I like it a lot. I made the choice more because I got sick of Windows and its lack of a good, free C compiler (cygwin doesn't count to me mostly because it's more or less installing *nix on top of Windows because Windows is so sucky at fulfilling the environment needed). But if I were to try to get other people to use Linux or GNU, maybe it would be better to get them to support the idea of freedom than to push the ulitarian approach.
-- Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Shalda
·
· Score: 1
People need to see free software as a social movement. It gives you a chance to be a better human being by sharing your knowledge with your neighboor.
This is precisely why I do not write GPL software, ever. I recently gave my neighbor a Christmas gift. A rather nice one at that. I did it because he's a good guy and a great neighbor. I also had to spend a little time assuring him that nothing in return was warranted.
Open Source is kind of like that. If you expect something in return, you're not being a very good neighbor, nor should you call it Free Software. That's why when I release code to the public, I make it public domain. Not that I often have occasion to do so. What's important is that RMS can freely add my code to any of his GPL projects. But so can Microsoft. Not that I expect either to happen.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
wcb4
·
· Score: 1
Just because a person does not subscribe to the "computers aren't free, so everything else should be" philosophy does not make then jackbooted jar-heads. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who you are pre-judging or what their nick might lead you to believe.
-- I reject your reality... and substitute my own.
ESR is adamant that there's no philosophical issue other than a simple issue of how to frame the movement so that people's prejudices aren't rankled.
I don't think that's an accurate representation of what he said in the statement you linked to.
In that statement ESR first waffles around the issue of philosophical differences (e.g. talking about how he cares about rights too but not at yet commenting on whether he cares about or believes in the same rights as RMS) then recognises that there ARE philosophical differences ("The Open Source Initiative does not have a position for or against RMS's goals", I don't think you can get a much more clear cut difference than that) THEN having acknowledged that difference he says that the real difference is over "tactics and rhetoric."
But tactics to achieve what? Presumably the open source movement must have some sort of goals, since he talks at length over how well it is achieving them. I don't think he ever says what the goals are but if the open source movement doesn't take a position on RMS' goals then its goals must be different to RMS'. Surely if they have different goals, then that has to be more fundamental than the differences in tactics. In fact having different goals would seem like one likely explanation of differences in tactics.
The only basis left for saying that there is no difference in philosophy between open source and free software is to say that RMS doesn't get to say what free software stands for. Fair enough in itself, but we'd have to knock ESR off his perch on the same basis.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Bootsy+Collins
·
· Score: 1
> not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software
This is your most salient point.
I agree. I just wanted to deal with the others before getting to that point, in order to boil the situation down to "sometimes, dedication to freedom = going without something; are free software advocates able to influence people's opinions on whether free software is worth the sacrifice?"
The stuff about paying for development... if you can afford several hundred dollars for a Photoshop license, you can afford to contribute to a development fund which will work with a programmer to get certain plug-ins written for the GIMP (or to rewrite the internals, or whatever). Obviously Photoshop did not start out as the program it is now, and it was only the act of people paying for it that allowed it to progress. I think worrying about how the software will get developed is a straw man.
I don't. You're correct that someone who purchases a Photoshop license could instead contribute that money to a development fund, or advertise a feature bounty, or whatever. And maybe in the process, that person can get the featues added to the GIMP that they need . ..in a month. Certainly not by later that afternoon, by which time a morning purchase of Photoshop can be installed; or probably not by a week later, when the presentation to the client is to take place. So the issue of not being able to do the work one's hypothetical client desires is still present.
Which brings us to the issue of persuading people that free software matters -- that "going without," with the potential sacrifices that may entail, is worth it. As you say,
Americans, lately, don't seem wedded to a lot of more obvious forms of freedom. But even if we can find someone who will agree that basic human rights are important, we still need some persuasive arguments about the need for free software.
and I agree with this wholeheartedly. Regarding your Diebold example, I actually keep copies of such news stories on file so that I can show them to people I think worth making an effort to persuade.
In this case it isn't worth your time or effort to fix the problem. But the point is that if it was worth your time and effort you have the option. With closed source software you don't necessarily have the option. So while not everyone may benefit from it there are those who do and appreciate that right.
A key element (to me, at least) of the above thread - there has to be an infrastructure in place to allow money to flow to developers, in return for features to flow to users. This is Non-Trivial - in fact, it's what most dot-bomb enterpreneurs called a Business Model, and we saw how many of those actually worked out, didn't we?
Hooking up users and producers is where business, finance, and marketing people live, and they're pretty good at it. Unfortunately, they want to be paid, too, so we're no longer talking about just paying programmers. Then there's the startup costs - it takes a while to get a critical mass of users, so unless you're working for an existing company, non-profit, university, or government, you have venture capital folks, and later shareholders, to answer to.
Who is making a profit off free software? Red Hat? Are they making it selling software, selling customization, or selling support?
It may be Free software, but until there's some kind of business model in place to allow Profit from its generation and support, then proprietary software will continue to exist, even if only in niche markets where there aren't enough interested hackers to build solutions for free.
-- I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community.
I agree. I suspect he intended to use the word "inhibit", not "prohibit".
And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
Stallman has nothing to do with the open-source movement, and everything to do with the Free Software movement. Mix them up at your peril.
The point isn't so much that you individually are able to add those features. The point is that if it's a sorely-needed feature, anybody can add that feature. And all the users benefit from it.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Bootsy+Collins
·
· Score: 1
The point isn't so much that you individually are able to add those features. The point is that if it's a sorely-needed feature, anybody can add that feature. And all the users benefit from it.
No, that's a point; it's not the point. Put another way, what you've written above is a very good argument why free software is a good thing. But saying "free software is a good thing" is very different from saying "nobody should use any software which is non-free, ever" -- a point of view that RMS, and many others, advance, and which is put forward in the op-ed he wrote which is the focus of this article. And that's what we've been discussing in this little sub-thread. My claim is that for many users and organizations, that attitude cannot be acted upon without significant financial sacrifice. And consequently, to expect people/organizations to eschew proprietary software requires that the importance of the freedom to modify software be made so clear that the sacrifice seems worth it. Up to now, that hasn't happened.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 0
This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community.
The problem RMS faces is the problem faced by every revolutionary: the things that appeal to the common man and the things that appeal to the revolutionary are totally different.
Consider Marxism. Karl Marx obviously believed that after a hard day labouring in the factory or the field, the working man couldn't wait to get home and think about dialectical materialism. But, the working man really couldn't care less about it and that is why communist governments have never been elected, they have to seize power in revolutions.
So it is with RMS. He doesn't realize that the average user simply doesn't care. It would be different if there was a history of software vendors flagrantly abusing their power, perhaps, but there simply isn't. There was a story the other day about MS desupporting Win98. Hell, it's not as if they sent bailliffs to repossess every copy - they just said hey, if you want support, you should upgrade to something more modern. Really quite reasonable, expecially considering they gave over a year's notice they were going to. No-one's gone out of business because, in a fit of pique, MS decided not to renew their licenses and suddenly all their computers stopped working.
The problem of closed source largely exists in RMS' mind; I strongly doubt he's ever personally been inconvenienced by it any more than he's inconvenienced by the manufacturer's warning that opening the TV invalidates the warranty.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
istartedi
·
· Score: 1
For most users, giving them the freedom to see the source is like giving a blind man the right to drive.
Given that most users don't benefit directly from OS/FS, the question then becomes whether or not they benefit indirectly and the answer is a resounding "sometimes".
Network infrastructure tools that are OS/FS such as the ubiquitous LAMP servers have obviously provided idirect benfit to users by making more content afordable and readily available on line.
OTOH, without Windows and MacOS, most users would be in desktop hell.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The old Open Source dodge and weave. Your argument is a cop out. Either OSS is ready for the prime time or not. You either are a bunch of backroom hacks or serious players. Decide. Can't have it both ways. Don't want to answer to the end user experience? Don't bitch about Microsoft owning the desktop market AND the server market. No, really. Stop. Want end users to USE your software? Well, then you have to answer for the work you've done. Sorry, that's how it works. You see I don't care about source code. I have a computer. I have tasks to accomplish. Source code is a foreign language that I don't speak, and have no intention of speaking. So for me, you're no different than MS. You have a product you want me to use, so it better be compelling. If that is too much to ask of you, see my point above then stop wondering why right thinking individuals (and business) will gladly pay Microsoft. Either get in or STFU.
So then the next suggestion above is to hire someone. With what money? And how can I justify spending ten times or more the cost of some proprietary software package hiring programmers to improve (or create) a free software competitor? Especially when my hypothetical freelance business probably isn't exactly rolling in the dough.
You are partially correct. OSS should not end up costing more than proprietary solutions. Personally hiring 3rd-party developers to improve the OSS you use rarely works.
This is why all the major OSS projects need to adopt means by which ordinary end users, such as the hypothetical graphics artist in this example, can donate reasonable amounts to respective projects. In return, they should get a say in prioritizing feature development. Considering how much graphics artists spend on proprietary packages, there is a lot of money out there. If a quarter of the people who use Photoshop skipped an upgrade and instead chipped in $100 to support the Gimp project, that would pay for a whole lot of developer brain-hours. Yes, it would be a longer-term investment, but certainly one that would pay off.
A more likely scenario is the graphics studio that finds Gimp to be, say, 99% of what they need and are willing to donate to the project what they would have spent on Photoshop in return for making Gimp 100% of what they need in the next 2 months. Then, 2 months later, another studio finds that the improved Gimp is now 99% of what they need.. and this cycle continues. In the real world, where not everyone is a developer, this is how collaboration in Open Source development must work.
It's as simple as this: If we want quality OSS, we need to financially support those who create it but are not financially rewarded elsewhere for their labors.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
7-Vodka
·
· Score: 1
hah.
well if you've just invented the concept of Free Software, there's no other existing free software. How are you going to start writing your Free Software using only Free Software?
--
Liberty.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 1
I apologise. I went through ESR's website and tried to find appropriate quotes and ended up misreading the thing I ended up quoting because I'd read other ESR comments and read it in that context. I ended up suggesting what I did because it was by far the most antagonistic of ESR's creeds on Open Source.
A slightly more diplomatic comment, where he really does indicate there's no difference in end-philosophy except methods can be found here.
After the Netscape announcement broke in February 1998 I did a lot of thinking about the next phase -- the serious push to get "free software" accepted in the mainstream corporate world. And I realized we have a serious problem with "free software" itself.
Specifically, we have a problem with the term "free software", itself, not the concept. I've become convinced that the term has to go.
Of course, the message you correctly indicate I malparsed is more recent than the above and may well be a more accurate reflection of ESR's current views. Or it might be that the fumbling at the beginning was just fumbling and he really meant he supported free software as an end-goal. I don't know...
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
moongha
·
· Score: 1
This debate is starting to seriously sound like religion.
'Is it right to initially spread religion by the sword in order to save the otherwise damned souls of those who you can potentially convert?'.
What free software has produced is a community of contributors. The base software is getting done by those who contribute code. Others are contributing from their skill set. We have lawyers contributing greatly. We have people contributing documentation. Translations. Etc.
Most can contribute in some way, either money, time, writing skills, etc. That is what will build the community.
If someone doesn't want to contribute, they very well have to take it as it is.
Derek
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Eccles
·
· Score: 1
It's about using free software when it's available because you want to support free software because you're willing to accept the means of using software that is superior in the end.
But that's the open source philosophy, not the free software philosophy.
-- Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance?
You just don't get it, do you?
The apps I write meet my needs. If somebody else wants to use them, they're welcome, but I don't really care whether the "probability of end user acceptance" is 100% or zero. Why should I?
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails. While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.
Well put.
The Free Software movement (like the Open Source Movement) is not at all focused on creating community. It is focused on giving people real power to use computers whose facilities were only partially available to their owners using non-free software.
A community is attracted to this, in part because it gives the community members more value for their money. For example, if I buy a PC with a network card today, I can install a free operating system and can run a free web server and a free database for no extra expenditure of cash.
This is not a new community. The core of this community is the same one that always wanted to get more value out of the things they use. This is the community of people who were called "power users" or "hackers" when they used non-free software. Thus, Stallman's assertion that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community" is not an overstatement, but simply factually incorrect.
Free software did not create the community. It is the community that creates free software.
Concerning your assertion about the failure of the Free Software movement to serve the community by providing user-friendly tools, I believe that is an overstatement of the case. Free software is constantly being built, improved, added to, and rebuilt. The success of the free software movement comes from the fact that when the community faces a need (for more user-friendly tools, for example) it builds upon what the community has already created. In essence, the free software community is a recursive process whose growth can be summed up: "Build it and they will come and build it."
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 1
And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails. While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.
And your assertion would be wrong. Part of the GNU coding standards is a requirement for GNU tools to support long option names (eg --recursive for the traditional -R), and a recommendation that any order dependancies of options is removed where possible (try "ls / -l" with GNU ls and compare it to any Unix version).
I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).
The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.
On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.
If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software page):
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose - It's your damn computer, right? Don't you think you should be in charge of what you're using it for and why? Or should your software vendor? I don't want Adobe telling me I can't paint pictures of elephants because the CEO got scared by one.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor - I like to help my friends. If I want to give my friend a bite of my sandwich I don't want Safeway telling me "Sorry, your friend must buy his own sandwich from me."
And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.
RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:
So for me, you're no different than MS.
The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).
IF someone had the time (it always comes back to that, time and money), it would be cool to set up freekitty.org, a site where users could put money in the kitty for various projects or enhancements.
I would put some in the kitty for completion of the perchild mpm in apache2.
Without some means of pooling money, your point about spending many times more than the cost of a piece of proprietary software in order to get an enhancement to a free software one is very true. Lovely theory, but bumps its head on ugly economic reality.
Those bastards down at the supermarket don't want to contribute to the community!
How many bags of goceries will thy open source yield thee even if thou gettest it, Captain?
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
demi
·
· Score: 1
So it is with RMS. He doesn't realize that the average user simply doesn't care.
Oh, I think he does know that, very much: I'd say from his writings it's one of the things he'd most like to change--through this and other articles he spends a lot of time trying to get people to care about software freedom, which he'd hardly do if he were ignorant of their apathy.
It would be different if there was a history of software vendors flagrantly abusing their power, perhaps, but there simply isn't.
First, I would take the position that preventing one person from helping another is in fact a pretty serious abuse of power. Secondly, Microsoft is probably a bad example of a well-behaved software company, considering the many companies, users and general public which have been aggrieved by their practices (yes, to the extent of going out of business due to persecution by Microsoft)--practices all of which, by the way, would have been impossible with a corresponding piece of free software. And if you can't look at the activation features of XP, the trusted computing initiative and the future of software licensing and foresee exactly the scenario you describe, I don't think you're looking very closely.
The problem of closed source largely exists in RMS' mind; I strongly doubt he's ever personally been inconvenienced by it any more than he's inconvenienced by the manufacturer's warning that opening the TV invalidates the warranty.
Actually there is a famous story about how inconvenienced RMS was by proprietary software (the story is about halfway down the page--search for "printer")--inconvenienced enough, at least, to devote a pretty hefty portion of his life to trying to make it better for the rest of us. And the point isn't about convenience, it's about freedom.
-- demi
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Eccles
·
· Score: 1
The difference between the Open Source philosophy and the Free Software philosophy is a moral one. Open Source avoids the morality issue completely; open source is simply presented as the way to get technically better software. The Free Software philosophy says that closed source software is an immoral impingement on the freedoms of users.
-- Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
IM6100
·
· Score: 1
(try "ls / -l" with GNU ls and compare it to any Unix version)
I used to be sloppy at the command prompt and stuff like 'ls / -l' was typical of what I'd type. But now I don't just use systems with GNU userlands. I have expanded out and run a wide varity of UNIX and freenix variants. I figured out how to order my arguements and that sloppy entry wasn't a good thing. There's a lot of 'embrace and extend' design in the GNU system. The 'extinguish' is tacitly implied.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Grizzlysmit
·
· Score: 1
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails. While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools. The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance?
No he's right, one hundred million percent right, yes we could have wider community, involving the wider community of FOSS users, but the FOSS documentation movement, addresses this, as does the EFF, GrokLaw, Creative Commons and many, many more, if you know of another hole in the community, well start organising and fill it.
In any case RMS is right the FOSS developers freedom, is the necessary basis of the freedom, for every one else, unless the developers have this freedom, all the other freedoms are stifled.
-- in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that:-D Francis Smit
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
Perky_Goth
·
· Score: 1
Mod parent up!
Some projects are experimenting with asking funding for certain features, or paying for whoever does it. This has a great potential, a group of like minded costumers might all fund an upgrade so it works like they want and we're all better for it. I do believe in it...
well if you've just invented the concept of Free Software
Stallman didn't invent Free Software, not by a long shot. He just gave it a name and formalised it.
In the beginning of software, all software was "Free Software". It was traded freely as source code and nobody gave a thought about it. At the time, software was treated a lot like recipes: Sure, you had to pay for the food (hardware), but instructions for preparing the food (software) was written by anybody and given to anybody who wanted it.
It was Bill Gates that pioneered the idea of licensing software for money.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 1
So then the next suggestion above is to hire someone. With what money? And how can I justify spending ten times or more the cost of some proprietary software package hiring programmers to improve (or create) a free software competitor? Especially when my hypothetical freelance business probably isn't exactly rolling in the dough.
Right, so you're screwed.
Now imagine that you're a company with 10,000 graphics artists. You could license 10,000 copies of Photoshop or you could pay 1 programmer for 1 month to implement the feature in Gimp that you'd need to put Photoshop and Gimp on equal footing.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
adamfranco
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you look at SourceForge, they set up a donation system for the site as a whole as well as individual projects. I'm not sure how much its being used so far, but this is definately a step in the right direction. Its opt-in for projects too, so no one is forcing you to take money.
I haven't tried yet, but if you could attach a comment to your donation like "Here's $50, could you hurry up with a fix for XXX." that might be helpful. Or there could be something along the lines of TransGaming's WineX game voting. As you donate more, you could get more votes to use in the feature request tracker. Various things like this could easily allow developers to easily get a handle on what features people want and are willing to pay for. Things like "Nice User Interface".;-)
-- "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
"...My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software. I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that non-free software
imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give others a way to escape..."
"...carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else. To prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society..."
Allright, RMS is actualy Morpheus.
"...While we have never released a complete GNU system suitable for production
use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of
people who mostly are not aware it is such..."
GNU/Linux = Neo
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
jdunck
·
· Score: 1
It is contrived, indeed.
While it's true that it's no small task to improve Free software, it's not even an option with non-Free software.
The example of a Photoshop feature missing from GIMP is a strawman.
Instead, consider how costly it would be to get a particular feature in Photoshop added to another non-Free application, such as FireWorks?
And more to Free's point, since you -can- add on to existing Free software, you need not buy additional software to fit the bill, or build from scratch a closed system that does what is needed.
It is, of course, true that a single freelance can't be expected to foot the (larger) bill to develop Free software over buying a copy of non-Free software-- but in this case, Free-software cooperatives can leverage the network effect.
Maybe your freelance web dev forum votes on what enhancement they'd like in their tools this month, and spends its dues that way?
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
banzai51
·
· Score: 1
All fine and dandy, but Stallman's views on freedom and distribution are offtopic when talking about what software business will use. I'm attacking the cop out that OSS is all about developers scratching an itch. That's great and all, but it doesn't help me deploy. All my employeer cares about is getting stuff that works for us. If that means you pay someone to develop the software, then we will. Gladly. See, we don't want to hire a department of developers. We're not in the software business. That is why I don't care about source code. At work, OSS is a tool, not a right. I don't give a rat's ass that I can send the copy to a friend at work. My point is that if you want to see Linux and other OSS software used, sooner or later someone in the OSS community has to step up and be held accountable to the user community. If that doesn't sound like something you care for, then don't be suprised when Microsoft dominates almost every aspect of business software.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
demi
·
· Score: 1
All my employeer cares about is getting stuff that works for us.
What you're saying here is, essentially: ethics don't matter, and shouldn't matter, as long as it maximizes profit for my business.
Besides the fact that this stance is amoral, surely you can see the problem when this argument is turned against you in your relationship with your vendor? If you are purchasing proprietary software, your vendor is treating you with the same amoral lack of regard with which you treat others: his or her motivation is to maximize their profit, at the expense of your freedom to use the software in the manner that works best for you.
If that means you pay someone to develop the software, then we will. Gladly.
Glad to hear it--and isn't it much better for you if the software you've paid for is free: you can do with it what you wish?
My point is that if you want to see Linux and other OSS software used, sooner or later someone in the OSS community has to step up and be held accountable to the user community.
What's funny about this comment is that being answerable to the user community is exactly what proprietary software vendors are not--they are answerable to the market, which isn't the same thing at all. Free software development is far more user-centric, and the developers often answerable to their users in a more direct and personal way, than proprietary software development. Typically features get added to free software programs because someone needs or wants to use them--whereas features are added to proprietary software because they are good for the vendor, not for you.
I'll give you an example: I worked at an internet portal company, and we were commissioned--that is, directly paid--by a popular CPU manufacturer to develop a new version of our search product for the expressed purpose of making it computationally more intensive, so that computer users would be forced to buy new, faster CPUs. How is that being "held accountable to the user community?"
-- demi
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
banzai51
·
· Score: 1
Absolute horseshit. I have software vendors in house actively listening to our needs/complaints and providing answers. In short, the type of service that a linux newsgroup or slashdot can never provide.
What you're saying here is, essentially: ethics don't matter, and shouldn't matter, as long as it maximizes profit for my business.
You're putting words in my mouth. Have fun beating up that strawman? Software is not an ethical choice. Last I checked no software house I know of was using forced child labor to produce thier product. Last I checked software development still required specialized skills. Software is a tool, not a religon.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
demi
·
· Score: 1
Absolute horseshit.
I don't know what you mean by that: do you think my example is a lie, or that it does in fact illustrate being accountable to the user community?
I have software vendors in house actively listening to our needs/complaints and providing answers. In short, the type of service that a linux newsgroup or slashdot can never provide.
So you're comparing paid-for support with slashdot? And you accuse me of attacking straw men?
What gave you the impression you can't pay for support, or development, of free software?
You're putting words in my mouth.
Maybe, but they're the right ones:
Software is not an ethical choice.
In that case, I assume we're ethically free to copy or redistribute proprietary software outside of the terms of the license, if it makes us money? To insert instructions in the software we sell that reports information about its users, without their knowledge?
Last I checked no software house I know of was using forced child labor to produce thier product.
And if they did, would you choose different software? According to you, you would not, since:
All my employeer cares about is getting stuff that works for us.
I don't see any room for child-labor exceptions in that statement. How is software any less of an ethical choice than choosing where to locate your business?
-- demi
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software
by
7-Vodka
·
· Score: 1
that wasn't Free Software. Free Software is supposed to *guarantee* those freedoms. Earlier software was freely traded, but not licensed under terms which *guaranteed* freedom and rolled-back improvements.
I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future? Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good? If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession? Like you, I dont agree with monopolies and those that abuse them, but thats another issue. If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable", then isnt that a bit unfair on good, honest and reliable developers? We dont live in a 23rd century moneyless community, and communism didnt really take off in its various guises, so what are you promoting, a utopian future in every sense, a turn away from capitalism? But how can this just apply to software?
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Steve+'Rim'+Jobs
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I have no idea what R.S. would or will say in reply to your concerns, but I would like to give you my perspective as a professional economist. As such, I am perhaps somewhat less interested than R.S. is in arguing what SHOULD be, and perhaps somewhat more interested in explaining what exists.
What indisputably exists is a rapidly expanding set of free software which more and more perfectly substitutes for commercial software, and in many cases excels it. Particularly considering its low cost, there is no need to explain the demand for this software. The challenge is, to explain the supply.
It seems to me that among the key sources of supply of "free" software are (1) that rewards not directly compensatory can nevertheless have significant value (e.g. recognition as a good designer, inventor of algorithms, or project coordinator is valuable human capital); (2) that marketing a new piece of code is significantly more difficult and costly than simply handing it out; (3) that normal IT puruits inevitably yield as by-products sections of code that are useful to others but neverthess may be too small or too insignificant to be packaged and marketed as stand-alone software products (see 2); (4) that very many minds working on any given software development problem will generally produce a much better solution than a few minds (this effect is an 'economy of scale'); and (5) the existence of the internet as an inexpensive but effective mechanism by which production may be coordinated and promotion and distribution may be facilitated.
I personally believe that the cost advantages enjoyed by free software producers are such that free software will eventually drive out proprietary software for all tasks that are routine and widespread. I believe there will remain scope for the development of proprietary software only in applications that are highly specialized or require confidentiality. I believe that this will occur as a market outcome of the self-interested actions of economic agents. So I differ from what seems to be R.S.'s belief that this will require anyone's altruistic conduct.
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software. Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners. The profit motive, which is responsible for the great efficiency of our economy, leaves scant room for altruistic software preferences. As for individuals, R.S. may do as he likes, but I personally feel no obligation to give special preference to free software. Instead, I take into account the costs and benefits of each and use whatever I decide is best for my particular circumstances.
That's why I use free software like GNU Linux, GNU Emacs, the Ion window manager, Open Office, Cdrecord, Gphoto2 and so forth, but also why I use proprietary software like Windows 98, Win4lin, ChessBase, Hiarcs and Bookup (the latter three being chess applications that really have no equal in the free software domain and which, unfortunately, exist in Windows versions only). Oh, and I paid $39 for Opera for Linux, which I think is a very good browser. Detesting Windows as I do, I do not browse, word process or do anything but chess on my Win4lin setup. Someday, perhaps after I retire, I may devote some time to improving the free software that exists for chess. If I do, I will do it for my own entertainment and not for the altruistic reasons proposed by R.S. I admit, however, that I would take keen satisfaction in stealing business from developers who designed software for Windows only.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
BJZQ8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation. Electronic and engineered items are harder to pass on to someone else, who can also make a contribution; software, on the other hand, allows you to make a copy, change it, and pass it on to someone else who might also make changes. That's hard to do with a bridge or a VCR.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's why I use free software like GNU Linux
Unless you're talking about Debian, I suspect you mean GNU/Linux. The Linux kernel is most definitely not GNU software.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So does this mean you've stopped copying and pasting other people comments and may actually try and redeem yourself by being original and insightful?
You can also charge for the non-source code included with these programs(for example, the textures, maps and models for a game), which can allow a company such as ID software to STILL make money off of say Doom 3, but still keep the value of open source(as long as you make it clear that the media is copyrighted and such as normal, just that the source is open)
Remember that only 10% of commercially produced software is ever sold. I would happily accept a 10% decline in the software industry as the price for living in a Free world.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You miss a big point. Only a small amount of software written is for public consumption. The vast majority of it is internal to companies for their own business. RMS does not say this software should be given away, and he has made the point several times.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
gustgr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What the FSF proposes isn't to give away your software for free. You can charge for your work and you are encouraged to do this. But once you've sold your software to another you, you may let he/she to redistribute it for free or sell it under the same terms you used. You people who use the software are not ruled by the software or by the company.
Stallman doesn't encourage comunism or non-profit activies. He encourage the free software for the freedom of the users.
I could explain a lot of things here, but I would say exactly what have already been said at the GNU site. Maybe you should read it really careful before saying thinks like 'turn away from capitalism'.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
The same way most of us programmers make a living in the IT business - being paid to write software. Most software is not written for commercial sale, and while I have no difficulty understanding why people outside of the industry aren't aware of this (as the software they see advertised on the TV, etc, is obviously for sale), I do question how anyone in the computer industry could fail to spot this rather obvious fact.
Most software is written to solve particular problems. In my case, my business needs software to maintain and analyse volumes of financial information provided for a particular industry. A factory needs software to run its machines and process its payroll. A bank needs software to run its ATMs, to process financial transactions, to enable and log all communications between offices in a standardized way. Most of this software is customized for the needs of the end-user.
And elsewhere, hardware manufacturers will always want operating systems to be developed and have an incentive to pour development time into improving them, as they will basic tools such as word processors and spreadsheets. Games will continue to be developed, the trend right now is to build amazing games as data hooked up to standardized, centrally developed, game engines, and I suspect we may even see game engines become a part of operating systems in the long term (something a hardware manufacturer has an active incentive to further develop) - meanwhile, nobody's going to be concerned about the notion of selling maps/scripts that use these engines.
I see no problems with a shortage of jobs for programmers, and I believe the incentives to develop that tiny percentage of software that actually is sold today will continue to exist, just in a different form.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
awol
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I agree with you almost entirely. Except that when you say;
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software
I disagree with you in the context of the state's use of software. It should _never_ be proprietary. Indeed I believe the state should fund the writing/improving of the free version to meet their needs rather than purchase the non-free equivalent. I am happy to limit this requirement to the same category of applications for which you (and I) believe that free software will eventually drive out non free software, however I would be even happier not to limit it at all. The reason why the state should mandate the free solution is that the state is well able to make the long term decision that having these applications will be of more benefit to all citizens in the long run than the short term cost of improving the software or accepting reduced functionality. Indeed, I would argue that it is the duty of rational government to make these kind of decisions.
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation.
The problem is, if your application is well designed and well documented (as in documentation for users - not just code comments) then there should be little to no need for users to require support for installation and operation.
Which only leaves you coding new features. Which if you code is suitably well written and commented, then it might be cheaper for them to do the majority of small things internally and leave you completely out of the loop.
-- Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And how long until most Linux systems and download sites for Linux source carry EULAs that disallow the use of non-OSS software? Sure, it would be narrowing user freedom, but it would be forcing people in to Richard Stallman's version of freedom alright. Considering that they want to intentionally slow down proprietary device drivers to make people use OSS ones that aren't being intentionally crippled because of the OSS communities contention that only OSS software is safe to run, I don't see such EULAs out of the question.
If Stallman has anything to do with writing any licenses in the future, we may be in trouble.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Scarblac
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nice explanation. Two points:
One, one part of that economy of scale is that it is very often useful for a company that has taken Free software and modified it for internal use, to release those modifications back to the original project. The advantages are that it is now someone else's job to keep your modifications compatible with new versions of the software, and that some other company may actually improve your code and also release it back, for you to use. The first of those (stay compatible) is my favorite reason for releasing stuff back.
The second point is: Have you tried SCID? I think it's a really great chess database application and it works on both Linux and Windows.
-- I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Mirk
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software. Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners. The profit motive, which is responsible for the great efficiency of our economy, leaves scant room for altruistic software preferences.
This is not a universal constant, it's just
your preference of what you consider important.
You say "Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners". This is
a philosophical/ethical statement, and your
ethics on this subject differ from Stallman's.
For that matter they differ from those running
the many and various non-profits out there.
There are other motivations that making money.
That's not to say that your motivation is
necessarily a bad one, of course. Just
that you need to realise it's only a
motivation, not the only one. So if the
behaviour and statements of people like Stallman
perplex you, then it's because he is marching
to a completely different beat.
(And, BTW., may I say thank God he does.)
--
--
What short sigs we have -
One hundred and twenty chars!
Too short for haiku.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Math is free, but we still have mathematicians. Laws are free (usually), but politicians still get paid to write them. Phone books are free, but people still get paid to compile them. Land title histories are free, but employees of title insurance companies still get paid to research them. "Free Software" doesn't mean software developers work for free. It's simply a matter of whether or not you want your job to be recreating stuff made by other people or creating new things.
I think that if your application is so simple as to not require support for installation or operation, then perhaps you shouldn't make lots of money off of it anyway. I mean, something as complicated as OpenOffice needs someone to provide support all along the way; something as simple as DHCPD probably doesn't. The assumption would be that the programmer, freed from the costs of buying a commercial version of some software (aka he can use the aforementioned DHCPD on an old Pentium instead of buying an expensive, dedicated Cisco router to do the same thing), could then put his resources into making still better software. I do understand what you're saying; but I think the benefits of open-source software transcend cost.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Some of those developers may be developing their software only for Windows because it's the OS used by the majority and MS doesn't support people that think the destruction of the software industry and their job is a good idea (and yes I've heard this quite serious claim from RMS groupies quite frequently.)
The fact is RMS wants to destroy the software industry leaving nothing but hobbyists to write software. If someone doesn't want to write it, it won't get written in RMS's world. RMS doesn't think money should be paid for software. If you can't get money for it, how are you going to pay someone to write it? In a world where the operating system is controlled by anti-capitalists, what guarantee is there that your software will even run if not signed by the great RMS?
By going OSS while RMS or any of his lackies have anything to do with it, you risk supporting an organization who will take away what freedoms you have now and give you the "freedom" they think you need (Welcome to the Soviet Union)
The problem is, if your application is well designed and well documented (as in documentation for users - not just code comments) then there should be little to no need for users to require support for installation and operation.
How many people actually read the documentation? Sure, well written software can cut down on the amount of support needed, but only the simplest functionality software can account for every single possible scenario the end-user might dream up.
Which only leaves you coding new features. Which if you code is suitably well written and commented, then it might be cheaper for them to do the majority of small things internally and leave you completely out of the loop.
I don't care how well written and commented your code is, it's always going to be easier for the original programmer to add new features than for someone else to do so. That difference in ease and cost translates into profit.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
jrexilius
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Damn fine post. I think a point you make that some miss is that commodity type applications will become free where as there will still be a demand in the market to innovate. I think what this means is that the number of developers will decrease while the skill demand will rise. Free or open software will have the effect, particularly in conjunction with off-shoring, of reducing the number of jobs available to us as commodity developers. But there will still be a healthy demand for custom developers. I personally think that this is A Very Good Thing. Conflict and competition combined with a higher standards base can only benefit society as a whole.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The problem is, if your application is well designed and well documented (as in documentation for users - not just code comments) then there should be little to no need for users to require support for installation and operation.
Now you understand why GNU software documentation sucks.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
nysus
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You shouldn't try to make Stallman out to be something he is not. Stallman's whole argument for free software hinges on one single principle: that making an unscarce resource artificially scarce to make a profit is wrong. If you want to debate this one point, that's great. But to insinuate he is some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot for his belief, you do a disservice to logical debate.
The goal of free software is not to create software jobs, it's goal is to promote ethical conduct. Besides, Stallman has never argued it's "bad" to charge for writing code. If someone needs their free software modified, it's perfectly OK to get paid for your work.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Water is free, even given away in public fountains- but people still pay for the bottled stuff.
All you libertarians out there who trust the invisible hand- it's put up or shut up time.
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software
I argue on my my website that I could shun proprietary software in order to encourage more people to produce free software. In other words I am using my customer "buying" pressure to favour the supplier who is providing me the best offer to improving that offer.
Totally for my own benefit, but economically providing the same effect
Re:I agree mostly..
by
ezy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not really a comment, but more as a question for further debate...
I think most of us have the instinct that democratic gov't should be using "open" software tools because of their transparency. However I wonder how we can distinguish the use of software compared to other "closed" tools such as automobiles. There doesn't seem to be a similar requirement for cars or fax machines that govt may use... is this fair?
it's great that you have your opinion on OSS, but it doesn't mean jack if you post it as 'anonymous coward'--what are you afraid of?
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
point by point: first of all, RMS never, ever suggests commmunism as a solution to any of this. Open source can be actually seen as closer to capitalism because anyone can do what they want with their software... the GPL is similar to whole constitutions when it removes the freedom to remove other freedoms -- the right to swing your fist stops when the other guy's right to not get punched begins! commercial and proprietary software are two completely different concepts, and RMS is not in the least against commercial software. plenty of developers are currently employed for money (yes, money) by corporations and non-for-profit organizations to develop and support open source software. all you need to do is see the ratio between non-for-profit and incorporated linux distros. gentoo, red hat, mandrake, lycoris, lindows, yellow dog, the list goes on and on.
RMS doesn't say you shouldn't charge for software, he says that the software should come with the FREEdoms to modify, share and copy it. Notice that the FSF sells GNU software on CD on their website...
usually making the solution to a difficult problem into a simple, easy-to-use application is a lot more difficult than making a mess of a simple problem.
it seems that you prefer rewarding the latter monetarily and not the former.
The other side of that argument is that, in the long view, society rewards/punishses based on its collective ethics and value system. If companies stay focussed on _strategic_ profits then they will generally reflect the values of the market.
Of course the concept of profits and rewards, as he mentioned when addressing the supply side of free software, are not always monetary based so I think he recognizers your point as well.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
Yes, because marginal production and distribution costs only comprise one part of total costs. Only by either a) limiting the supply of an easily-cloned product once the first copy has been made or b) finding someone or some group willing to swallow the cost of production of that first copy is it economically viable for the first copy to get made. The RIAA do (a), Linux does (b) and both are ethical.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
fermion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Who exactly are you talking about making money? The developers, the managers, the IT administrators, the sales people, the hardware computer tech? As has been said many times, there are many ways to make money, and the current vogue is not going to last forever.
Apple makes money off free software. Redhat is making money of free software. IBM and HP and Sun all have plans to make money off free software. The small developer still has every opportunity to write shareware, put any necessary public licenses on it, and probably do as well or bad as ever.
The IT administrators will still make money. Someone has to maintain the machines. And companies have show that they want free software, but still are willing to pay for the convenience of having someone else manage it and maintain it. So developer still will have jobs. And the frameworks will still need to put together into vertical applications, although most commoditized horizontal applications, like the word processor, will predicable be free.
And the question is, how many people make money now programming. It becoming an increasingly small number. Again, if you programming as part of an administrator function, or creating custom interfaces for corporate, that stuff will still be a paid position. if you doing OS development or app development at MS or Apple, your job may be in jeopardy. But what of it? How many small developers have they put out of business because these companies integrating previously paid-for products into their OS and gave it away. What is the difference between this and giving away an OS?
Look at it this way. We can get water for almost nothing out of the tap. We can get fresh fruit and vegetables for almost nothing out of the ground. We can get quality music for almost nothing by going to the local bar. We can go out and live life for almost nothing and have fun with a walk in the park or a playing ball. And yet we pay large sums of money to have other people do these things for us, or to give us what we consider a value added manifestation. We are willing to pay for things we can get for free, if the product is marketed properly and the opportunity costs allow it.
-- "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide."
Orphan Black
No I don't...because the people that can write a simple application will become the most-used software...I mean, I could write a complicated competitor to DHCPD tomorrow that took days to install and required dozens of support calls to maintain...but nobody would switch to it because of the easy, no-nonsense operation of the existing product. I will agree that there is no intrinsic "reward" mechanism for software that is simpler...but again the cyclic nature of open software comes into play; it's the concept of "people wrote free software for me, so I should write free software."
I think that you are missing the point of the free and open part. Despite all the ravings of a madman (as you may see him), if a subset of the community decided not to lock out proprietary software they could, if another subset decided to lock out free software except in the operating system they could, and in neither case could one person dictate how you wanted to use and implement free software.
Case in point is the diverse ecosystem of "open"-type licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, LGPL, Apache, etc.) and their associated "flagship" applications. No particular policy or view can or will monopolize open source, unlike the having ONE company monopolize the operating system market as we have today.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation.
But how do I make money on pure development time? Running around providing services and installing might pay the bills, but takes away from development time, including the time/effort to create new concepts.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But that's not a way to make real money. Services, installation, etc.... Those are all rat-race type jobs. You do a little work and you get a little pay. I'm sorry, but that's a dead end job that you'll be doing until you die.
To make real money you need to create something and then profit from that work. So you create a piece of hardware/software and then sell it (a la Microsoft, IBM, Sun, and other large companies). That's how you make money... That's how you retire... That's how future generations of your family will have something to build on.
You are confusing "free" with "gratis". It's free because you (or a company) can access the source code.
Company A develop a database as free software and sells some copies, publish source, let you download it gratis (why pay if you can download gratis? paying grant yoy access to support, configuration experts, etc). company B sees that product, use the source, add features, clean bugs and have to give the corrected sources.
Company B can charge for the new features, sell its support, company A can get the corrections and improve even further.
Something like that happens with mysql. Why would you pay for mysql, since you can download it gratis? support, configuration, tailored tools.
most of the IT work in programation is made by small companies that sell services or custom programs. The IT company that makes the more money is microsoft, with their operating systems and office package.
The smaller companies wouldnt be hurt as you imagine with the adoption of free software.
haven't you seen people charging for customized Access "programs" or Excel worksheets? Why would someone pay for something that they could do themselves? because they can't do it by themselves (lack of time, knowledge)
the free software has a great potential, and it isn't a niche market.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
2short
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?"
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
People (not necessarily me) think Stallman is "some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot", because they can't see why he would disagree with this seemingly obvious assertion, unless he thinks making a buck is inherently unethical (which he does not, as far as I can tell).
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
Simple, in the future developers of free software will be (deservedly) worshipped as gods, so they will get everything they want for free from the rest of the population. No need for money anymore.
Because the production cost of software is zero. It's the design that takes effort. Most commercial software developements have reinvented the majority of their product, hence the high cost that you think they need to recoup in sales. Had they simply used and improved what already existed it would be much cheaper and they need not worry about giving away source code. There are underlying social problems of far greater scope here, but/. has not the space for me to babble on about that.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It seems to me that among the key sources of supply of "free" software are (1)...
You forgot what I see as the main reason free software exists. It is fun to program and solve problems. People enjoy doing it. So for that reason alone, you end up with software being created for absolutely no identifiable "significant value" for the author. This is certainly the main reason I do non-paid programming.
"Why would you pay for mysql, since you can download it gratis?"
You wouldn't. You might pay for "support, confiuration, tailored tools", but if those are why you're paying, then they are what you're paying for. Just because part of that support is a copy of the software on a CD, that doesn't mean you're paying for the software.
Math is free if the mathematicians publish their work. There are certainly mathematicians doing "non-free" work. The obvious and extreme example would be those at NSA, but there are "non-free" mathematicians in the private sector too. Free mathematics really only exists in academia.
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
I don't think RMS gives two figs about how you make a living. Anti-gun campaigners don't stop to worry about "how exactly we in the arms trade are going to make living at all". Animal rights campaigners don't fret about how vivisectionists are going to get paid.
Remember, RMS is a hugely talented programmer. He probably thinks your average code monkey is overpaid as it is.
(On top of that, others have made valid points about ways that commerce can make money while paying Free Software programmers.)
'it's the concept of "people wrote free software for me, so I should write free software."'
ah, the old "assume people are honest and giving" trick.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Free Software" doesn't mean software developers work for free.
OK, but who pays? Academia and government are necessarily state funded, phone books funded by the phone companies - they're advertising almost. (I don't know about title histories.) So who pays for free software?
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
To answer the question directly, IT will be paid to develop software. Microsoft and its employees may go down in flames, but most (the larger biomass) of IT are paid to customize existing software or create niche software or support users or systems that require hands-on work.
If all that's left in the accounting market is gnucash, those that work in accounting will be customizing gnucash for this or that situation, or to keep up with tax law. There will still be programmers, analysts and DBA's (I don't eat because Larry Ellison gets paid for Oracle, I eat because I keep it working fast for my employer).
But if Larry made Oracle open (don't hold your breath) then when he decides to pack up and go into the ERP business, someone else would be able to pick up the reins and continue refining and developing the database, so that us DBA's don't have to starve, or learn SQL Server. (I'm thinking, I'm thinking....)
And someone would pay them to do it, if only to keep Oracle running on the next flavor of Linux/Solaris/HPUX/Windows. This worked for a while with the Perl Foundation (and may work again). Linus gets paid. etc.
Making a big score and living off of it is an unsustainable model for life that very few can benefit from.
An environment where working hard can allow you to make a living and save, creating personal wealth to support yourself in your latter years is a sustainable model - and one that anyone can follow.
That's also how monopolies like Microsoft are built. We can continue to move towards the closed-source simgularity of MS or go the other direction towards openness and freedom. If nobody makes a $100 billion fortune off of it, then ok...Microsoft's empire wasn't built completely off of the hard work of their employees; some of it was won off of the back of altruistic programmers of things like BSD. If Microsoft had been somewhat more altrustic (maybe open-source Windows 95/98, since it's not economically viable for them anymore?) then we'd all be better off.
While not explicitly stated in your thoughtful post, I would like to assert that much of your argument is based on the 'rational being' assumption that underpins much of economic research.
Our own experience strongly suggests that people do not behave in ways consistent with maximizing their economic standing. People make trade offs all the time. In fact, while I can't name the references, there are many recent academic papers that do not make the 'rational being' assumption. (Wasn't the Nobel prize in economics recently awarded for such work?)
While 'the profit motive' has been very successful, it is also the source of much economic hardship. Witness Enron, MCI, Tyco, mutual funds abuse, etc. The economic success and excess of Europe and North America may be more a consequence of an abundance of natural resources and military might than market economy.
Lastly, I'd like to point out, again without source, that altruistic behaviour has been observed (and documented) in primate populations. While altruism was obliquely mentioned in your post, I believe the underlying assumption is that altruism doesn't exist or at most is negligible as a market and societal force.
Steven Pinker supplies a biological foundation for altruism; and the internet, a source of an incredible amount of economic activity, was born of the altruistic endeavours of thousands of programmers.
How so? By definition, government does not and cannot produce its own revenue. Every expansion of government, no matter what scale, is necessarily funded by forcibly extracting revenue from the people who actually do produce wealth (the market). Every law, every regulation, every modification of government requires that, at some level, revenue is forcibly extracted from the market. For every tax dollar taken to fund government, one dollar is removed from the market, where it would have been used to generate more wealth.
This is the fundamental difference between government and free enterprise -- the market produces its wealth through voluntary association, while government produces its wealth through force. (If government was funded voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise.) So no, laws are not free at all -- even the most "insignificant" one comes only at the expense of the market.
Lots of peole pay. Academia is not necessarily state funded. There are many private schools. And academia and government need software too. Phone books are paid for by advertising. Some software could be paid for the same way. People who are buying houses with title insurance pay for the title histories. In a similar manner, people who need specific software products made for them would pay for software.
To put it into a simple category, people who aren't software developers will pay. Proprietary software is each programmer for himself. Free software is all programmers working together.
We're never going to be finished writing software. No matter how much software is available for free, people will always demand more. Like I said, the only question is whether software programmers want to be paid to write new software based on freely available software which is already written, or if they want to be paid to reinvent the same software over and over again.
Laws aren't free. We pay for them through our taxes.
Phone books aren't free. Their cost is hidden in your phone bill and subsidized by advertisers.
Math, though . . . math is a tool, just like computer programming, and just like any other craftsman who uses a tool, you might pay a mathematician or a programmer to do some work for you, or he might just create something because he enjoys what he does.
This is the fundamental difference between government and free enterprise -- the market produces its wealth through voluntary association, while government produces its wealth through force.
So which is Microsoft, then? I never volunteered to pay them for my copy of Windows. Yet if I copy Windows from a friend Microsoft will sue me and extract its wealth through force.
Water is free, even given away in public fountains- but people still pay for the bottled stuff.
All you libertarians out there who trust the invisible hand- it's put up or shut up time.
As a libertarian, I only care that the person who chooses to buy bottled water have the choice. That the water in the bottle is any better or different than what comes out of the tap is between the buyer and the seller. It is not for me or the government to outlaw that choice because we don't think its a "good choice." Likewise, I don't want to see the government outlaw either proprietary software or free software because one choice is supposedly better than another. The "invisible hand" of the market will easily determine over time which is the better choice. In all likelyhood, both will continue to co-exist with a tendency toward proprietary software in more specific applications.
Libertarianism isn't about making money; its about the freedom to choose based on how each individual perceives he should act. In not outlawing certain choices, some people will probably make money by fulfilling the choices other people will make. If you prevent these people from making money whether by outlawing certain things or taxing their profits, the governement simply takes away a choice from everyone. This is what libertarianism is against.
(Hint as to which way I think the market will go: My choice is I work for a company with a Linux based product and I run Linux at home.)
-- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
First of all, governments are hardly ever rational. Second, if you want to live in a "free" society, why would you want the government to be setting mandates for it. Isn't that the same as having a monopoly on proprietary software?
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Did you just call our economy efficient? Okay, you didn't specify which country you were talking about, but I suspect you meant the US. The US where most markets are either monopolized (one supplier of a low-grade, expensive product, a la Windows) or have fewer than 4 competitors (who all duplicate each others' efforts to bring low-grade, overpriced goods to market that are essentially indistinguishable from each other, a la Coke and Pepsi). Even in the few markets where there's real competition and therefore quality products, the massive redundancy in production and distribution could hardly be called "efficient".
People always seem to parrot that the "free" market is the most efficient way to get goods to market, yet the only proof I see is that the "free" market ensures that the best product at the lowest price succeeds, which isn't really related to efficiency at all. All it does is produce good stuff, but it's wasteful. Marketing, multiple production and distribution facilities, these are all wasteful costs that are unneccessary in a command economy--but the command economy (usually) produces crappy products.
But back to the point of the article. Why should you not refuse proprietary software? Consumers should make informed choices based on their preferences. Given the choice, I'd imagine most users would prefer to use low-cost software that they owned that any third-party could support, rather than renting high-cost software that the vendor may or may not support at their discretion. Why should consumers not be able to exercise their preferences when they have the choice?
Likewise, I don't want to see the government outlaw either proprietary software or free software because one choice is supposedly better than another. The "invisible hand" of the market will easily determine over time which is the better choice.
The invisible hand doesn't work in monopoly conditions. The mechanism by which the invisible hand works is competition, and it's obvious right now that the playing field is anything but fair.
Elimination of idea monopolies takes away one persons ability to make choices for others, so it is a net gain in the choice you prefer.
All laws restrict freedom, i.e., your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Well, Microsoft's ability to create proprietary standards through market domination ought to end at my computer. They are making choices for me about the standard document format, about what os device drivers get written for, etc. and it is restricting my (and your) choices.
If it's truly choice you love and not just the status quo, then the elimination of software monopolies would create more choices than it would eliminate. We'd have any number of implementations of windows rather than just the MS approved ones, and perhaps someone would actually make a secure one someday.
Likewise, I don't want to see the government outlaw either proprietary software or free software because one choice is supposedly better than another.
The government wouldn't need to outlaw proprietary software. It created the concept of proprietary software in the first place.
If you prevent these people from making money whether by outlawing certain things or taxing their profits, the governement simply takes away a choice from everyone. This is what libertarianism is against.
Copyright law is all about "outlawing certain things." Specifically, it's about outlawing copying without permission of the copyright owner. Not "outlawing certain things" is anarchy, not libertarianism.
I love how libertarians pretend to have this natural, self-evident system, while they're really just trying to get back to the "good old days" of fuedalism, something we fortunately got rid of hundreds of years ago.
For me there are two issues with mandating open source or free software in Government.
The first one is that you can't be for freedom on one hand and try to force people into something on the other. Mandating open source software in Government would be removing their freedom. Thats not to say we shouldn't be encouraging its use in Government, and that we shouldn't fight to have certain inequities in the procurement process addressed. I believe that open standards should be mandated, so a signgle vendor cannot lock the government into their solutions. Closed formats prevents freedom to move.
The other issue I have is from a strategic point of view. If Governments mandate open source software there will be a backlash from those who don't want to move away from closed source. Typically they will sabotage open source pilots and projects. They will make the move to open source much more expensive and painfull as they are dragged into using open source. We don't need this.
So in summary, its better to use encouragement than a stick, and we must be carefull we don't undermine our own values of freedom when we talk of regulating others - since in actuality we are winning by conversion anyway.
and from that part I make my point: for the company the bottom line is the profit. If a company makes profit from selling a software or selling a service for their software (that can be acquired gratis), doesn't matter.
for the user the perception of payment sometime is blurred. most people think that they bought their windows copy, but what they really bought is a licence of use.
That spurious "10%" number includes every piece of entertainment software sold. Free software would destroy the computer game industry, which is how I make my living.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to dictate to people what they can and cannot do with things they themselves have made?
The invisible hand doesn't work in monopoly conditions.
Something for you to consider: commercial, enterprise quality GNU/Linux is to some extent a result of the "invisible hand" of the market finding a way to create a competitor to the Microsoft. If anything, Microsoft's monopoly has been a driving force in motivating contributions to GNU/Linux both from individuals and heavy hitters such as IBM. IBM provides a great example since they saw a market for an alternative to Microsoft but they found that Microsoft's hold on the market wouldn't work with a traditional alternative (OS/2). They now compete with Microsft with a product they don't produce but which they carefully nurture.
The tricky thing with noticing the action of the "invisible hand" is that it is invisible. I can not prove nor can you refute what I have said above which is why I just ask for you consider the possibility. My contention is that that the market abhors a lack of choice the same way the physical world abhors a vaccuum. It may take time to create a viable alternative and it may be unpleasant while and until it is created but one will come into existence because that's the way a free market works.
-- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners". This is a philosophical/ethical statement,
No it's not. You might as well say that a car shouldn't permit itself to be used in the breaking of any laws. A corporation is a technology - the responsibility for directing it likes not with the corporation itself but with its owners (also known as shareholders).
What indisputably exists is a rapidly expanding set of free software which more and more perfectly substitutes for commercial software, and in many cases excels it. Particularly considering its low cost, there is no need to explain the demand for this software. The challenge is, to explain the supply.
also
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future? Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good? If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession? Like you, I dont agree with monopolies and those that abuse them, but thats another issue. If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable", then isnt that a bit unfair on good, honest and reliable developers? We dont live in a 23rd century moneyless community, and communism didnt really take off in its various guises, so what are you promoting, a utopian future in every sense, a turn away from capitalism? But how can this just apply to software?
Let's separate the discussion of revenue for IT support staff from developers. First of all, there will likely be a increasing need for support staff, no matter if the software is proprietary or Free Software, so let's not worry about that profession.
The point has been raised that it would cost far more to develop Free Software than to purchase licenses to proprietary software. Multiply those licenses by hundreds and thousands of seats, add maintenance fees. Even then it might not be a cost-savings. But then multiply that cost by a handful of companies. Now suppose business are formed whose objective is fill that need: Develop Free Software funded through cooperatives. These cooperatives would secondarily be a mill producing staff with intimate knowledge of the software to provide support, or train others to provide support. So they can still charge for support contracts, as well as having a profit center from the development itself. I believe companies are ready to invest in cooperatives to develop Free Software that they need for their business computing. An enterprising group of software developers might make a nice living for themselves pursuing this path.
I would do invest in a cooperative for several classes of software, rather than attempt to roll our own. Customers involved in the cooperatives better understand their requirements than anybody else. (With the caveat that oftentimes customers have nobody who knows what the requirements should really be, but that's what a good consultant can do for you.)
-- Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Let's say person or company discovers a secret way to make limitless buckets of water magically appear. Of course, they don't want thirsty people living in the Sahara to knowing the secret because that would severely limit their ability to make money. Now, since they compete with others that also know how to make water magically appear, they do their best to make a very sweet and tasty drink. However, they also go out of their way to dope the water with highly addictive substances so unsuspecting customers keep coming back for more. And unfortunately, not everyone can afford buying the water made artificially scarce by the company. As a result, many go thirsty.
Then someone comes along and says, "Hey, I'll let you thirsty people share in my limitless water supply. True, it's very plain water right now. However, I'll also tell you the secret for creating your own water supply so you can modify it to meet your particular nutritional specifications and tastes. After all, it doesn't cost me a dime and it actually helps me because you will improve upon my recipe. I'll do this on the condition that, if you want to sell (or give away) the new water you create, you must disclose the ingredients. This is in the spirit of promoting the best water that everyone can benefit from."
Now the first scenario creates an ugly "have" vs. "have not" environment that, in reality, doesn't need to exist at all. And that business model also doesn't necessarily create the best product, but the product that will make the most money (get the most people addicted), even it is to the detriment of the thirsty person. Now the second guy probably isn't going to walk away with bags of money like the first guy. But the second guy probably will still get a lot of work plumbing all the homes that will have access to the limitless supply of water. He'll also be often called upon to help less knowledgable people modify their water recipes to their very specific needs. And someone will eventually pay him a healthy sum to figure out how to magically make bread appear.
In my eyes, not only is free software more ethical, it it would seem work toward the creation of a healthier and more prosperous society.
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Again I think you're just defending the status quo, not a principle.
What if we quadruple copyright lengths and penalties for violation- would the market work even harder for us then?
Another way to look at it. Alanis Morisette and I are playing skeeball. Some portion of the balls are red and I can only use the non-red balls. It's possible that I'll beat her but ceteris paribus, she's going to win even if I'm a little better than her.
Put us on a level playing field and competition will show the true victor. Proprietary software monopolies handicap free software firms and artificially reduce choice as a result.
Yes, it's done all the time. If I make a car, I have to make sure it complies with certain safety standards. If I make a drug, I have to get FDA approval. And just because I manufacture a stick of dynamite, that sure as hell doesn't mean I can go blow up whatever I please.
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
You're an idiot, mostly because RMS charged for EMACS back in the day. He chose not to charge for more than the cost of making a tape and sending it, but he charged despite it being open source.
-- "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can't patent math. And phone books are public domain.
OK, but while the company in question is certainly not as nice and altruistic as the other guy, the only part that strikes me as "unethical" is adding addictive agents without the customers knowledge. I don't see a good parallel to that in the software question.
I suppose you might be talking about closed data formats that make it hard to switch to competitors products, but I think that fails the "without the customers knowledge" part. Unless the company lies and says it's software will be compatible with others, I would consider closed formats stupid and short-sighted, not unethical.
I guess I have a fairly strict standard for calling something "unethical"; and I don't beleive there is any such thing as "more ethical". Certain ways of doing things may be nicer, better for society, etc. but when the question is "Is such-and-such morally wrong?" I may not be sure what I think the answer is, but it's either yes or no.
Minor quibble: To get your analogy really on point, the company didn't "discover" a way to make limitless buckets of water. They spent a very large amount of time, money and effort constructing the first magic bucket of self-replicating water.
But it does matter. If you're putting a lot of effort into producing software, then giving it away in hopes of making money selling support, what's to stop someone else from selling the support, and taking all the profit from your effort?
Umm, yeah that was what I was getting at. So I don't think the existence of Mathematicians getting paid despite their work being "Free" is a good argument for why Programmers will still get paid if their work is "Free", because those Mathematicians only exist in Academia.
Unless you're trying to argue that if I want to get paid to write software, and don't want to work in academia (both of which are true), I shouldn't write "Free" software. In that case, I agree with you.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
I'm not trolling I promise, but I object to the question. Software (and it's creation) is not exactly "air" (it's supply is not limitless). While hackers, coders and programmers of all flavors may be "freely available" (meaning in abundant supply these days) they are not limitless (in number or ability). Without getting into the specifics of the vast array of hardware or language constraints or varying degrees of programmer ability, there will always be opportunity costs of time, resources, etc in developing software, free or otherwise.
Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? no.
Is software and it's development/support a limitless resource? no.
Is it ethical to limit software development/support to make a buck? yes... it may not be a good idea, but it's not unethical.
-- You can have my cynical agnosticism when you pry it from my cold, dead logic.
So I don't think the existence of Mathematicians getting paid despite their work being "Free" is a good argument for why Programmers will still get paid if their work is "Free", because those Mathematicians only exist in Academia.
Well, some of them are actuaries.
But why isn't it a good argument? The poster claimed that if software is libre then programmers won't get paid. I showed a number of examples (of which mathematicians was only one) where a product is libre but the people who make the product are paid.
Unless you're trying to argue that if I want to get paid to write software, and don't want to work in academia (both of which are true), I shouldn't write "Free" software.
No, I'm certainly not arguing that. There are already people who get paid to write software, don't work in academia, and write "Free" software. In fact, we're having a conversation using such a piece of free software right now.
As for what you should do, you should only write "Free" software. Because anything else is immoral.:)
What you are saying is that you would like to be King and live off the wealth of your people, while offering them little in return, after your first offering.
Firstly, people don't 'discover' proprietary software, they invest money/time to create it.
Also you appear to assert that free software is somehow superior to proprietary software. While this is sometimes true, it is most definitely not inherently the case (compare the linux & OS X desktop environments for example).
I never volunteered to pay them for my copy of Windows.
Well, I'm no sleuth, but if you have a copy of Windows, it's for one of the following three reasons:
1) You bought the CD.
2) You bought a computer with it included.
3) You pirated it.
In points one and two, you damned sure did volunteer to pay for it (and don't give me any of that 'Microsoft tax' propaganda, as nobody forced you to buy a computer). If point three holds, you obtained it illegally and deserve what you get.
If you're putting a lot of effort into producing software, then giving it away in hopes of making money selling support, what's to stop someone else from selling the support, and taking all the profit from your effort?
Being the one who created it, you will know the software better than anyone else. Your support will be higher quality than your competitors and will command higher prices.
-- How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Much of applied mathematics results in patents which are licensed to generate income. Anything purely academic is funded by academia and not really applicable to the entire software development field. There will always be true CS funded by universities just as they fund math. But real applications will, for the most part, continue to come from commercial entities.
Laws are free (usually), but politicians still get paid to write them.
Government subsidizes that. The government funds plenty of software development too, but I don't think we want to limit ourselves to the government funding all software development.
Phone books are free, but people still get paid to compile them.
Phone books are only free because they're either paid for with surcharges to your phone bill or there's advertising in them. But perhaps advertising is the way to go for free software.
int encrypt(char *message) {
int i = 0;
byte[1024] buffer;
/*
* Feeling Tired?
*
* Try new Jolt Cola. The extra caffeine will
* give you the lift you need to finish hacking
* this code.
*/
...
}
Include an open source license that grants complete rights to edit and redistribute so long as advertisements are not removed. Would this still count as free software?
Just to be absolutely sure I've offended someone today: Actuaries aren't Mathematicians. They use mathematics, they don't develop new mathematics.
But why isn't it a good argument? The poster claimed that if software is libre then programmers won't get paid. I showed a number of examples (of which mathematicians was only one) where a product is libre but the people who make the product are paid.
With your other examples, I either agree with you or my disagreements are more subtle than I feel like dealing with:). Anyway, with Mathematicians, I'm pointing out that when the product is libre, they don't get paid, (except in academia). When they get paid, the product isn't libre.
There are already people who get paid to write software, don't work in academia, and write "Free" software. In fact, we're having a conversation using such a piece of free software right now.
Then those people would make a much better argument than mathematicians. But I might argue they are paid to operate a website; for this they need software which they must write; being smart fellows, they realize that their product is the website, so giving away the code does not hurt them, and helps them if others choose to contribute. Hence they might choose to write open software on purely pragmatic grounds. (Though in this case I'm sure their motivations are at least partly philosophical).
I like open software, and use and write it whenever it makes sense to do so (which is often). But I do want to get paid to write software, and I don't consider writing non-open software unethical. I might be able to get paid to write open software, but at present it is a lot easier to get paid if I'm not so picky.
I'm not sure I agree with you about ChessBase, Hiarcs having no equal in free software (Bookup I would agree with). I used to use a Chessbase/Fritz combination until Chessbase refused to continue unless I inserted the CD. I'm not the tidyest of people so after about half-an-hour of searching I thought "sod it" and switched to SCID/Crafty, and to be honest I haven't really regretted it. It isn't quite as good but it does everything I need, if not everything I want.
An embarrassing pittance in comparison to those who sell software. RedHat will always be three months from bankruptcy.
IBM and HP and Sun all have plans to make money off free software
Ah, the old "good intentions" argument. In other news, I have plans to be rich some day. The ONLY way these companies can afford to dabble in FS is by relying upon the money made from commercial software to fund this new flight of fancy. IBM in particular made its fortune by being the Antichrist of "Freedom" in the 70s and 80s and now everyone happily forgets those days in lieu of a new bandwagon on which to jump.
My support might be better if you have some out there highly technical question. But if you're just clueless I might tell you to RTFM; and I take long lunches and vacations, so I might tnot be available; etc.
If I'm a small developer who creates some killer app, any support dollars I might be expecting might easily be taken by some big corp with a 24/7 call center full of people willing to do some hand-holding, and backed up by a couple 2nd tier people who have learned the app well enough to answer all but the most out there questions. Frankly, such a corp will provide much better support than I will.
Honestly, whenever people say I could write free software and make my money from doing support, my first reaction is that I finally got off my butt and got a programming job specifically because I hated my support job so much.
Being the one who created it might give you the edge on understanding it better than your support competitors, but that's a dangerous argument to make. After all, if you really want the inside track on being able to provide the best support, it's hard to beat being the only one witht access to the source code...
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
Yes, if you create something, you are to do with it as you will with no obligation to give it away. Stallman agrees with this. What Stallman doesn't agree with - is restriction of the actions of people/society with the stuff given to them.
If you give me your creation, then I should be Free to do with it as I will - including copying it to anyone I wish.
To emphasize, Stallman doesn't care if you charge a million dollars for something you create, as long as that something can be redistributed freely.
People (not necessarily me) think Stallman is "some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot", because they can't see why he would disagree with this seemingly obvious assertion,
The disagreement lies in the belief that copyright seems "obvious" to many people since it outdates their birth and has "always been there". Stallman claims, and I agree, that copyright restrictions are an unjustified and unreasonable burden on society in the information age.
Mandating open source software in Government would be removing their freedom.
Government workers, while they are on the job, are no more free than any of the rest of us while at work.
In fact, they're called 'civil servants.'
I've often been in queue at a government facility, i.e. renewing my driver's license, and wanted to yell out: 'civil servants! on your knees!' It'd probably just slow things down even more, though.
Fine, I'm not going to argue against that. I don't know enough about what actuaries do.
But I might argue [Slashdot employees] are paid to operate a website;
I assume there are some employees who are paid to operate the website, and others who are paid to write software for the website.
for this they need software which they must write;
The company needs software which they must hire someone to write.
Hence, some software developers are paid to write free software. There is no requirement that free software be created for no cost.
But I do want to get paid to write software, and I don't consider writing non-open software unethical. I might be able to get paid to write open software, but at present it is a lot easier to get paid if I'm not so picky.
That's fine. I didn't mean to get into what you should or shouldn't do. You brought it up, and I stated my opinion. Right now it's basically impossible to make as much money writing free software as you can make writing proprietary software. The state sponsored monopoly the government offers you is sometimes just too tempting.
Hopefully copyleft will be able to attract people back to writing free software, by providing them with a base on which they can more easily create free software. That's what Stallman is talking about. You can go ahead and create your non-free software, but the free software community shouldn't be bending over backwards to help you. "To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom."
some of it was won off of the back of altruistic programmers of things like BSD.
I don't know that I buy that at all. Really the only BSD code in Windows software is some of the TCP/IP functionality. Microsoft basically 'ported' BSD code to make up that particular flavor of networking. They've since rewritten most of that themselves.
Further, the BSD code Microsoft adopted wasn't really written by 'altruistic BSD programmers.' It was written by publicly funded staffers, presumably at Berkeley. Most of the BSD that is 'altruistic' is post-Berkeley stuff like Net/Open/FreeBSD.
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
Property law in a complex animal. You might give away something or sell something that you own, or have even made, but once it's in another's hands, that's another matter. If you want to bind others to conditions for your trade to occur, that's clearly a restrait of freedom. Maybe overall they've got more freedom than they would have done otherwise, but they'd have still more had you not put restrictions limiting the use of what you'd made.
There is a difference here between what is your right, and what is most moral. You have every right to use contract law to define terms, but perhaps that is not the most moral action. Maybe you can't afford the more moral action, or else need to act less morally here so as to be able to exercise your values elsewhere (so that you don't need to claim from the state, say). Nonetheless what you have the right to do is not enough of a pesonal guide, else freedom would cause society to melt.
The best state of law is one that recognises that freedoms have to be traded. The ones in question here are those limited by enforcing a licence, and the ones that are lost in losing the availability of products that require such restrictions upon their use so that they are made in the first place.
However, the availability of free software means that one can have the best of both worlds. One has gained the capacity to choose the more moral path, but the right to the other path remains, should one need to compromise, and make goods that have the threat of incarceration or of loss of some of the client's income as conditions for their use.
-don't let others have it. -let others have it for free. -let others have it but only if they give me money first. -let others have it but only if they promise to let others have modified versions they produce
but it's wrong for me to let others have it but only if they promise not to let other others have it. What happened to me being able to do with it as I will?
If I say "I'm not going to let you have it, and you can't use it no matter what" I'm OK, but if I say, "I'm not going to let you have it, but if you choose to abide by certain conditions I'll let you use it", I'm evil? That doesn't sound right to me.
I think copyright lasts too long. But you want to do away with it entirely? Better eliminate contract law too, since when it comes to software, I can reconstruct all the restrictions you don't like from copyright using contracts instead.
I do agree with you that the initial creation of that code is not limitless and getting compensated for the time/effort/resources needed to write it certainly is not unethical.
But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource. Now the GPL still has nothing against you charging for its distribution. It clearly tells you that it's perfectly OK. What it does say is, "Hey, don't play games with the other fellow. Don't make your source code artificially scarce just to make a buck---that's just plain wrong. Share your code. In return, others will share their code with you. In the long run you'll be a lot better off for it."
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Again, how do laws excercize 'their' freedom? It's a logical impossibility. Laws have no 'will' of their own to excercize freely. What you're saying makes no sense at all.
It is not fine to "let others have it but only if they promise to let others have modified versions they produce" since that limits their freedom of actions that are no longer directly connected to you (and no, the GPL does not demand that you distribute any changes you make, it demands that you distribute the source of any changes you already distribute under the same licensing).
For the same reason, it is not fine to limit their freedom to share it with others.
Yes, some contractual conditions should be (IANAL, but I think some are) disallowed.
You can reconstruct some of the copyright restrictions in a contract (if no restrictions are made on what restrictions can be made in a contract), but not all of them. Since there is no longer slavery in most (all?) of the Free world, contracts are always reasonably breakable. Thus, someone can break the contract for a fee (and the limit to this fee is usually set in the law), and your software is out in the open. Easy to see that this is not equivalent to Copyright law.
The difference is that fax machines, cars and many other "closed" appliances in the everyday world work according to very well defined principles. The protocols used for transfering a fax over the phone lines is documented and no one will prosecute you if you make an alternative implementation of it. Cars just get you from one place to another, sometimes with bells and whistles, but that's what they do. So do bicycles, buses, trains, and a number of other means of transportation.
In contrast, closed source software is very rarely documented enough so that complete interoperability is easily achievable. Imagine if only vehicles with a particular wheel spacing were usable on public roads, but the information on the necessary spacing was secret and deducing it from available, usable cars was punishable with severe fines or even jail time? That, in my opinion, is a better analogy than just saying that governments should not mandate use of one particular piece of technology simply because another exists.
The government has several functions, two of which are: (a) serve the public, and (b) preserve documents for the future. Microsoft, which must be said to be the most common provider of proprietary desktop software, has a tendency to change their file formats every few major revisions, sometimes more often than that. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if there was a reliable means of reading the old file formats in a new version, but unfortunately that is far from always the case. Coupled with a potential inability to use old software in a year, a few years or even a few decades (mandated software activation, on-line forced upgrades and the "Trusted" Computing Platform), this may grow into a very serious problem. When converting the documents, can you guarantee that no information or formatting is lost or altered? I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Open source software will not automatically mean that old documents can be read. But if the lowest level specification for a file format, the source code for the application used to create it, is freely available, that means that one is always guaranteed the possibility of creating tools to read and/or convert the data to another format in the future. (At least as long as the source code, or at the very least extensive documentation of the file format, is preserved.)
So, I think that saying that mandating government use of open source software is wrong because mandating government use of cars is wrong, is a rather flawed logic. As I understand it most governments are already required to use the best, most cost effective tool for the job. "Best" in terms of handling documents subject to long term preservation requirements would seem to include the possibility to read those documents in both five, ten and fifty or even a hundred years, with a minimum of hassle.
Just like at times, a first class jet airline ticket might be more cost effective than a second class train ticket for getting from one place to another.
-- Been modded interesting, insightful and funny. Why does real life have to be so different?
You are a lone programmer (or a small company), so for you working with softwares tailored for your clients may be better. Probably open source software could be adequate for your business as a secondary tool (eg. using mysql instead of oracle or MSSQL to lower your client expenses)
OR you may work as employee from a bigger outfit that may sell support for a open source app that you were hied to develop.
The fact that the software is free (like gratis) doesn't mean that everybody responsible for it's development isn't being finnancially rewarded for it.
I think that I understood your point of view: you are thinking that the premise from the free software is that it is gratis and all programmers should work for free (in fact killing programming as a profession, since working in something for nothing (financially speaking) can be possible only for a hobbyst or a enthusiast that already have an income for maintaing it's living).
please read carefully the faq at FSF, you'll see that they are talking about sharing your code WHEN and IF beneficial for the person that developed it initially.
two important facts that free software provide:
-you can start a specialized and useful software but don't have enough knowledge or resource to polish it the way you liked. You release it as open source, small contributions start pouring, the source code from these improvements is available for you and everybody else and in time it can be so good as you envisioned it or even better.
-if you write some code and some big company start using it without acknowledging you (the creator), nor sharing it's improvements with you, you can demand they stop using it.
you ask: why waste time and effort and not charge for it? personal marketing is a good one. when you hear about people like linus torvalds, richard stallman, you allways hear how tallented they are, and usually you also hear that they are well employed. how come if they don't charge for they products? Their tallent is recognized. personal satisfaction is other.
but, repeating, nobody is demanding that you work for free or write only open source programs! do this if this is fit for you and your business!
BUT: don't use open source code in your applications if you don't wan't to make it open source also. that was a demand from the person that wrote that open source part that you are interested. You don't want that nobody use your software if not paying for it, so don't use open source software from people that only allow it's use if you make your product open source (that's how they want to be paid, you want money, some people want more free software, you both are in your rights)
free software gave us: TCP/IP, DNS, email, ftp, WWW, in fact, gave us Internet. GAVE US, free, gratis, gave us source code, so you can use parts (or all) of these features in your program as you see fit. You can charge for it, if you want.
Just read the license, you'll see that are times that you can charge, times that you can't, sometimes you have to open source your derivative work, sometimes don't. do as you do with all your other tools: read the licence! see what it permits you to do and what don't. If it's fit for you, use, if don't go ahead!
Think like the personal edition from some borland tools (like c++ builder): you can use all the features and create your apps with it. YOU CAN'T sell any of YOUR apps created with the PERSONAL edition. Why? The licence says so. If you wan't to sell apps created with these tools you have to buy a more expensive professional or enterprise edition.
See? limitations of use already exist. what do you do? choose the ones that are more adequate for you. the same with free software!
but please don't act like the moron at forbes, that wrote an article (see older articles at/.) bashing free software because that some company acquired by Cisco (linksys?) was being prompted or to open source
But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource.
True, but this makes the assumption that the developer wants/is willing to place his/her code on the Internet under the GPL. While you or I might think it a good idea, not doing so isn't necessarily making it artificially scarce. It might make it a bug-ridden and impractical tool (Win 98 anyone?) but that simply makes it a poor choice of software to use. I definitely think that software under the GPL is a better idea, more practical, potentially longer lasting and more robust, etc. However, I don't think that makes proprietary software unethical, it's just (imho) a less desirable choice.
-- You can have my cynical agnosticism when you pry it from my cold, dead logic.
I couldn't agree more. The idea that one can do something (whether it be a lawsuit or designing a killer ap) that will put them on a work-less road to eternal luxury so permeates our society that it's difficult for someone to accept something as different as free and open source software. The idea that you must have money and stuff, and do everything in your power to get more money and more stuff, is what WILL end our civilization.
Games are a bad example because the market has a tendency to ignore the rules. In your example, Alanis cannot force you to play the game as you described it (rules favoring her); only the government can. IBM pushing Linux is an example of market pressures resulting in a company "breaking the rules" in order to compete with an entrenched competitor.
Government (and remember libertarians are anti-government) tends to make rules that favor the status quo. The example you give of extending copyright laws is precisely this type of *government* intervention in favor of the status quo. Hint: from my point of view you should be criticizing the two established parties who both accept contributions and are thus both willing to sell anything to the highest bidder; not libertarians who would say that the government has no business sticking its nose into business. The same can be said for the libertarian point of view with regard to UCITA and some of the other attempts of established businesses to cement their position by bribing, err making campaign contributions to, selected legislators. People look at the liberarian position and say what will stop businesses from taking advantage and the answer is other business who can compete only on a level playing field once the government stops making rules that favor the status quo.
-- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession?
Don't confuse the software being free with the software developer working for free. They are not the same thing. Developers can charge as much as they like to produce free software.
Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful,
They do. Red Hat charges $1399 for a copy of Red Hat Enterprise 3.0 but it's still free software. Sun charges $100 per copy of the Java Desktop but it's just GNOME running on Linux.
Once again, don't confuse free software with no income.
But I suspect you're a troll, so no more food for you.
I think the big difference between software (and certain other products) and things like cars is that the other things are physical objects that cannot use the same solution without additional marginal cost. Sure it is true that there is some marginal cost for new deployments of an existing free software solution but that is very different to the cost of each additional car or fax machine that the state will buy.
In addition to this actual difference that justifies treating software differently, there are numerous examples where the state will choose one supplier over another for non (purely) economic reasons, for example is to plump for the local manufacturer over the foreign competitor. Not such a big deal in the US but in ther countries the cars driven by the government employees (and particulalry officials) can be quite a point of contention.
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
If libertarians are anti-government, they should oppose copyright because copyright is government sticking its nose into business by granting monopolies over ideas. I don't care much if people want to keep their software secret- I just oppose the government interfering in business by preventing others from reimplementing it.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:I agree mostly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First, most free software was started by "the state". Look at the subsidies and tax breaks afforded most of the institutions where a great many free sofware projects were born.
But more importantly, "the state" doesn't exist. When we're talking about where money comes from, we're talking about you and me. So for clarity, what you're saying is that you and I should be compelled with threat of imprisonment (tax evasion) to pay for software we may never use. This is freedom?
Microsoft aside, the rest of the current system is not all that far from the dynamics proposed by free software advocates: programmers get paid for their time by people who receive value from their work.
Where some free software advocates paint themselved into a corner is attempting to decide which types of programming jobs are worth paying for, and which are worthy of moralistic disdain.
The notion that it's somehow morally superior to pay salaries for IT staff at crooked banks and fraudulent securities firms than to pay honest (read "non-Microsoft") programmers making consumer apps is odd.
Let people pay for what they find valuable in the ways they choose to pay. If a non-programmer chooses to pay a hundred bucks to solve a problem by buying a consumer app, do not refer to that exercise of their freedom, that voluntary tax, with disdain. Enforced freedom isn't really freedom at all.
A lot of the arguments here have less to do with most commercial app development than they do with Microsoft specifically. And for good reason. While having been convicted of serious corporate crimes by dozens of governments around the world, in the US where they're based their "punishment" has amounted to little more than granting them extended marketshare.
Of all of the issues affecting personal freedom in computing, lax enforcement of corporate crimes like Microsoft's is at the top of the heap. Express your outrage to your elected representatives, or quietly acquiesce in a dark corner murmering about freedom. If you're posting here and still haven't written your representatives, your priorities are backwards.
Solve the Microsoft problem and most other differences between commercial and free software become reduced to semantics and minor triflings over point-of-payment. If we want to see the industry evolve to incorporate the benefits of altruism, we need to get some of the basics done first: laws must be enforced, convicted criminals must be punished.
I understand whatt the GPL actually requires, I was just tryiing to come up witht something that fit in a short phrase.
Anyway, I still don't see how you can argue that letting people use my software if they agree to certain conditions is morally wrong, but not letting them use it at all is no problem. If they don't like the conditions, they don't use the software. If they choose to agree to the conditions, they can use the software.
You say you don't have a problem with my not letting them use it at all, but that certainly limits their freedom to share it with others.
No. Wrong. Completely. People don't get to choose to pay taxes or not. There's no choice, they live in the US, they pay taxes.
Let's talk specifically about income taxes. I live in the US, but I don't pay income taxes.
People choose voluntarily to purchase, or not, Microsoft software.
Likewise people choose voluntarily to get a job, or not to get a job.
It's almost not worth arguing with someone like you who is so stubborn about staying ignorant.
It's not worth arguing because I am right. If you're going to say that the United States uses force to collect taxes, then you have to admit that Microsoft also uses force to collect licensing fees.
Not letting your software out at all is not great, but forcing you to give it away is worse.
The thing is, that pragmatically speaking, if no such restrictions are allowed to be made, then people won't simply stop distributing software, they'd simply have to settle for less and give up their control of the users.
Here's part of a STRINGS output from a Windows 2000 version of FTP.EXE:
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Here's another STRINGS, of NSLOOKUP.EXE:
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
I would imagine that lots more BSD code is liberally spread about Windows somewhere...So Microsoft's hand is definitely in the cookie jar still. Dunno if they've re-written for XP, but I doubt it.
>
If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will.
Not in my book. Intellectual property has no roots in Ethics, Historical or Philosophical. Copy rights originally are concerned not with Ethics, but with a pragmatic incentive to production. At first it was probably worthwhile, but nowadays it works badly both by excluding the poor and by incentiving the production of trash, creating an artificial scarcity in general and in particular of good stuff.
The jump from copy rights to intellectual property was done without any debate, and thus I tend to consider it a self-serving device from the greedy and rich of this world against the poor, so that the poor wouldn't be able to benefit from the inherent freedom of information to enrich themselves.
The hypocrisy here is that there were no international copy rights or patents, much less so-called intellectual property, when Europe and the US started to get rich in the XVIII and XIX centuries.
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I don't want to be the one dissin' RMS, but I think he needs a sanity check or just stop being a "spokesperson" for the Free software community. It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software. This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you all know what I mean), etc
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
I agree, someone less... zealous would make a better proponent for free software. I like my free software, but I like money too. Some things are better free, and some you need to pay for. Everything in moderation.
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
I disagree. Without people like Mr. Stallman, The free software movement would not be where it is today. His "problem" is that he envisions a perfect world where all software is free. This is a noble goal, but the reality is that this will never be. There will always be need (and a market) for non-free software. But keep in mind also that not everyone in america is a corporation.
It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software.
He doesn't "hate" Debian at all. That's patently untrue. He has said however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.
This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you all know what I mean), etc
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
What I think he meant is that we are meant to chop off the kings head. I guess the analogy would extend to Bill Gates, but I'm not sure...
He gives the Free software community a -bad- name? Hell, he's the one who gave it -A- name.
Yes, he's extreme in his vision of a software utopia. But if Free software is a good thing, it's not completely unreasonable to say an only Free software rule might be a great thing - and it's usefull to have someone around who insists that's the way things should be, if only to make the moderates look, well, more moderate.
Irony alert, irony alert! Damn it, why does Slashdot not support the <BLINK> tag?
but I think he needs a sanity check
Stop right there.
but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software.
No, this isn't the person who hates Debian or any other distribution. This is the person who chooses to use a different distribution because he considers that other distribution more free. The "This person hates XXX" stuff is a stereotype propogated by certain Open Source zealots. He's a person who states categorically what he believes Free Software is, and chooses to try to promote the concept to the fullest extent he can. That's a noble cause, and deserves rather better treatment than the suggestion that he hates something because he can find something that fits his moral philosophy better.
This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
You mean he doesn't cut off people's heads? Should we not take Stallman seriously until he has Bill Gates's and ESR's (Splitter!) heads in baskets? (I don't know what you mean, no.)
Free software will never be part of corporate america
Free software is already a part of corporate America. Many large corporations are switching to GNU/Linux, many companies from Sun to IBM are promoting Free Software in some form or another. Most are following a dual-path inherent in Open Source rherotic, adopting free software in some cases, closing other software in others, but there's little question that there's a sizable body of free software developed and used by corporate America today.
Really, stop listening to "Stallman sucks because he hates Open Source and he smells" type rants, and read what he actually writes. He's very consistant, he says exactly what he believes, and if he truly hated something rather than simply disagreed with it or felt an alternative was ideologically closer to him, he'd use the word "hate".
He doesn't.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
Thank god for that. I would never want anything to become a part of corporate America, especially not free software...
"Without people like Mr. Stallman, The free software movement would not be where it is today."
And exactly where is the free software movement today? Remember this is in terms of the FSF; the open source movement is something entirely separate from what RMS preaches.
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
What, run everyone through the guillotine? What are you talking about?
Original post: This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you all know what I mean), etc
Your response - I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You should review your history! It is obviously a reference to escargo. If you cook them with butter and galic they taste like...well...um...butter and garlic. Is it clear to you now?
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re-read the article a couple of times.
While I don't agree with RMS on everything 100%, he is perfectly consistent in terms of his position.
According to him, and people who think like him, the goal of the free software movement (as initiated by him) is not to increase the popularity of free software (although it seems to be everybody's underlying assumption when trying to argue with his position), but to make it possible for those who believe in free software to use only free software.
A fundamental thing to realize is that RMSs ideal was born during a time when he was part of a community of programmers and felt that community was being hindered by non-free software.
As a programmer, I feel this, too. Everytime I run into problems with non-free software, it's like running into a brick wall - I can't do much about it. When the same occurs with free software, I can trace the problem down to wherever it occurs, there it is in an application, a library, the OS kernel or a device driver (yes, I've tracked down kernel and driver bugs, and run into kernel bugs in non-free operating systems that I would've wanted to fix but couldn't).
For me, this is an important aspect of software. But it obviously isn't that important to non-programmers, which is why non-programmers will probably continue to assume that free software is about getting stuff for free and/or popularity.
He has said however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.
This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice. Debian strongly encourages Free Software. Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux. However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software. He's so wrapped up in the concept that not sharing your source is an inherently Evil idea that he forgets that true Freedom includes the option to shoot yourself in the foot.
I dislike the polarized, fanatical "either with us or with the terrorists" stance that he takes towards proprietary software. I don't like it in politics, and I don't like it in the philosophy of software development. Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.
He's certainly more civil nowdays than to openly claim to hate Debian, but he certainly doesn't think it's good enough, and that's pretty much the parent poster's point.
-- If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I like my free software, but I like money too. Some things are better free, and some you need to pay for.
I feel I might be feeding a troll, but...
"libre" not "gratis"!
Think of "non-free" more in terms of "caged": a caged lion is robbed of its power. A free lion is a magnificent force. "Caged" software is software whos potential is limited.
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software.
Not exactly. He critizises Debian because they actually support using a large amount of proprietary software by distributing it on their servers, including it in their CDs, using their resources to develop installer packages for non-free software and donating their whole infrastructure (their bug-tracking system for example) to these packages. BTW: you do not have to edit a text config file for that, you are asked by a dialog window during install.
And he isn't happy with many Debian Developers considering the GNU Free Documentation License non-free.
And exactly where is the free software movement today? Remember this is in terms of the FSF; the open source movement is something entirely separate from what RMS preaches.
.
I know difference:)
The idea that Free (as in speech,) Software and the philosophy of sharing that set the groundwork for projects like the Linux Kernel and Samba to name a couple, such that the software it's produced is seeing use in devices from MP3 players to IBM Mainframes.
-- Do not read this.sig
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software
No. To me, it comes across like RMS claims you need to actively prefer and seek out free solutions. If you don't and complacently accept nonfree ones, you're never gonna get a nonfree NVidia driver.
His "problem" is that he envisions a perfect world where all software is free.
The "problem" with RMS is that for as long as he can remember he's lived on the goodwill of MIT and the MacArthur foundation. He probably honestly believes that that option is available to every programmer and genuinely can't understand why most aren't interested in giving their work away for free and just living on their sponsors. The idea that these things called "corporations" provides "jobs" to programmers, and that closed-source is a way to raise something called "money" that pays "rent" simply hasn't occured to him.
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Damn it, why does Slashdot not support the <BLINK> tag?
Because trolls don't need yet another way to be extremely irritating. Can you imagine BLINKING ASCII goatse?
I dislike the polarized, fanatical "either with us or with the terrorists" stance that he takes towards proprietary software.
That's great, and I assume you're going to stop doing it too.
All RMS has done is try to go for the most free solution he can, because he is a believer in free software. He stuck with Debian until a distribution came along that he considered more free, and then he jumped to that. He's not saying that anyone who doesn't "is with the terrorists" (or a supporter of locking everything away and making them proprietary), he's just trying to practice what he preaches.
He's not calling you anything. In return, you're suggesting that anyone who tries their best to follow, for themselves, without forcing anyone else to do the same, their moral beliefs is an Orwellian opponent of Freedom.
Who's doing the fanatical "either with us or the terrorists" thing here?
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Not a troll, in fact I generally agree with the ideals.
In theory, yes there is a defined difference, but the tendency is there, if someone sells their software, yet you can modify and release it, to modify it and give it away, thus destroying profit motive. I could however be getting something wrong there. Kindy feel free to shoot holes in my reasoning.
There is the popular example of a corporation paying someone to modify existing free software to meet their needs, and then making the modifications GPL, etc. to cut down on support costs and the like (often easier/cheaper to use the 'official' program than to maintain your own private trunk).
A minority of software written is the boxed, off-the-shelf type, which is where you would probably see less chance to profit. Custom jobs provide ample opportunity to make money doing free (libre) software.
-- There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
He founded the Free Software Foundation, and the ideals that lay ground to the whole movement.
He has stayed true to these ideals - as a "politician" (if you will), this is unusual, almost unheard of, and I find it highly admirable.
Not that I'm a blind follower - I develop commercial software for a living - but Richard is a person that I admire, and even if I do not agree with everything he has to say, I cannot imagine that the FSF could earn more credit by straying away from their founding ideals and replacing Richard with some more press-friendly, PR savvy, "sleek" substitute.
Richard knows what he stands for, he does not stray from his ideals.
This deserves credit and I respect him highly for that. To me, he *is* the FSF.
RMS is an idealist, and a highly dedicated one at that, one who has actually dedicated his entire life to this cause. The fact that he has always been so unflinching in his dedication to these ideals has in fact been a good thing, even now. Had we someone more willing to compromise at the forefront then perhaps the Free Software movement as we know it today would never exist. Our precious Linux kernel would never have become the phenomenon it is today without the ideals Stallman has dedicated his life to defending. I find it hard to see that he's doing the entire community of Free Software developers a disservice even now, as his unwillingness to compromise on the core issue of Software Freedom has kept those who might intentionally or unintentionally compromise the movement out of existence in check.
"Proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries"? What the hell are you talking about??
I suppose you think that IBM, SGI, HP, and these other major corporations that have embraced the growth of the GNU/Linux operating system are not a part of "corporate America"?
-- Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I don't want to be the one dissin' RMS, but I think he needs a sanity check or just stop being a "spokesperson" for the Free software community.
There are no "spokespersons" for the free software community. There are just people who speak their mind and other people who listen. More people want to listen to RMS than to you. Deal with it.
and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america
I fail to see the problem.
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank God for RMS and his irritating personality, or else most of you would never consider that non-free software was ever a problem. RMS keeps people on their toes, and doesn't accept second best. If it were up to you and the other critics of RMS, Linux would probably be full of commercial complications.
RMS has foresight and the tenacity to stick with his opinions and positions right to the end. It makes him somewhat unattractive a lot of the time, but without that abrasive edge, those positions would have been eroded a long time ago.
"However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it."
This just goes to the core of how much the community actually values his endorsement. If you didn't take him so seriously, why would you care what he recommends?
You're trying to dictate what rms should and should not recommend. It's his recommendation to give, not yours -- don't begrudge him of his opinion. Ignore him if you don't agree with him. By trying to take away his right to his own opinion, and telling him what you think it's important for him to endorse instead, you're only making him more powerful and important.
The way to defeat RMS is to clone him. If everybody who reads this were to become a raving RMS clone, that would commoditize his brand of didacticism. He would not have a such a corner on the market, and therefore would no longer be the center of attention.
(Chevy Chase taps me on the shoulder and says "Emily, that already happened. It's called slashdot.")
This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
No, not all of us do. WTF are you talking about?
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You stick to your ideals, then. Keep waiting for that free 3D accelerated NVIDIA driver. Don't worry that it's encumbered by patents, royalties, and licensed external code, surely it will be open-sourced soon.
Re:RMS..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, Stallman is the one misusing free. Free is not typically applied to inanimate objects. For example, a person. If you say a "person is free," it's quite obvious that you are reffering to liberty. If you talk about a car, for example - "that car is free" - there can be no confusion about the intent to indicate value. And yet, Stallman insists on referring to software, an inanimate object, as "Free". Not only that, he seems suprised that this ambiguity (and possibly intentionally misleading terminology) has led to confusion. Who would have thought, that after abusing the word free, that people misunderstand him. People often have to say "free as in liberty" to clarify. Why not just say, liberty software?! Stallman has no one to blame for this confusion but himself.
The more cynical side of me (which pales in comparison to the paranoia of many associated with the FSF and OSI), think that Stallman did so on purpose. Advertise "free software" to people, and just happen to have it available for free as price initially. Then, when everyone is confused, and everyone thinks they are getting free (as in cost) software, bam, hit em over the head with his nutty idealogy and wiccanism. Truly, a good plan. Stallman has trolled us all.
While I agree that RMS sometimes just doesn't know when to shut his mouth, he doesn't hate Debian. Correctly stating that the Debian project (disclosure: I run Debian Sid on all my machines) doesn't follow the FSF guidelines for being a completely Free distro does not mean he hates Debian. It means the Debian project has made a decision which makes it not 100 percent compatible with the FSF's definition. That's fine. Maybe someday it will be, maybe not. Myself, I kind of like the option of using non-free. If that goes away, well, it's not hard to add other repositories to my apt sources anyway.
No, if RMS hates Debian for anything, it's for having a working Hurd-based distro before the FSF:-)
not only GNU turns 20
by
sulli
·
· Score: 5, Funny
but also RMS' beard. Send the Fab Five to do something about it!
But will RMS be happy that this artcle is posted to www.linux.com and not www.gnulinux.free?
Re:linux.com?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People who suffer from delusions are very, very good at rationalizing their irrationalities. Richard Stallman is a deeply delusional individual. The fact that there is a.com, short for "commercial", in the first place probably bothers him.
So, was the Hurd mentioned as the new GNU kernel that Stallman still wants to use? I mean, Linux is supposed to be replaced by the Hurd, any day now...
Re:Hurd...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That's the beauty of the GPL, every version of Hurd that I run is forked from the latest linux. I just search replace "linux" with "hurd" in all the files and I am running a state of the art hurd kernel for my GNU system.
Re:Hurd...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So uhm...AnyDay = 365 ms from now?
Happy Brithday FSF!
by
stox
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
What would we have done without ya?
-- "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Next non-paying profession engineers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I agree completely.
Next we need to open source electronics so that paying electrical engineer jobs vanish
It already is "open source" to some extent. Their's nothing stopping you from removing the cover of your favorite electronic gadget or appliance and seeing what components it uses. Reverse engineer it and build your own if you want. You may not have the schematic but that won't stop a decent EE type.
Their's nothing stopping you from removing the cover of your favorite electronic gadget or appliance and seeing what components it uses.
Actually, there is, it's called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and you might want to search for some past Slashdot posts about it before that becomes illegal, too.
Re:Next non-paying profession engineers
by
Patrik_AKA_RedX
·
· Score: 1
Their's nothing stopping you from removing the cover of your favorite electronic gadget or appliance and seeing what components it uses.
Nothing? There are plenty IC you can't optain, because they are specialy made for one particular corporation. And how about the many differend flavors of programmable ICs? Many are protected against having their code read.
Re:Next non-paying profession engineers
by
RetroGeek
·
· Score: 1
seeing what components it uses
Oh? And what about Programmable Array logic (PAL) chips? Sure you can see the chip, but ferreting out the internal logic paths is a non-trivial task.
--
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Open Source and Broader Community
by
Steve+'Rim'+Jobs
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Mr Stallman asks the question, "What does it mean to run free software?". Each person or organization who chooses an open source OS, application or other tool over a proprietary one chooses to do so for a their own reasons. In this article Stallman discusses why he chose this path but he is arguing that each person or organization should make the choice for the same reasons he did, with the same motivation.
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.
The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents.
Usability for the community at large must go beyond RPMs and a GUI that mimics Windows. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users.
Organizations like the FSF and SEUL need to consider how to partner include Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and change mangement experts into their projects. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance.
Re:Open Source and Broader Community
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's the second version of this comment posted in this thread. Nice job copying a comment from the NewsForge story.
Re:Open Source and Broader Community
by
gnutechguy
·
· Score: 1
You confuse software with instruction. As I understand Mr. Stallman, his goal is that people can share software freely. Your complaints have to do with end user training, and also with user familiarity. These are seperate issue from sharing free software per se.
Training for free software/open source software will increase as the acceptance of the software increases.Free software is already being used by teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, and grandparents.
--
... and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise
Re:Open Source and Broader Community
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
Except for two little facts:
Stallman is a member - a founding member - of the free software movement, not the open source movement.
Both the free software and open source movements are succeeding spectacularly.
The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way.
The general population doesn't install new plumbing fixtures either. But only a fool would buy a house where all the pipes were kept locked away with only one plumber having the key.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Open Source and Broader Community
by
Artifakt
·
· Score: 1
The general population often cares quite a bit about the right of SOMEONE to see the source code, if they have any idea what the situation entails. That someone is usually a person who can interpret code. From companies with IT departments to concerned voters using electronic machines, many people endorse the idea in one form or another, i.e. by independent auditing.
The general population often differs about just how open code should be, i.e. should auditing be controlled by the government, should a company be able to use NDAs to keep auditors from spilling trade secrets, and such issues. Not a lot of them believe in an unlimited access model, but most think some kind of external inspection is needed where it doesn't already exist.
The people who don't care are a subset of the general population. It's like clean water. there are people who don't care about that too, but most of them don't understand water treatment in its broadest aspect. You don't have to look just to people who can discuss sedementation rates and parts per trillion of organic clathrates to get an informed opinion, but you do have to go to people who understand the germ theory of diseases or the broad idea of water polution to find a group that cares.
You don't have to look to programmers to get informed opinions here either, but you may need to ask people who know that voting machines are using proprietary software and that the state's auditing processes are not able to check the code, to find people who care. You might need to ask the right questions, such as "Don't you wish we could change that software so the people in payroll dept. don't see all that extranious personal information?", or "Why do we have to wait 6 weeks for an update from this vendor?", to find out what the person's opinion is.
-- Who is John Cabal?
He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
Meat+Blaster
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Before the contributions of Stallman, and those designing software under the GNU banner, who would have noticed the horrid direction proprietary software and hardware have us headed in?
They've demonstrated not only that it is possible to roll your own system (GNU/Herd, GNU/Linux, EMACS, and the myriad utilities), but also why it is necessary. What must come next in this new era of DRM are those who can create their own hardware, free of the oppression and lock-in that tomorrow's systems will have. But we will not ask ourselves what we can run on our homebrew hardware, because an answer is ready thanks to the efforts of the Free Software Foundation.
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
Fizzl
·
· Score: 1
They've demonstrated not only that it is possible to roll your own system (GNU/
Herd, GNU/Linux, EMACS, (...)
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
Wordsmith
·
· Score: 2, Funny
anyone else notice he lumped EMACS in with the operating systems? I think we all know EMACS is much more substantial than that:)
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Before the contributions of Stallman, and those designing software under the GNU banner, who would have noticed the horrid direction proprietary software and hardware have us headed in?
While reading up on the recent developments regarding the next generation DVD format I realized something that I should have known all along. The companies involved are not interested in making a new and improved version of DVD media, they're interested in selling movies and movie players. Similarly, the computer industry in the USA is not interested in developing quality software and hardware, they're interested in selling computer software and hardware.
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
Emacs is an operating system:)
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal.
by
sm0yby
·
· Score: 1
And unlike Linux, it's not just the kernel... it's got its own shell, programming language and God knows what else. It even includes a built-in text editor, lo and behold!
-- Been modded interesting, insightful and funny. Why does real life have to be so different?
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)? If not, does Stallman think that developers can create drivers for proprietary hardware that are at least as good as, if not better than, those provided by the manufacturer?
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)?
Linux is licensed under the GPL. Hurd is licensed under the GPL. Neither has any exceptions or additional grants. GPL goes as far as the copyright does. Everything that is derived from Linux and Hurd will have to be GPL. Now it happens to be that not all kernel modules can be considered to be derived from Linux so whatever Linux copyright would be (be it BSD, GPL or any Microsoft license), it wouldn't matter.
Proprietary binary modules for the Linux kernel can be written in some circumstances because in those circumstances the Linux license (the GNU GPL) is irrelevant. The situation with the Hurd is exactly the same. What Linux developers and Hurd developers think about binary modules that are not derived from Linux and Hurd, is irrelevant.
Re:GNU/Hurd
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
there are man folks on slashdot who, in their pragmatism, fail to see that Stallman's idealogical approach to software can have pragmatic effects. after all, who would have thought 20 years ago that giving away software would make any sense in this capitalist society. now, it has become a huge movement within that capitalist environment, and somehow the world has not ended.
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
as the free software movement continues, we are beginning to see a new kind of problem--the problem of hardware, such as the nvidia issue. it is my belief that eventually hardware, like software, will become free. but since there is an important distinction between hardware and software (hardware needs to be manufactured, packaged, and distributed, as opposed to software, which one only needs to post on the internet for others to use), i believe that the following will happen: we will begin to see groups of 'hardware hackers' working on projects to create open hardware, and post the schematics on the net. then, hardware manufacturers (perhaps working in tandem with the hackers) will take the specs, manufacture the goods, and sell them cheap (only enough to cover *manufacturing* costs and make some profit).
the cost will be cheaper because they will, in effect, have no R&D costs, which for hardware companies such as intel and others, account for huge percentage of their operating expenses.
this, i believe, will have a tremendous effect on the hardware industry, just as open software had, and continues to have, on the software industry. will these hardware companies be making less money? of course. they will evolve into redhat-type companies, mainly doing the manufacturing and support of their products. their profit margins will be lower, no doubt. their will fire their engineers. in the short term, we may consider that to be bad, but the hardware and software is too important and too integral to every aspect of life today (and even moreso in the future) to be held in a stranglehold by proprietary interests. which is why the free hardware movement will succeed, despite its seemingly anti-capitalist nature.
i'm not saying that everyone hacker will have their hardware manufactured. they would have to have the clout that, say, the kernel project does. and the beginning will be especially hard, since the designers will have to prove to the manufacturers that the hardare is reliable. the establish the necessary clout, members of these open communities will have to start small, funding these projects with their own money. and once again, we will drag this nation, kicking and screaming, to the same benefits it sees from open software.
I see the things as you do, but RMS isn't worried about adoption, he is worried about beeing FREE. Hell... he can be the only one using the stuff, the main quest is that it's free.
At least i think so... i could never really understand RMS:)
Proprietary binary modules for the Linux kernel can be written in some circumstances because in those circumstances the Linux license (the GNU GPL) is irrelevant. The situation with the Hurd is exactly the same. What Linux developers and Hurd developers think about binary modules that are not derived from Linux and Hurd, is irrelevant.
From the article (with my emphasis):
For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this "support" for our system, or should we regard this non-free program like any other--
as an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?
If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal. It is hard to dispute the claim that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular. If the widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether free or not.
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.
To me, this seems to say that Hurd will never support loading a Non-Free driver, regardless of the licensing behind the kernel code.
People still use phones and paper? I thought that modems and scanners became obsolete when those did.
Re:GNU/Hurd
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uh... real Linux "supporters" shouldn't be calling people N00bs and losers.
The conversation would probably go like this. User: My winmodem doesn't work... how can I fix it? Linux User: Winmodems are software-based modems and the software is kept secret by the manufacturer. Therefore there is no linux support for these modems. You should probably buy a cheap hardware-based modem if you can. These will use less CPU and your network experience will be better. User: Oh, I see. Thanks for the info!
GNU/Hurd/Mach is a microkernel-based system. Almost all drivers are actually user-space programs. Thus, "loading a non-Free driver" is basically the same as "running a non-Free application". While RMS is clearly completely opposed to anything non-Free, I doubt that even he would deny users the right to run what programs they want on their own system.
While I agree that "real" Linux supporters would be helpful, I've seen quite a few new users who may stumble upon a bad forum or newsgroup (comp.os.linux.advocacy) and get flamed to a crisp.
Slightly OT: while I realize that C.O.L.A. isn't really the place to be asking for help, questions along the lines of "I want to try Linux, but I want to know if my WinModem will work and my USB scanner too" often get met with the kinds of responses I posted above.
Ahh gotcha. So it's our fault, personally, if Linux doesn't support every hardware device made. In fact, if it doesn't play DIVX disks from Circuit City it sucks.
Yeah, okay. Back to reality. If you buy shitty hardware it won't be supported. Going from 9x to 2k/XP broke a ton of parallel-port stuff, and a small percentage of everything else that technically would work but had no drivers.
Good to see that BillG is now eating at a soup kitchen because of this fiasco.
Yes; you're catching on. 'Proprietry' should be a dirty word.
-- Look out!
mod me troll -1 but...
by
jasonbowen
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Anybody else envision some larger than life figurehead standing at a podium telling you exactly what you need to do to be happy and that they have all the answers? I enjoy the spirit of cooperation and the quality of code that has come out of open source and free software but I'll be damned if I think it's the only way to do things.
Re:mod me troll -1 but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You getting visions of Richard Stalin too? err sorry, Stallman.
Re:mod me troll -1 but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so you prefer false modesty....a stranger who accidently whispers to you the meaning-of-life wrapped in a clever secret at an out of the way coffee house?
when i was a young man, i hated wimps, and things that were not black and white. i did not believe anyone who could not boldly assert themselves.
when i grew a little older, i realized the folly of my ways...those who were the loudest were most often wrong. and the meek shall inherit the earth.
then i got old.
and i finally realized, that my rules were for not. each situation is it's own.
sometimes the meek, soft spoken man is wrong, and the loud baffoon is right.
and sometimes not.
the question is, are you smart enough to know the difference?
(hint: since you knee jerk reacted to RS's pompous nature, i'd wager you are not smart enough. judging by your emotional response, you are under 30 years old)
Re:mod me troll -1 but...
by
jasonbowen
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I prefer that nobody try to tell me they've found the meaning of life. Given your response I'd say you are just like him, feeling that you need to enlighten those that you feel you know need enlightening. Extremist views always fail to garner any significant mindshare. Linux isn't popular for any of the reasons that RMS sites, it's popular because of it's suitability for any particular task it is used for.
Re:mod me troll -1 but...
by
Perky_Goth
·
· Score: 1
Obviously, you've never seen a Stallman speech...
Re:mod me troll -1 but...
by
jasonbowen
·
· Score: 1
I have, I realize my description doesn't fit his demeanor when he speaks.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
dada21
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why did you say something so untrue? How is corporate American becoming America? I own corporations, yet I have very little control over other citizens. If they don't want my products, they don't buy them from me.
The average citizen has far more control over my corporation than I have over them. They can refuse to buy. They can open their own competitive business. They can vote in the town I am in to ban my product or my business. They can zone me out of their neighborhoods. They tax my sales and use that money in ways I disagree with. They tax my property. They tax the money I pay my employees. They tax my profits, too.
How is Corporate America a bad thing? Corporations that are friendly with the government are given benefits (cheap loans, tariffs against competition, and even regulating competition out of the business) is NOT a free market, but a mercantilist one. America was never supposed to be mercantilist, it was supposed to be capitalist. Capitalism allows no monopoly, but mercantilism does.
And mercantilism can only happen from government getting involved in economic planning -- ruin from the start.
GNU/Richard Stallman
by
ScottGant
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Re:GNU/Richard Stallman
by
DChristensen
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I hope to GOD that you used a script to generate that and did not spend all the time in Slashdot's editor typing it out manually.
In case you didn't, here's one for you:
perl -e '$_=<>;print map {$_=qq{GNU/$_ }} split'
Please use this for all future GNU/humor attempts.
--
-- Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.
Re:GNU/Richard Stallman
by
warkda+rrior
·
· Score: 1
I do not see a license for that script. Is it GPL'ed?
-- You need to install an RTFM interface.
Re:GNU/Richard Stallman
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, it's the GPL GNU/GNUizer.
RMS still doesn't get it...
by
goldspider
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community"
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
But among those needs is support; the ability to get questions answered and to have changes made.
There are two possible sources of support. Proprietary vendors, who keep you trapped with lock-ins and who can drop you at any time. (Like MS is dropping Windows 98 users). Or an open cooperating community of users and vendors, where you are not locked in and can almost always find help because you're dealing with peers. (If Windows 98 was free software or open source, the community of users could band together to fund continuing development and support.)
Cooperation and community are among the software needs that people and businesses have. Since software is still a very new thing, most don't realize this until they get burned; but they're learning. Which is why more and more people are becoming interested in free software.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
hildaur
·
· Score: 0
You are assuming that Stallman's goal is for free software to be used by businesses and the masses. It is, I think, quite clear that it is the freedom, cooperation, and community of developers with which Stallman is concerned.
The question of whether "most people and businesses" use free software is totally unimportant except for its effect on developers. Getting "the masses" to use free software is just a means to an end, not the end itself.
Complaining that his goal of freedom, cooperation, and community among developers is interfering with the adoption of free software among nondevelopers is complaining that his ends are interfering with his means.
Personally, I find his goal a lot more intersting than the mere popularity of free software. The *only* reason why the popularity of free software is desireable is that it provides resources (monetary and intellectual) for developers.
(Of course, the absence of free software probably provides more monetary resources to some developers, but fewer intellectual resources, and to far fewer developers.)
-Hil
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
randalware
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I believe RMS does get it !
Share your efforts or be waiting for M$$$$soft to fix your problems with another new o.s. release. (and you can buy all new application too...)
If you can NOT show your source code and share, shame on you.
Software patents are a crime.
And software free or non-free is no substitute for good management.
It is just a tool.....
-- This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
hal9000
·
· Score: 1
RMS neither stated nor implied that the purpose of software is to promote cooperation and community. What he did state is that a closed development model -- whatever the purposes of the software it is employed to develop -- "carries with it an antisocial system" (emphasis added). And he's right.
-- Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology;
Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
Telex4
·
· Score: 1
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
I'm afraid that RMS will never "get" that point. Nor will I, for that matter. You may be interested in ways that information technology can be made usable for consumers in the short term, but I am interested in ways that information technology can be made useful and accessible for citizens and communities in the long term. If you don't understand that, you're not going to understand what RMS is talking about.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please try to understand that he doesn't want to "get" the purpose of software for "most" people, he's interested in the purpose of software for those people who are part of the community willing and capable of adjusting software for their own needs.
Consider his history. Consider the situation 20 years ago. Previously, anything he did he could share with his peers. Suddenly, proprietary vendors told him that wasn't ok. He no longer could share with his peers, he no longer could fix the problems he found himself, he had to contact them and rely on their goodwill.
He has a significant point. But the point isn't quite what you might expect.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
WNight
·
· Score: 1
But you're missing the point. You're in a pre-DRM world, but once the MPAA and RIAA team up and convince MS that DRM is the wave of the future, you're hooped. Intel's already got a serial number in your CPU and because you don't use open source you can't find out how to disable of spoof it. As such, you're giving a unique identifier to every site you visit, attached to every purchase, or post.
What happens when you can't type in a quote from your favorite book without using l33t sp34k or being charged a quotation fee, despite it being allowed under fair use. See how you feel when you have to repurchase your digital music after a hard-drive crash because backups aren't allowed. Or when your digital camera compares everything in your pictures to a national copyrighted-work signatures database and refuses to let you take a picture of anything copyrighted, or any false positives. What about when a cracker cracks into a database of unique IDs of posters on Slashdot and other databases and correlates your real name (and job, etc) with some political views your boss won't like?
You'll be wishing you had an OS that could be tinkered with, to block CPU-IDs. A digital camera offloader that gave you the benefit of the doubt. Backup software that works at your command - not at the direction of some company. Even if I can't hack the kernel, I want an OS where someone in my position (a user, not a faceless corporation) can. I want something that can be tweaked until it serves me.
You (the generic consumer) aren't expected to ever examine the source, or even know what source is, but it's this freedom that will let you do what you want, when you want, without government/corporate oversite and permission requirements. Without open source, and open standards and protocols, we're powerless.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
newhoggy
·
· Score: 1
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS might be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
I don't think RMS is saying that he expects software to create cooperation and community. He only said non-free software... prohibits cooperation and community.
He was thus identifying the non-monetary price that is paid for by using certain types of software, not the purpose of software in general.
There is no purpose being denied.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
zsau
·
· Score: 1
(1) RMS doesn't write all the software. Allow him his opinion. (2) Perhaps you don't `get it'. After all, did you create the Free software movement?
-- Look out!
Re:RMS still doesn't get it...
by
newhoggy
·
· Score: 1
Think of it this way:
The "loss of community" cost of running non-free software is analogous to the pollution cost of running a coal power station. Non-free software have a tendency to take away people's access to freedom as much as coal power stations have a tendency take away people's access to clean air. It affects more than the immediate users involved.
I would not say community is the purpose of software any more than clean air is the purpose of a power station.
However, I would say using non-free software bears the cost of freedom/community.
It is important that these issues are raised because a lot of people would choose something for its purpose and not realise there is a hidden cost involved until they are in the thick of the smog.
...GNUArt, which charter have been proof-read by RMS has gotten 3 year old last Thursday !
-- Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'm afraid I will have to disagree with RMS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, I have to disagree. Evolution doesn't happen in phases like you are trying to explain it. All through mankind we have wanted to create something with only one thing in mind - it needs to be better than the previous solution. It doesn't matter what we're talking about - be it about making camp fire or cooking food. Mankind finds better solutions all the time but who is the on to judge which one is better than the other one. We can easily see that we just can't be objective so it turns out to be relatively pointless to talk about better innovation and how it effects on our everyday life. Evolutionary steps happen in our everyday life, think about you when you first learned to walk you thought wow this is better than crawling around well that you can call an 'evolutionary step' but if we are talking about manufacturing cars. Nothing evolutionary has happened since Henry Ford invented the motorized vehicle. It's been the same four wheels and the steering wheel combination even to this day. So, as a conclusion I would like to point out that it is quite useless to talk about evolutionary steps or 5 years, or five minutes. I mean, I wouldn't know the difference. Would you?
Re:THAT'S GNU/STALLMAN TO YOU, BITCH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gnu's Not linUx
Where to go party?
by
DrMorris
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There is a webpage for the 20th anniversary of the GNU project, but I can't see any planned events. Does anybody know if there are or have been some GNU parties around the world?
They need your contributions/donations to make the events possible. How about donating "free beer"?
-- Curiosity killed a cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
DAldredge
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What happend about the Savannah compromise? According to a LWN.net interview with FSF director Bradley Kuhn it appears that the FSF is NOT trying to figure out what really happened.
From Stallman's article: an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage
but some people LIKE accepting bondage....
Steve
Black & White vs shades of gray
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is the problem with RMS - he is too black and white.
If you have read his writings, he has fairly convincingly argued from first principles that software should be free. I, and many others, have read this and been inspired, because the world he ultimately wants to live in is about co-operation and sharing.
However, RMS often leaves people behind with his extreme on/off view. This sentance is pivotal:
Users cannot be free while using a non-free program
This is seriously distorting his already bent definition of "free". Freedom, as he defines it, can be applied to software (and with a bit of work books, music etc) and while you might argue with the word used it's a useful concept to have.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
I think a lot of people like the idea of free software, but we're willing to accept compromise. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Free software have inherantly good vibes because we're not imposing arbitrary limitations on what people can do with what we made (which is ultimately beneficial) but it's not like I'm a slave to the machine because I use the NVidia video drivers.
Yeah, I'd like to have free drivers, but Alan Cox himself has said he cannot think of a way to justify NVidia freeing their code - their fears of what would happen to their business if they did that are justified, he thinks. That's good enough for me. In this case, it just isn't practical. I don't like it, but that's life.
RMS sees it differently. That alienates people.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you want to sell something for $100, do you say "hey, i've got this for sale...only $100"?
hell no, cause your first offer is gonna be $40.
you'll barter down to $70 by the end of the deal.
if you WANT $100, then you sell it at $150.
your first offer will be $70. the deal closes at $100.
do you think you'll get more money by being humble and compromising.
hell no. you'll get your lunch eaten and whatever you were pushing for will be diluted to an unrecognizeable form.
it's his job to bust balls. let someone else play the good cop.
everyone plays their part.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
The thing is, though, that he seems to be proven correct every single time this comes up. Remember when BitKeeper restricted their license, effectively prohibiting anyone from contributing to the Linux kernel and, say, Subversion? Or when Darren Reed re-interpreted the license to IPF, forcing the OpenBSD team to remove it from their system? Or any of the other stories on Slashdot where a closed-source company lures users and developers with gratis copies of their new, shiny product - and then changes licensing terms once everyone's hooked?
The fact is that if you use non-Free software, then you are beholden to the whims of someone else. I always recommend Free software solutions to my employer when remotely possible, not to save a few pennies, but to ensure that we have the right to use our systems as we see fit, not as someone outside our business allows us to.
RMS is loud, obnoxious, and irritating to a lot of people. He's also right almost every time when he warns of the dangers of non-Free systems. Although you might not like the delivery, the message seems to be dead accurate.
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
sphealey
·
· Score: 1
Sorry I don't have mod points today - this should be a +5 or +6.
sPh
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 1
The fact is that if you use non-Free software, then you are beholden to the whims of someone else.
This is true of many things, not just software. Yes, if you use a service or product that can only be supplied by somebody else then you might get screwed. This is not great.
One solution (the most common one) is simply to be careful in whom you trust and who you don't. The solution RMS advocates is that nobody should ever place themselves in a situation where they could possibly be screwed - and he preaches this regardless of how practical it might be in any situation.
Remember, this is the guy who won't actually recommend any installable version of the GNU system (iow Linux) because none of them - not even Debian or Red Hat which don't include any non-free software by default - live up to his levels of purity.
My objection to Stallmans stance is not so much that I think he's wrong (a lot of what he says is valid) but that he shuns people if they dare use or recommend even one piece of proprietary software - in effect he wants people to use free software so badly he's happy to withhold information from them to "encourage them to make the right choice".
For instance, he won't name Ximian Connector because it might encourage people to use non-free software: this is a fundamentally condescending idea in my view, as it assumes that the listener could not make up their own mind based on their own priorities.
Or any of the other stories on Slashdot where a closed-source company lures users and developers with gratis copies of their new, shiny product - and then changes licensing terms once everyone's hooked?
One legal point - you can't retroactively change the license on a piece of software, as far as I'm aware. Sure, you can change the license on future releases if you own the copyright on that work, but this is as true for free software as anything else, so simply being GPLd does not mean you won't get screwed by dubious license clauses in future versions, it means you could fork the last acceptable version and use that instead.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
lawaetf1
·
· Score: 1
What do you expect. Richard is the messiah rapidly turning into a pariah. While I appreciate how dedicated he is to the free software model and philosophy, he seems to be relegating himself to the role of Chief Moralist of the open source movement -- a position few appreciate now and less will down the road. Instead of leading the GNU charge he now stands in the pulpit, condemns Microsoft, the open source movement (distinct from "free software") and gets irritable that people don't always include "GNU" when refering to the Linux-based OS. That, coupled with his pomposity (listened to him speak at MIT once and was a little shocked at how he treated the audience) makes one wonder why anyone is paying attention to him nowadays.
-- CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 1
My objection to Stallmans stance is not so much that I think he's wrong (a lot of what he says is valid) but that he shuns people if they dare use or recommend even one piece of proprietary software - in effect he wants people to use free software so badly he's happy to withhold information from them to "encourage them to make the right choice".
For RMS, Free Software is a religion. See also "Saint IGNUcious", the "Free Software Song" (referred to as a hymn), etc. This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but read the Jargon definition of "ha-ha-only-serious":
Applied especially to parodies, absurdities, and ironic jokes that are both intended and perceived to contain a possibly disquieting amount of truth, or truths that are constructed on in-joke and self-parody.
OK, looking at it from that point of view, what would happen if you asked a Catholic priest for a religious recommendation? Would he likely present the good points of Islam or Taoism for equal consideration?
I really don't intend to portray RMS as a religious zealot, but he does have some of the properties of one. Among them is the certainty that he is correct to the point that alternatives simply don't exist in his mindset. Why would you expect him to mention Ximian Connector when it is clearly outside of the framework where he lives, works, and evangelizes?
One legal point - you can't retroactively change the license on a piece of software, as far as I'm aware.
True, but you can deactivate license keys so that a version can no longer be used or installed, or make a new version wholly incompatible with older, freer versions, and only implement critical features, bugfixes and security patches on the new system. If a company distributes their software only over the Internet, and they cease allowing downloads of old versions of their programs, that software is effectively non-existent to users that lose their local copy.
In summary, for all my dislike of grandiose statements and ultimatums, I've yet to see RMS come out on the wrong side of history. The guy is almost always right, and I have a lot of respect for his opinion based on his track record.
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Sax+Maniac
·
· Score: 1
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I am both a user and author software, both free and non-free. But I think he fundamentally thinks as a programmer and forgets the legions of people who want to use the computer to accomplish some task, and want the computer to take off some of the burden.
Using only free software would restrict me. Let's say I had no interest in writing software. I frequently use a music typesetting program Finale, which has been under active development for close to 20 years. Nothing in the free sofware world even remotely comes close. I write and arrange a lot of music for various bands for fun, and music typesetting is small enough niche. If it weren't for commercial software, then I'd have nothing.
Word processors and email clients and text editors and fine to be free, because there's a huge need for it. There are lot of people to scratch that itch, and it significantly overlaps with the programmer's contingent. But try finding anything that your average programmer isn't going to need -- music-typesetting or what have you. Forget it.
I am perfectly willing and happy to spend money on it, because I can prepare music in a fraction of the time compared to pen and paper. (When you're writing for a 25-piece band or orchestra, the asstistance of a computer in invaluable in uncountable ways).
Yes, I am at the whims of the publishers. I can't copy their binaries. I can't read their source. They might drop it at the drop of a hat. Get this: I don't care.
I'd rather be non-free than spend two weeks copying out 50 six-page parts by hand and still have to make 5 rounds of error correction, after wasting the orchestra's time because a typo left out 10 bars in the French Horn 3 part. Over and over for each new piece I write.
To RMS and all other zealots I say: until I see how niche software can be free and as high-quality as their propietary counterparts, there is no way I am going to use exclusively free software.
-- I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank you. You have excellent examples. RMS isn't unreasonable. Myself, I don't consider him a prophet, in fact I mostly prefer BSD-licensed software.
History is the best example. Those projects that don't have commercial backing are the ones most likely to continue as reasonable. I'm curious to see how the XFree86 project evolves. So far, despite their liberal (non-GPL) license, the XFree86 project has beaten all of the properietary alternatives.
Similarly, *BSD has lived on, despite the proprietary (BSDi) alternatives, which have eventually contributed to the free variants, rather than the opposites!
It does seem that freedom has inherent advantages that don't require religious adherence. A very positive thing. Still, the consistent vision of RMS is important lest we forget why we chose free alternatives in the first place.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but it's not like I'm a slave to the machine because I use the NVidia video drivers.
Well, you've obviously had more success with the drivers than I've had. NVidia is about reap the rewards of closed-source software this evening as I trot down to Memory Express and buy a Matrox card. Their POS closed-source drivers are to credit for this. Bye-bye, proprietary software. Bye-bye revenue stream from the associated hardware.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Sax+Maniac
·
· Score: 1
You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.
LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does. Ask any serious musician who prepares real scores for a living, and they will laugh... if they even knew what it is.
It's perhaps good for producing small toy scores, but not for real work.
Does lilypond have a UI? No. It's a file format. Lilypond's "interface" it looks like the files that Finale saves.
Can Lilypond play back my score via MIDI for aural proofreading, the fastest way to catch mistakes before they hit the orchestra? Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score? Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments? Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?
These features are not just "candy", they are what makes preparing a score by computer hundreds of times faster than by hand. Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.
-- I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
You have to be joking, or you've proved my point.
I did neither, I just provided a link.
LilyPond doesn't do 1/10000th of what Finale does.
Can it automatically prepare parts from a 25-line score?
I don't know.
Can it automatically transpose an entire song to a different key? Can it cut and paste music between different instruments, automatically transposing for different instruments
I don't know, but this indicates that it can do something in the direction.
Can it take a five-part harmonized line and split it out into five separate staves?
As you may have noticed I know nothing about musical scores. I have noticed you know little about LilyPond. I suggest you read the manual.
Currently, free software does not fill this niche, and seems likely never to.
Can you predict the future?
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Sax+Maniac
·
· Score: 1
Can you prove that number, or are you just pulling out of where most such numbers seem to come from? Anyway they don't seem to be very fond of Finale(R).
Of course I have not counted the features, it is hyperbole. Their review of Finale only touches on its output, and gleefully ignores how fast it is to enter the music, which is the time-consuming part. Plus, they are wrong on two points:
1) They turned off all the automatic layout options, which only a rank newbie would do. I can produce output far nicer than that without much effort.
2) In the Real World, notation does not have to be perfect works of art. It needs to be legible and accurate enough so that it can be played correctly. It needs to be produced on schedule. Until recently, most working music was hand-copied, and difficult to read. If I can copy out a score 100 times faster, at 90% quality, vs. no faster at 100% quality, guess which wins, by a landslide? Most music isn't written by royalty like Bach, and doesn't get the hand-engraving that the classics do. That's because Bach was a working musician back then, and over time his scores became classics and worthy of republishing. Take a look at a score from the 1800s some day, what working composers wrote, and working conductors used, and you'll see how amazingly illegible they are.
Hey mister "serious musician who prepares real scores for a living" what do you think about LilyPond?
These testimonials are junk. Nothing there states that the person produces a lot of large scores. In fact, you have three musicians who are not composers nor arrangers nor copyists, plus a few random hackers that I could not care less about.
Note that none of them say "Hi, I work for Sandy DeCrescent music contracting, and we just produced the scored for Harry Potter XXVI played by the London Symphony. We produce all our scores with lilypond, and we're far more productive than we were in Finale! By example, Our last 400-page score only took 10 hours in lilypond, whereas in Finale it took us 200 hours." That would a telling testimonial, not "hey I like it!"
Go ahead, call up JoAnn Kane or DeCrescent or any other big-name music contractor and ask what they use.
That sound a bit superficial doesn't it? Ask any serious mathematician what they write their papers in.
Irrelvant. What a mathematician needs, and what a composer needs are completely different. Latex is written by a math guy on tenure for other math guys on tenure. A math person can grasp the nested structures and indirection in lilypond's computer-language-like syntax, where an average person cannot.
Entered music can also be converted to MIDI output. The performance is good enough for proof-hearing the music for errors.
Note the words "can be"; it's not integrated. I can play it at the touch of a single button, muting certain tracks when needed. I can spot-check a single voicings by clicking on just on the chord I want to hear, and it plays just that chord, ignoring all the other instruments.
They also admit they don't do swing, articulations, and many other things Finale does. I mean, this is just off the top of my head, I can find more if I dig.
My point still stands: free software is nice, but I want to get things done, and sometimes propietary software is better.
-- I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
Of course I have not counted the features, it is hyperbole. Their review of Finale only touches on its output
It's not a review of Finale, it's a review of Finale's output, it also doesn't stand alone, it's part of a discussion about (drum roll) output quality.
and gleefully ignores how fast it is to enter the music, which is the time-consuming part.
I have never stated that inputing in LilyPond is fast. I think that the authors do not talk about it, because it's not goal of their project. Their goal is quality. Also a high quality back-end does not disallow an "efficient" front-end. Consider TeX. TeX has some of finest typesetting output there is, especial for mathematics. Few people would consider writing in pure TeX efficient, many would argue that LaTeX is faster than WYSIWYG GUIs. People using LyX or AUCTex should be able to outperform WYSIWYG GUIs, when using well defined layouts, because they don't have to concern themselves with formating. XML front-ends to (La)TeX should be able improve on that by using on the fly validation. Building from the ground (quality back-end) up should be preferred to building from top (quality interface, not necessary graphical) down.
And don't get me started on being faster with familiar tools and how that leads to vendor lock in...
They turned off all the automatic layout options, which only a rank newbie would do. I can produce output far nicer than that without much effort.
It was made with all of the default settings. Right there on the top.
In the Real World, notation does not have to be perfect works of art.
Where do they say it should? Is better output a bad thing to strive for? Do you use crappy fonts for your daily browsing?
Most music isn't written by royalty like Bach, and doesn't get the hand-engraving that the classics do.
How dare they use computers to make more music look better?!
Go ahead, call up JoAnn Kane or DeCrescent or any other big-name music contractor and ask what they use.
Why should I? I take your word for it.
Latex is written by a math guy on tenure for other math guys on tenure.
That would be TeX. LaTeX is the TeX "front-end" for the "average" user.
Note the words "can be"; it's not integrated. I can play it at the touch of a single button
Can be... Made better, faster and with "the touch of a single". Free software is not limited by what it can do at this moment or what the authors choose to make it do.
My point still stands: free software is nice
Free software ranges from excellent to unusable, nice is in there too.
but I want to get things done, and sometimes propietary software is better.
And sometimes free software gets things done -- software gets things done.
If getting thing done is all that makes proprietary "better" than free, there can be no overall winner. Individual packages can be better by this criteria, but not the movements themselves.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
Sax+Maniac
·
· Score: 1
I see on your web site you use GIMP.
Telling a musician they should write music in lilypond with a text editor is similar telling a graphic artist not to use that silly Photoshop, or even GIMP -- he should be be writing PostScript code with a text editor.
Now, most pros prefer Photoshop over GIMP for lots of reason I don't pretend to understand. But I do understand why they don't program in PostScript. I've done it, it's nasty. It's unnecessary.
There currently is no GIMP-level quality free software for music typesetting.
If getting thing done is all that makes proprietary "better" than free, there can be no overall winner. Individual packages can be better by this criteria, but not the movements themselves.
I never said at any point said propietary is better than free. I said that free and propietary sofware should coexist, because there are current needs that free software alone does not fill right now. I have an example of need that I have that's not met by free software, but is by propietary. It's my need. You cannot judge what I need, like I judge cannot lilypond is not right for other people. This is why I support both.
There are some people who don't think this is the case, they think that no software should be propietary. That's what I'm disagreeing with.
-- I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
Telling a musician they should write music in lilypond with a text editor is similar telling a graphic artist not to use that silly Photoshop, or even GIMP -- he should be be writing PostScript code with a text editor.
A hobbyist should use whatever he likes best. There are quite few that like to use POV-Ray, it's not quite PostScript, but it's not that far either.
There currently is no GIMP-level quality free software for music typesetting.
I still say that it depends what quality you measure by.
There are some people who don't think this is the case, they think that no software should be propietary. That's what I'm disagreeing with.
There are also some people who think that all software should be proprietary, so why is your some of this and some of that point any more walid?
I personly think that both will allways exist for various different reasons, but I still hope that proprietary software will be marginal enough not to get in the way of cooperation and freedom.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't worry about it man. It's just Slashdork groupthink. Nobody in the sane world believes in any of this bullshit about corporations controlling citizens.
God bless Richard Stallman for giving us GNU. God Bless Linus Torvalds for making it usable.
-- No todo lo que es oro brilla
Re:RMS and Linus
by
FrankoBoy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You sir are right on the spot.
Trolls and jokes aside, today would be a good occasion for everyone in here to recognize what kind of changes and good ideas the Free Software movement - and then the Open Source movement, too - brought. However obtuse RMS can be nowadays about some stuff ( I mostly agree with him but he seems to diminish freedom of choice too much ), you just have to recognize the vision and hard work this man did ; here's one hell of a dedicated person, and rightly so. That's the kind of passion that enabled Linus Torvalds to follow through as well, giving FLOSS the enormous possibilities it has today and permitting everyone to develop together better tools for a better tomorrow.
Realize that open source software is the way of the future ; anything else would be an intolerable regression. The fight for not letting that happen really started 20 years ago ; my deepest respect to Richard Matthew Stallman. ( I won't care for stupid replies. )
God bless Richard Stallman for giving us GNU.
God Bless Linus Torvalds for making it usable.
Indeed I'd have to agree with you entirely there. And thanks to the antics of various companies out there, over the last couple of years, I've come from a position of not fully agreeing with what RMS said in that article, to the point now where I now agree 2000%.
The propriety software moguls should look to their strategy, in their narrow attempts to just grab bucks, even if software quality and other issues, such as user freedom, suffer, their loosing more and more people. But then I no longer want them to get a clue, as I want people to get the point, to radicalise and join the FOSS cause.
-- in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that:-D Francis Smit
Re:RMS and Linus
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The GNU tools and libraries (e.g. gcc, glibc, emacs, bison) were used under other OS's such as Solaris before Linux came along.
Of course Linux (the distributions, not the kernel) wouldn't exist without GNU; but the point is that the GNU software (gcc, emacs) didn't need Linux to become useful and/or usable.
So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
emil
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I read today that Win98 is nearly 25% of the desktop clients on the internet.
If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out.
Win98 is not open, and now everyone who drank the coolaid is beginning to feel the effects of the arsenic.
Commercial software is always a ring in your nose. The GPL can also be a ring, but it is lighter and the developing entity generally does not hold the chain as tightly.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Bullshit. Red Hat (the most popular distro) is dropping support, and nobody has stepped up.
Debian stable hasn't been updated in years.
Sourceforge is *full* of projects that were aborted or stillborn.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
revividus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Red Hat (the most popular distro) is dropping support, and nobody has stepped up.
Uh, actually Progeny is offering support for Redhat. If you want an up-to-date debian, you use unstable, which isn't. And most aborted sourceforge projects I've seen seem to have been aborted due to lack of interest. So what?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Bullshit.
What a funny name you have !
> Red Hat (the most popular distro) is dropping > support, and nobody has stepped up.
Progeny has.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
AKnightCowboy
·
· Score: 1
Win98 is not open, and now everyone who drank the coolaid is beginning to feel the effects of the arsenic.
So the cheap bastards should upgrade. It's less than $100 to upgrade to WindowsXP Home which is a hundred times better and more stable, based on the stable NT kernel, etc. Why should Microsoft support 7 year old products when there are newer better alternatives available that aren't that expensive? I don't see you guys bitching that they're not supporting DOS 3.3 anymore.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 2, Funny
What's currently broken in Win98 that needs fixing?
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Progeny has stepped up and is offering support for Red Hat.
The latest stable release of Debian is 3.0r2. The last update to this release was made on November 21st, 2003.
Do you have any other stupid comments to make?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Debian states very clearly that the stable releases have a cycle of about 1 and a half years. They are constantly testing software for release in the stable section. Stable is just that, tested until it won't break.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why should Microsoft support 7 year old products when there are newer better alternatives available that aren't that expensive?
Because the expensive part is not the software but the new hardware it requires. Maybe you've got enough money to upgrade your hardware and software every few years, but a lot of people in this world don't. It's hard to convince someone on a tight budget he has to throw away a perfectly good machine because the software upgrade would turn it into a snail.
Or are you suggesting people should run XP on a 200Mhz 64MB machine? There still are a lot of sub-Ghz machines around, especially in the not-so-rich countries of this world.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's a great illustration of the true cost of Windows 98. Instead of $100 as advertised, it's really $100 every three years for upgrades for the rest of your life. And thats not including hardware requirement inflation, replacement of third-party apps that are broken by the OS upgrades, dataloss due to viruses, etc. Thanks for so clearly revealing the true cost of Windows 98!
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
zarr
·
· Score: 1
You don't get it. Free Software is not about cost, its about Freedom!
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
"So the cheap bastards should upgrade."
MCSE Right???
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its suckage is still fairly high. I was hoping they'd fix some of the suck before they retired it.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
sharkey
·
· Score: 1
the stable NT kernel
Where can one obtain this?
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmm . . . and what's the true cost of MacOS X? $129 every year? How about linux? Free? But don't all these stupid kernel recompiles take time?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
daviddennis
·
· Score: 1
The true cost of Windows 98 is whatever it costs to deal with the viruses, the worms, the spyware and the sluglike performance.
Unfortunately, as others have said, the big cost in money is new hardware. On the other hand, if you consider that only now - six years after Windows98 was born - are we removing support, it's really one new version and new hardware every six years. A cheap new PC with Windows XP is about $500, so you're talking about under $100 a year for everything.
Not so bad, all things considered.
But there are still viruses and worms and spyware and sluggish performance to think about.
I don't think Windows is unreasonably priced in terms of money. In terms of human misery, it's more expensive than any other computing solution.
Money's not the problem here.
D
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
JCholewa
·
· Score: 1
> What's currently broken in Win98 that needs fixing?
Resource handling. Regardless of how much physical RAM you put into your machine, Windows 98 reserves the same small amount for system resources. Programs that stay in memory (like MSIE, Mozilla, MS Office 97, OpenOffice.org) all the time often hog the resources, and when there's no more GDI resources (for example), you start to notice widgets and icons disappearing. And then your system crashes.
In any decent OS (and I count Windows 2000 in that class), Mozilla is a pretty fantastic program. But version 1.4 had a small resource leak issue. Only in Win9x/ME, all-day usage of the program will often end in disaster as resources get eaten more and more.
Naturally, the easy fix (other than solutions like "use a competing product") would be to upgrade to Mozilla 1.5 or higher. Even more naturally, the people here at my job only consider "Microsoft" and "Netscape" to be respectable vendors of web browsers, so Mozilla (even though Netscape is just a Mozilla clone with a couple preinstalled plugins) isn't an option. And, of course, Netscape is no longer being developed (even though developing it requires minimal effort, given that it's a skin and an installation wrapper for an already-existing project). And, yes, the last Netscape is based on the earlier version of Mozilla, the one that has the leak.
But none of this would be a problem if you could just simply edit a registry setting to increase the maximum allocation for GDI resources in Windows 98.
Bastards.
--
-JC
Programmer (Win32, Linux, Qt, Perl, Zaurus, Game Boy Advance)
http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?coding/main
PS: To their credit, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft did actually increase the resource limit when they moved from Win95 to Win98.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 1
If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out.
Just out of curiousity, is there any commercial company that sells support for a 1997-era Linux kernel?
Or would they just tell you to upgrade to a more recent one?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Tassach
·
· Score: 1
Will WinXP run on my ancient P-75 with 64M of RAM? Win98 will. An old machine running an old OS still does everything it did the day it was purchased, and probably a good bit more. If my current system does everything I need it to do, why should I upgrade? Why should I spend $100 for something that gives me zero benefit?
I have a client who runs exactly two applications: WordPerfect 5.1 and a custom billing application -- both DOS apps. When her old 286 finally died, I set her up with a new Athlon box with all the bells & whistles. After dicking around with NT and 2000 (and wasting dozens of hours fixing stupid windowsims for her), we finally decided to set up a DOS partition so she can run the two applications that she actually cares about without major headaches. Guess what? She's happier and more productive now that she doesn't have to deal with Windows.
-- Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've been running Linux since 1997 and haven't needed to compile ANYTHING yet. Those who choose to compile can. Those who don't just download binaries, just like the Windows folks do, but less frequently. So yes, your estimates for Mac OS are about right, but the time RedHat spends compiling my kernel shouldn't be taken into account any more than the amount of time Microsoft spends compiling yours.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
banzai51
·
· Score: 1
You can't possibly be suggesting that someone who can't afford new hardware can afford to call Microsoft for support, are you? Micrsoft does not support their stuff for free. If you call them, you will have to pay them. MS pushed the onus on the OEMs to do support. Since the hardware in question is definately out of support the only alternatives are to call Microsoft and pay a fee, or turn to the web. And just because MS dropped support doesn't mean Joe's Computer Shack will drop support. Here's a nickle, buy a clue.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if you can blame Win98 for resource leaks of applications. (I'd class those as unshippable or at least critical bugs--a standard that I apply to my own software. No excuse for it.)
Win98 has a number of problems, but many of those are design flaws/limitations. It's like saying that a Yugo is a lousy sportscar. For the current applications that have been running for years, it's a stable platform. It won't run the latest and greatest as well, but neither will my Explorer-85.
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Absolutely agree.
Hey, it's not the computer, nor the OS that counts to most users - it's the application(s) they use.
However, you'd better buy some spare motherboards and printers that are compatible with her current one - it won't be long until parallel printer ports won't be supported anymore, and DOS apps also have the nasty tendency to be a bit limited with printer driver support.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
IM6100
·
· Score: 1
Will WinXP run on my ancient P-75 with 64M of RAM?
That's a good question. But how relevant is it? You presumably have the install media for the Win98 you run on that machine. Nobody waved a magic wand and 'expired' it.
Why would you need to upgrade to WinXP on that machine? Because of rhetoric on slashdot that snidely refers to koolaide and arsenic?
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If they want to keep the same software and the same hardware, how are upgrade considerations at all relevant? If it works for them, let them enjoy what they have.
RMS = William Wallace?
by
NixterAg
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
I don't think Mr. Stallman defines freedom in the same way I do. I don't think Mr. Stallman's concept of morality is anywhere near mine either. I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally unnacceptable. I think Mr. Stallman is a bit out of touch with reality and with his importance to the world.
The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral.
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally unnacceptable.
To believe that non-free software is morally acceptable, is to believe that it is acceptable to use force to prevent users from sharing or making changes to software.
I think it's worth seriously considering that this may be a false proposition.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Your concept of "importance to the world" is probably not the same as mine, but I think if you lined up all the people in the world in order of their importance to the world, RMS would be closer to the front of the line than most of us.
Non-free software is morally unacceptable in the same way, and for the same reasons, as slavery is morally unacceptable.
-- Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
bsd+troll
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Really? Slavery is unacceptable because all people are created equal, and no man can possess another man. That doesn't exactly support "liberating software." Do you feel that it is an inherit right of software to not be enslaved? Then, do all of the Bill of Rights apply to software? Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to assemble peacefully? Would you bring chargest against software for inciting a riot? How would you interrogate it?
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
iSwitched
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral."
...And this can happen quite easily, as more developers and managers realize that open-source and free-software are not bound at the hip.
I think many would agree that open-source can be an extremely effective development methodology - I have benefitted both personally and professionally from it, on a 'binary' level, as well as from the freedom to interact with other developers, many more talented than myself, thus learning along the way.
But it is not the panacea for all software development, there continues to be a place for proprietary projects. I have to believe this for now, because in my reality, much of my income is derrived from such projects. The true benefit of the more visible products of open-source, Linux, as well as various web and application servers, database servers, and the myriad supporting libraries available, is the formation of a core platform. This platform has and will continue to become a standard upon which other purpose-specific applications may be developed. Having such a common, mature, and well-tested platform is an amazing accomplishment that speeds the development of everything built upon it, but these purpose-specific applications (business/accounting software, scientific packages, art/music packages, etc.) will, for the near term, continue to benefit from their commercial nature.
I also find a core hypocracy in the view of 'free-software' as delimited by the GPL. One that, for me at least, colors Stallman's whole movement as something of a religion. I refer specifically to the requirement that derrivative works must also be released under the GPL. While I personally, on a moral and ethical level, support contributing back any and all modifications to open-source works, is making it mandatory actually free as in freedom? Or is it merely an attempt to make software free as in beer?
To me, this aspect of the GPL is as if the US Constitution's first amendment was rewritten to establish freedom of religion, so long as the religion is Christian. It gives you wide-latitude, yet still constrains you to a 'sandbox' of known proportions.
The argument for this element of the GPL is that it maintains the freedom of the code, barring it from ever being 'closed' -- but this argument is false. Once released, code cannot be 'closed'. Sure it can be used by people or businesses that you don't like, and hidden from the view of those business' customers. But it cannot be magically erased from the brains of those that have seen it, nor can the rights of the original authors be magically erased somehow (at least under current copyright). Further, the continued use of BSD-licensed, Apache-licensed, and other similar licensed code in both open and closed projects shows that licenses granting 'absolute' freedom of use do work.
I can only conclude that the purpose of the GPL is to further an agenda to which I do not subscribe.
And so in my pesonal and professional life, I make a clean separation between open-source, which I firmly beleive is a proven and tested methodolgy and a genuine social phenomenon, and 'free-software', which for me can only be defined by the absoute freedom to do anything you want with the code, and not by the current definitions of the 'movement'.
-- "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The open source community is much better off...
That's the core of your misunderstanding. Open Source is not the same as Free. The concepts are orthogonal. While Open Source is about pragmatism, Free Software is about morality, and it's not reasonable to expect arguments about practicality to influence someone's moral beliefs.
The ideals you mention belong to the Open Source movement, and your thoughts will be most welcome there. RMS and his co-believers will not agree with you, ever, and you need to know the differences between the groups to understand why.
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Non-free software is morally unacceptable in the same way, and for the same reasons, as slavery is morally unacceptable"
You really think it is moraly equivalent to enslaving you if I give you some software I created, but not the source code? Sorry, but that's completely whacked.
Yes, I do. If I become dependent upon the software and only you have the source code, then I become dependent upon you to maintain and improve it -- I cannot do these things myself, and I cannot hire another person to do them for me. If I become dependent upon software where I have access to the source, then even if I am not capable of working on it myself, at least I can be reasonably sure that I can find someone willing to do the job for the right price. And, crucially, I retain the option of learning to do it for myself.
It is this idea of dependence on another entity that makes closed-source software so abhorrent. If I can never do it for myself, then I am not free. I bake my own bread, and I grow my own vegetables. I could generate my own electricity but it works out cheaper just to keep feeding the meter. But I would never be able to write a programme to parse Microsoft's proprietary files -- not for want of programming ability nor equipment, but simply because of one company's pig-headed refusal to let me. This is what enrages me so about the closed-source world.
The moral might well be "don't get dependent on software", but access to the source code can only lower anyone's level of dependence on a particular piece of software simply by permitting the creation of choice.
No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any other way forcing you to use my software in the first place; should you choose to use it, you may stop doing so at any time; whether you choose to use it or not, you may continue to: come and go as you please, own property, live where you want, be paid for your work, etc.; whether you choose to use my software or not, you youself will not be legally, practically, or in any way my property. In short, nothing about your situation will have anything to do with slavery.
Being dependent on someone else is not being owned by them; particularly if you're dependent on them by your own revocable choice.
You might not like software you don't have the source to, and choose not to use it. But there's nothing unethical about me choosing not to give you the source of a program I wrote. You have no right to demand that I involutarily surrender to you the fruits of my labors. That would be, well...
No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any other way forcing you to use my software in the first place; should you choose to use it, you may stop doing so at any time
They say the same things about cigarettes and other addictive drugs. The point is that if you start using software you are likely to become dependent on it without noticing it -- until you try to give up. That's how it goes with nicotine, and how it goes with heroin. "Go on, have a drag on this! It'll make you look sexy!" No gun, sure, but there doesn't need to be in the beginning..... by the time you've learned not to cough your guts out, your body is already chemically dependent upon the nicotine and the baccy barons own you.
[t]here's nothing unethical about me choosing not to give you the source of a program I wrote. You have no right to demand that I involutarily surrender to you the fruits of my labors.
I am suggesting that it is absolutely unethical for you not to share your work with others, and that the fruits of any human being's labour belong to all of humanity -- not just the person that did the work.
Well, I wouldn't equate being a smoker with being a slave of the tobbaco companies; you may be addictted to their product, but they don't own you (and you did choose to smoke in the first place. While deceptive advertising for an addictive product may be despicable, it really isn't a gun to your head.)
I am suggesting that it is absolutely unethical for you not to share your work with others, and that the fruits of any human being's labour belong to all of humanity -- not just the person that did the work.
Aha! The source of our differences is clear then. Well, I can respect your ideals, though I disagree with them. I'm afraid I'm pretty well convinced that if I do the work, I deserve to own the product of that work. I'm so used to free software advocates rabidly insisting they are not communists, it didn't occur to me you were arguing from exactly that position.
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
floateyedumpi
·
· Score: 1
What you're failing to envision is the following rather likely scenario:
1. Thanks to the support of hundreds of developers, free
software application ABC is developing rapidly, and
quickly becoming the best application in its niche.
2. Company XYZ takes ABC, and in short order integrates it
into a proprietary product they call ABC++. They add
technical support, a fancy new interface, and improve
the speed. XYZ aggressively markets ABC++, giving it
away in the back of magazines. It can write the same
kinds of files and accept the same type of network
connections that ABC does, which serves to speed up its
adoption.
3. ABC++ gains in popularity. Every time the hard-working
ABC developers fix a bug or add a feature, XYZ quickly
integrates it into ABC++ and releases a new version.
ABC++ is rapidly becoming a nicer piece of software
than ABC, since XYZ relies on the work of its own paid
programmers in addition to the hundreds of ABC
developers.
4. Motivated by its controlling board to increase profits,
XYZ decides to increase the price of the now wildly
popular ABC++ program to $100. To avoid a backlash of
users "downgrading" to the still-free ABC program, they
change the internal file formats and network connection
protocols ABC++ uses to be incompatible with ABC.
Users must make a choice: pay for the nicer ABC++ with
its large base of installed users, or go back to ABC,
with its dwindling user base.
5. ABC developers, aware that their user base is about to
be stolen, reverse engineer the file formats and
network protocols used by the new ABC++ and release a
compatible version. XYZ threatens suit appealing to
the DCMA, since the new protocols made use of some
trivial encryption. ABC loses developers, and more and
more users adopt XYZ's product.
6. Five years later ABC is dead. It cannot interoperate
with any modern applications, and has very few users.
XYZ has effectively plucked ABC from the world of free
software and used it to make their fortune.
7. Five years later, the over-confident and now complacent
XYZ management makes critical errors, allowing company
QRS to surpass it with a new competing program. XYZ
declares bankruptcy, and ABC++ is no-longer supported.
No source is available; both ABC++, and ABC, are dead.
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
iSwitched
·
· Score: 1
It is the very nature of freedom that individuals and companies may not always act in ways that you or I consider fair, or even ethical. Freedom always comes with this price, whether it be the tradeoffs inherent in choosing individual freedoms over societies security from 'terrorism' or in the ways we distrubute products.
In this case, XYZ has unquestionably acted poorly, however they have not violated any laws, and ultimately succumbed to competitive pressures which, in the end resulted in a more popular product being embraced by the customers of QRS.
Such is the life cycle of all things, companies live and die, as do software projects.
One could just as easily argue that XYZ would contribute back to the project, creating a better product for all. The license by which code is distributed will not stop a company that is bound and determined to act improperly. Clearly your example is an extreme case based upon the actions of a certain company that we both know. But there are plenty of examples of companies with proprietary products that give back to their 'communities'. I appreciate the thought of your argument, however, I remain unswayed.
Finally, make no mistake, as a believer in an author's rights to decide the fate of their works, I fully support a decision to release code under the GPL, it is the invocation of the concept of 'freedom' made by this license that I take exception to, not the individual authors right to further their beliefs in the way that they license their own work.
-- "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Re:RMS = William Wallace?
by
Perky_Goth
·
· Score: 1
Very, very good points... i was hoping someone would prove you wrong, but apparently you're completly right. Thank you for writing that. Great nick, BTW.
The first line reads: "It was twenty years ago today that I quit my job at MIT to begin developing a free software operating system, GNU."
Did anyone else start thinking up new lyrics to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band when they read that first sentence? Perhaps a new Free Software Song is in the making....
-- There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:First line...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So in 20 years, he's accomplished... nothing? And still getting paid?
Okay, I can't resist (my apologies in advance for slant rhymes):
It was twenty years ago today Richard Stallman quit M-I-Tay He's been working on the code for Hurd And growing one hellacious beard So let me introduce to you The father of all things GNU Richard Stallman's libre-software band!
-- On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Hmm, I guess this would go better with the 2.4.24 release.
It was thirteen years ago today Col. Torvalds let the source away. We've been going in and out of drives but we guarantee to raise uptimes. So may I introduce to you the hack we've known for all these years Col. Torvalds' Linux slash GNU band!
We're Col. Torvalds' Linux slash GNU band, we hope you will enjoy the code. Col. Torvalds' Linux slash GNU band, just hack and let the evening go!
Col. Torvalds' Linux Col. Torvalds' Linux Col. Torvalds' Linux slash GNU band!
It's wonderful to post here, it's certainly no troll. You're such a lovely userbase, we'd like to merge your code with us, we'd love to take you/home.
I don't really want to freeze the code, but I thought you might like to know this release is going to fix the root and we want you all to patch for good.
So let me introduce to you the one and only Billy's fear Col. Torvalds' Linux slash GNU band!
-- Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
But that would be a derived work of a non-Free song!
a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Stallman says:
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Isn't it odd that two apparently unrelated, or even diametrically opposed, groups can have such similar sentiments as their "mission statements"? I guess some will claim that my paraphrasing is optimistic or even naieve, but I believe it, and I believe a lot of others do as well.
So, we have now a view of Stallman working on free software as a microcosmic version of the U.S. working on world freedom. Discuss!
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pick yourself up a copy of Steppenwolf's track "Monster" which discusses America and freedom and see if it resonates for you now in 2004 as much as it did back in the Vietnam era of spreading freedom.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
That's an assertion only. In order for me to accept it, you have to present a justification, too. Discuss!
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
bain
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA. The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example. Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard, not when they are recounted and recounted to fit somebody elses view of how the results should have been (yes I do believe that was a direct alteration to change the outcome of the election).
-- Sanity is a majority vote.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
elodan
·
· Score: 1
OK, but this assumes that you believe the stated motives for the current bout of US expansionism.
I tend more to the belief that rather than protecting freedom, the US Govt. is protecting the Americn way of life.
The two are not necessarily synonymous, and to think that they are is sheer, dangerous arrogance.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Stiletto
·
· Score: 1
The USA philosophy is more like:
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the effects of overconsumption is to spread understanding of the value of money--to teach more consumers to recognize the fiscal unacceptability of being too poor to buy products. Consumers who value money are, in the long term, corporations' best and essential defense.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just why is it that you hate America so much?
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since when has criticism become hatred?
You're taking Bush's "If you're not with us you're against us" speech too seriously. It's affecting your thinking skills.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
YellowYahoo
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand, at least you can count on Stallman believing what he says.
--
160 more wasted bits
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Recently exposed plan ?
You mean British suspicions that Americans were contemplating possibility of such action ? Are you always that "truthful" or only when it supports your cause ?
"Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard, not when they are recounted and recounted to fit somebody elses view of how the results should have been (yes I do believe that was a direct alteration to change the outcome of the election)."
Oh so you are claiming that we are too stupid and too uninformed to vote and therefore need an enlightened folks like you ? One could spend a lot of time trying to counter this sort of argument but I think these three words will do just as well. Go fuck yourself.
Who gives a fuck if you don't like the direction US is heading ?
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
This "prediction" was wrong -- you're at +4 Insightful (of course). Feigning disregard for Karma is a well-known way to get it. Frankly, I found your post to be much more confusing than flaming. I don't think there's a single coherent, relevant thought in it. I think you have to make some sense to flame.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
Who is "them"? Citizens of the US? You think we only want money? Then why do we spend so much on security and defense, much of which goes to help others in the world?
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA.
Huh? Improving the standard of living in the USA is bad, why?
The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example.
Who exposed this alleged plan how and when? Please share more on this exciting topic.
Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
Well, you did. But do you realize that consumers in the US are allowed to start "corporate companies"? And, as much as I dislike parts of the DMCA, the goal is reasonable. Corporations should have some legal protection against those who would steal from them. Dontcha think?
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
Huh? Doesn't something have to make sense to be "insightful"?
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
Really?! So, how will this happen?
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Oh, that is scary. If you ask me, (or even by definition), the whole world is rules by the rich and influential (influential = having influence, after all). And why is this bad? To me, it serves as a nice way to encourage people to become rich and influential. Should we let the homeless and insane have the biggest say in what goes on so that we can encourage people to aspire to homelessness and insanity?
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard, not when they are recounted and recounted to fit somebody elses view of how the results should have been (yes I do believe that was a direct alteration to change the outcome of the election).
Oh, I get it now. You're a Democrat. Given the silliness that was the debate yesterday I can understand how it has rubbed off on you. What is really amazing is that some mods gave you points for that nonsensical drivel.
Now, this will be taken as flamebait. Just watch!
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
radish
·
· Score: 1
That will only be a valid comparison when people start getting shot for using Windows.
Seriously - this land of the free stuff is getting old. I arrived in the US the other day, and as a non-citizen I got fingerprinted and photographed. So for the first time in my life my biometric data is now in some database, being automatically matched against my credit card records, travel arrangements, phone records, library usage and god knows what else. Man do I feel free.
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
slackr
·
· Score: 0
I'm not going to flame this because a lot of your criticism is valid. However, the startling truth is that the USA was founded in the 18th century by wealthy colonizers, some of them slave owners, all raised in a British society that was severely more stratified socially and economically than the USA is today.
The truth is that the USA is actually *less* ruled by the rich than ever before -- but work remains to be done and there will always be resistance from the corporate folks you've mentioned. Also keep in mind that even a few decades ago we didn't have a news media pervasive enough to keep us up on all of the latest abuses, but you can be sure they were there.
True, there is legislation that threatens our civil liberties and perhaps that of others around the world, but ours is a nation where people like you and I can continue to voice our disent until we are either heard or convinced otherwise, and we can only hope that the struggle for liberty and equality can *continue* to get better. I don't think everything's perfect in this country right now, but I'm not ready to call it quits either.
--
* Please do not read my signature.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
EinarH
·
· Score: 1
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
That's just nice words and a fine speach. In the real world it's more like this:
The most effective way to strengthen our economy for the future is to spread understanding of our value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-american thinkink. People who value our values are, in the long term, our best and essential defense, as customers and trade partners.
If you look at current US foregin policy with unilateralism, anti-UN, anti-cooperation and dictating of former friends, the last paragraph matches much better with reality.
The current administaratin values military power more than agreements and diplomacy.
--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
Ever heard of lobbying? Think about how many people commit copyright infringement, and yet copyright law and penalties are getting stronger and stronger. Funny that. It's almost as if the organisations with the money are listened to and the general public with the votes are not.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
I got fingerprinted and photographed.
So? So did my wife. It hasn't hurt her yet. And I don't see how it will hurt you. On the contrary, it should reduce the number of false positive matches to known/wanted persons.
This new policy of fingerprinting and photographing immigrants and visitors to the US has gotten a lot of media play, but I have yet to see one blurb even try to explain any reason that it's a problem of any sort for any one. You sound like you have a problem with it, so tell me -- how does photography and fingerprinting make you less free?
Note: if you think photographs or fingerprints steal your soul or something, you could just not enter the US. Isn't it nice to have choices?
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Luscious868
·
· Score: 1
That is exactly why PACS and other such political organizations (read special interests) exist in the first place. That is how the citizens can persuade government. We've got to band together and form groups that will fight for our various points of view. Take the NRA for instance. The NRA primarily consists of average citizens. They money used by that organization to influence government consists primarily membership dues and members who make additional donation. Say what you will about the organization, but what cannot be denied is that is a very organized group of citizens that has been very, very effective in getting politicians to listen.
My point is that the only way the average citizen is every going to get their point across in the USA is to band together with other like-minded individuals and raise money. The more people who join and the more money you raise the more likely it is that your views will be heard. If you have a large organization with millions and millions of voting members the politicians are going to listen to what you've got to say. If you're an organization capable of raising a lot of money the politicians are going to listen to what you've got to say. If you can do both, they are really going to listen. Therein lies the power of the NRA. Not only do they have millions of voting members, but they are also able to raise a ton of money.
If we are serious about combating the DMCA and other such legislation we need to band together. The EFF seems to me to be a pretty good organization that generally comes down on the right side of many of these issues. If you really care about said issues, join the EFF today and donate some money! If everyone who bitches and moans about the copyright laws would join the EFF and make some kind of donation I can guarantee you that it would have a lot political influence than it presently has. Imagine if it had millions of voting members paying millions of dollars in membership dues. It could then publish a list of politicians who back the opposing point of view and make it clear that it's going to give the list to voting members and let them know what their real record on consumer rights is. That's would make a lot of politicians turn their head. It could then use the money raised to buy television commercials to educate the general public on these issue, recruit more members, and to communicate our position on copyright laws to politicians the way the NRA is able to communicate their position on guns.
The bottom line is that you need to get off your butt and do something. If all you do is bitch and moan on slashdot you are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Ordinary citizens can make a difference but we have to do it by banding togather. Only then will we be able to exert the influence necessary (e.g. enough registered voters screaming loudly enough to get noticed and/or vast amounts of money that can be used to advance our collective take on the issues) to make the politicans listen.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
Your version sounds pretty good to me, except for your failure to capitalize American. See, since we Americans think we're doing the Right Thing, we view opposition to the Right Thing as the Wrong Thing. It's really pretty simple. In some cases, of course, there are several Right Things (such as what to eat for dinner), but these aren't the kinds of situations we're talking about. Some cases call for a clear distinction between Right and Wrong.
Why should those who are doing the Right Thing cooperate with those doing the Wrong Thing? Should we have cooperated with Hitler? Of course the current administration is not valuing agreement or diplomacy with people who want us to do the Wrong Thing. Why should it?
This whole "everyone is good, everything is good, every act is somehow defensible from some standpoint, who are we to judge"-type thinking is rather hypocritical. If you really believe cooperation is key, then please start cooperating with us in doing the Right Thing.
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
radish
·
· Score: 1
So would you be happy with everyone including yourself having their fingerprints, dna etc on file for the government to use as they see fit? If so, then I can't really argue with you because you obviously hold a very different view of privacy from me (or indeed, many other slahdotters from what I read here) - but I would suggest you read 1984. Other civil rights people are much more eloquent on the subject than myself, but the general issue is it's just none of their damn business. I haven't done anything wrong, so why treat me like a criminal/terrorist? Where I grew up, you got fingerprinted when you got arrested, end of story. Sure it would have made the Police's life easier if everyone was automatically fingerprinted, but the potential for abuse seems too high a risk to me.
Lets come up with a scenario. Someone is murdered and the weapon is found nearby. Fingerprints are lifted and stuck in a computer. They're a bit smudged, but it comes up with a match. It's me. But I didn't do it. The match is a mismatch due to the smudge, but because the computer says it's me it must be me - I mean these things are never wrong are they? Lets say I manage to get off the charge - I've still been accused of murder, probably locked up, and been forced to pay for lawyers to defend me on a totally bogus charge. If it wasn't for the immigration check my fingerprints wouldn't even be in the system, so none of this would have happened. That's only one simple example - like I said there are plenty more (and better) objections if you care to look around.
Note: if you think photographs or fingerprints steal your soul or something, you could just not enter the US. Isn't it nice to have choices?
Not really. I live here and work here. So I guess I could choose to quit my job and abandon all my money, posessions, home and friends, but that isn't exactly a free choice. Not to mention that the first I knew of the check was when the immigration guy got me to look in the camera. I can only imagine what would have happened if I'd refused.
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
As I said, I do believe it. And I don't think anyone with a wit of sense can call it expansionism, assuming you're referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. But I guess vociferous anti-US emotions can outweight all logic.
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I mean, it is pretty irresponsible to be poor, what with all the opportunity to (and benefits of) not be.
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
Yep. Just as you can count on the US administration of believing what they say. (That is, you could if you weren't so gung-ho about being contrarian toward everything the US does or says).
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
randyest
·
· Score: 1
You still haven't given one reasonable argument against fingerprinting and photographing immigrants and visitors. I do not "care to look around" (anymore) -- I've heard nothing but contrarian drivel posing as arguments against this. If so many good examples of why this policy is bad exist, please share them rather than suggesting I go look for them.
BTW, if your fingerprints are on a murder weapon, I for one would be glad that they are also on file. But you can relax about fingerprint false matches -- it just doesn't happen. Evidence to the contrary is welcomed, but I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. Also note that even a fingerprint match is rarely considered by a jury to eliminate all shadow of doubt, which is what would be needed to convict you. Besides the fact that the likelihood of a mismatch is near zero, you'd have plenty of chances to make it all go away via alibi or other doubt-inducing facts.
Did you know that if you are arrested in the US you will be fingerprinted and photographed even if you are never convicted or the charges are dropped? And some schools fingerprint and photograph children (with parental permission) to aid in identification if needed? This scares you too?
Not me. I think it's fine. My prints are on file (juvenille arrest). I haven't been accused of any crimes I didn't do because of that. And I am photographed all the time (see my passport). No problems there either. Anecdotes aside, I still don't see how either fingerprints or photographs could ever be a problem except in wildly contrived, fantastically improbable cases such as the one you described that would require winning-the-lottery style (bad) luck to be a problem.
BTW, I read 1984. Several times. Thanks for the suggestion though. There's nothing about fingerprinting or photographing leading to opression in that tome that I recall. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on how the 1984 totalitarian government used fingerprinting or photography to further erode individual power or privacy?
-- everything in moderation
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
YellowYahoo
·
· Score: 1
Hmm.. I'm assuming "you" here in the parenthetical means people in general or some other people in this thread since I haven't voiced enough information for anyone to label me gung-ho about anything yet.
However, I think it's naive to assume that any government believes all of its own propaganda, and the current US administration has some particularly egregious examples.
If this administration really thought that No Child Left Behind was going to obtain the results they promised, don't you think they might be adressing it at this point? Or at least decrying those opposing it?
Or why has the justification of the Iraq war continually changed as previous reasons become obviously false?
No, the current administration is much to smart to believe what they say. In fact, I think you can pretty much count on them NOT believing what they say. In some cases that's a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary. And sometimes it's just wrong.
On the other hand, it appears that everything Stallman writes, and does is consistent regarding his stance on software. This doesn't necessarily mean it's 'good' in an absolute sense, or 'better', but it is clearer.
As an example: It would be hard to argue that Stallman is trying to do something tangential to his cause, such as prop up or undermine any particular political party. However, it's pretty easy to make a compelling (although not necessarily correct) argument that the Iraq war was designed to enrich Haliburton and distract the public from the Enron scandal.
--
160 more wasted bits
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
grubert
·
· Score: 1
It's only flamebait if it starts a fire.
You see more then the crowd. Don't be surprised that they ignore your warnings. Besides, the outcome is not at all certain.
Thom Hartman is on this topic.
Re:a curious quote and comparison
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That is exactly why PACS and other such political organizations (read special interests) exist in the first place. That is how the citizens can persuade government. We've got to band together and form groups that will fight for our various points of view.
We tried that with a couple of bad laws being voted on in the UK. Everyone who "banded together" was classed as a petition, and counted as one vote against. If everybody had written in individually, the votes against the law would have swamped those for.
Soon
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
SCO will win their lawsuit and purchase GNU for two keyboards and a can of Mountain Dew. Then we will be using SCO/GNU/Lunixware.
According to RMS I should be allowed to
by
ThePlasticSurgeon
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
If I were to design hardware for a computer I should (for the greater good) provide open source drivers for my hardware (this would not mean I would have to provide source code for advanced hardware engines). This would allow my hardware to be used under many systems (and would increase profits, but that isn't important).
If I were to design hardware for a computer I should not have to release the schematics for my hardware and let others make and sell their own devices (this would decrease profits and might ruin me).
We should stop RMS before he says any more. I don't give a shit about Graphical User Interfaces or ridiculous beards but that attitude is wrong.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
dada21
·
· Score: 1
Are you kidding? The entire group of slashdot seems to be Greens with no grasp of why economies grow (capitalism) or fall (mercantilism/socialism). It is very important that people start to realize that the bad parts of the economy are due to mercantilism, and the good parts are do to profit-"greedy" people who are trying to better their own lives...
RMS is before his time.
by
Cytlid
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can see where he is going with this. But before much of this can happen, other things have to happen. I recently changed my sig to compare RMS to Abraham Lincoln. I did some (quick, incomplete) research on the emancipation proclimation. One site describes is as "The first of many documents that slowly freed human slaves in the United States." The operative word here being "slowly". Much of the tech industry is still in its infancy. The best we can hope for right now is a "melting pot" effect. As people become more tech-aware and tech-savvy, maybe they'll embrace free software more, and even contribute to it. All it takes is enough of proprietary software, commercial entities and monopolies to get on the nerves of most people before radical change can take effect. I just believe that RMS is really ahead of his time. He could very well be the "first of his kind that slowly freed people from technical constraints."
Just my $.02.
-- FLR
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
s20451
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Are you a troll? Or are you actually comparing the moral courage that eliminated slavery, and triggered the bloodiest war in US history, to a particular method of software methodology?
Don't get me wrong, I think the GPL is a good idea. But what really turns me off about GNU is their casting of the GPL as some sort of ideological crusade between good and evil. Nobody is being oppressed or having their human rights violated by using proprietary software. The market should be allowed to decide which model should prevail (or if both should coexist), without being tainted by some sort of acquired "morality".
I believe future historians will judge RMS as having done about as much harm as good.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> I believe future historians will judge RMS as having done about as much harm as good.
What harm has he done?
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
s20451
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
What harm has he done?
How about: marginalized himself and free software with outrageous statements on software morality, pitted developers against each other (just look at lkml), tried to sabotage Linux in its infancy by encouraging developers to work on the HURD instead, and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
I try not to be a troll... but how much spam/viruses/spyware can we contribute to commercial software? Would you say the money lost on recent viruses like Blaster would compare to the bloodiest war in US history? It might come close...
I'm not saying Free Software is the cure, the answer. But it is an alternative.
Yeah, I can see that...on the one hand, you have people who had no human rights/no autonomy/were tortured daily. On the other hand, you have software that comes with restrictions on redistribution and no source.
Awesome comparison.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about: marginalized himself and free software with outrageous statements on software morality, pitted developers against each other (just look at lkml), tried to sabotage Linux in its infancy by encouraging developers to work on the HURD instead, and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
Right. And *even* assuming all those things are true, that outweighs all the good he's done? Not on my planet.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Licoln was a typical politician, not any kind of Moral Warrior.. his Proclamation ended slavery only in the Southern states, not in the entire country.
He could have given two shits about the slaves, except that they were an economic weapon against the South. That's the only reason he 'freed' them.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
zoeblade
·
· Score: 1
From what I read in Free as in Freedom, RMS was really after eir time: ey grew up with the freedom to get any program's source code, modify it and use it (see the relatively famous printer story), then saw those freedoms being taken away, and decided not to participate in taking away those freedoms.
But I agree, RMS is ahead of eir time.:)
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it happens all the time.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
pjack76
·
· Score: 1
Nobody is being oppressed or having their human rights violated by using proprietary software.
Not yet. Give it time. DRM + Trusted Computing can very easily equal No More Free Speech.
When you can only view content that's been approved by corporate America, when the barriers to producing your own content are so high that ordinary people cannot possibly afford to -- then human rights are being violated, and proprietary software is helping.
I agree with you that, right now, in our (mostly) DRM-free and Trusted Computing-free world, no one's getting hurt. But that can very easily change, and Microsoft, Disney and others want it to.
Long-term, I think RMS is right. And even for the moment, he still has a point. My Treo 300 just informed me that I have to license something at a website in order to continue the privilege of sending SMS messages using the service I'm already paying $50/month for on the $400 device. I'm just saying. gcc for Palm OS is looking nice right now.
--
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
Not yet. Give it time. DRM + Trusted Computing can very easily equal No More Free Speech.
When you can only view content that's been approved by corporate America, when the barriers to producing your own content are so high that ordinary people cannot possibly afford to -- then human rights are being violated, and proprietary software is helping.
I think this is a gross exaggeration. In particular, this is exactly what the situation was 10-15 years ago, and there were no fears of oppression then.
Furthermore, the best DRM schemes involve hardware. In this case the source can be as open as you like, and you still have the effects of DRM.
Finally, let me reiterate that I like the GPL. What I don't like is the shrill ideology surrounding it, which is so silly that it's almost a parody of itself. This thread is a great example; already it has been argued that RMS is as great as Lincoln; that the effects of viruses are equivalent to war and slavery; and that paying for software is oppression. These merely seem like a lot of inconveniences, blown way out of proportion using the overused (and fear-mongering) slippery slope argument.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
pjack76
·
· Score: 1
I think this is a gross exaggeration. In particular, this is exactly what the situation was 10-15 years ago, and there were no fears of oppression then.
Well, I disagree. Yes, corporations have always wanted complete and total control over information, but I can still, 15 years later, produce my own television show and have it broadcast on my local cable access station. People will even watch it. I'm serious here -- I really do produce my own television show, and I there are ~300 viewers who give me feedback at my website. There's enough interest that I purchased a DVD writer so I can give DVD copies to the people who want them. I can afford to do this because software (GNU/Linux/X/GNOME/Kino) lets me edit half hour shows on my relatively inexpensive hardware, plus there is DVD software (haven't set it up yet, don't know what I want to use). Once DRM dominates the market, this sort of thing can become impossible, and will be impossible if the Disney gets its way.
Furthermore, the best DRM schemes involve hardware. In this case the source can be as open as you like, and you still have the effects of DRM.
But the source can be ported to non-DRM hardware, providing consumer choice. I think RMS is right -- we need free alternatives to common software products, and we need them quickly. If there is a sufficient body of software availalble for free systems, and Joe Sixpack can't afford $1500 in DRM/Trusted Computing software, there will be economic incentive for non-Intel vendors to produce Trusted-Computing-Free PCs. But if Joe Sixpack doesn't have a choice, we are in trouble.
Having said that, I will concede that the doom and gloom scenario will probably not come to pass, due partly to the efforts of say Lindows, but mostly due to Apple. I believe that Apple has no particular Trusted Computing plans -- I'm sure the market research blew up in their faces.:)
So yes, RMS is a little over the line when he says nonfree software is inherently evil. But only a little -- absolute power corrupts, and nonfree software makes it trivial to lock somebody in, so that, over decades, you can corner them into giving up their rights. Faced with that ability, most corporations would choose to exercise the power irresponsibly. That doesn't make the software itself evil, it just makes it really, really easy to abuse. Free software provides a defense against such abuse.
Finally, let me reiterate that I like the GPL. What I don't like is the shrill ideology surrounding it, which is so silly that it's almost a parody of itself.
I dunno, when you can compare someone's ideology to a Simpsons episode I think he's on the right track. </joke>
Yes, mindless flames are always tiresome.
These merely seem like a lot of inconveniences, blown way out of proportion using the overused (and fear-mongering) slippery slope argument.
I disagree with your characterization of my arguments as a slippery slope; I don't think the slope is slippery when you have Microsoft officially stating that they want DRM enabled software in everybody's toaster and so on. These corporations/organizations have officially stated in internal memos and external public statements that they want complete control over certain aspects of our lives; they want to abuse our rights, and they have the technology to do it. Fear is a valid response, as is a certain level of righteous anger. But constructive thinking would be more appropriate -- and I would say that RMS's call today for community building is a constructive thought, one that has potentially benefitial results. Although perhaps his single-mindedness on the matter is counter-productive, if/. reaction is any indicator.
But thank you for not flaming.:)
--
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
How about: marginalized himself and free software with outrageous statements on software morality, pitted developers against each other (just look at lkml), tried to sabotage Linux in its infancy by encouraging developers to work on the HURD instead, and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
I and many others agree with his views and do not find them outragous or marginal. I find the opposite view outragous, actually. I wouldn't say trying to attract people to work on the Hurd should be considered "sabotage". Its legitimate competition on resources in the Free Software world. And Stallman never tried to take credit for the Linux kernel, or can you find a single instance where he did?
abolition of slavery did not trigger the civil war... the emancipation proclamation was done to reinvigorate the North to fight the war.
And yes... there are real issues of oppression involved with software.
And RMS cannot have done as much harm as good if we have GPLed software in the end.
What harm? Because of what people think of him (he's a total eccentric)? Who cares... who cares how people think? or feel? not me.
I care about the real world, and what's physically in it.
If Stallman started GNU because he likes flying purple dinosoars and wants them to return to Earth, it doesn't matter... we get GNU software and all the software it inspired, and the rest is just hot air. We're ahead. The hot air, adding up to nothing, is not even a part of the calculation of harm v. good.
--
-pyrrho
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
dido
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I live in the Third World, and what I can say is that the use of proprietary software IS a form of oppression indeed. For the first time in human history the advance of technology has practically removed all barriers to accessing useful information, but corporations like Microsoft are using the same technology to erect artificial barriers in the name of their profits. They would condemn whole nations and peoples into ignorance and backwardness because these nations and peoples cannot afford to get around their exclusionary measures. As FSF General Counsel Eben Moglen said: "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?" (original article Freeing The Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture).
Free Software is not just a "method of software methodology", though open source is, and that I believe is the pons asinorum that most people here on Slashdot cannot seem to get past whenever there's an article about Stallman or the GNU Project. The kinds of arguments I see here whenever such an article comes up always seem to misunderstand the difference in philosophy between the two movements. On the other hand, Free Software believes that the right to share and change software are inalienable rights that no one should be allowed to take away. The fact that it also turns out to be a good methodology for software development is a side issue for people like RMS. The moral courage of a man like RMS to stand up for these principles indeed can be compared to the moral courage that eliminated slavery. Indeed, it is but a different sort of slavery that RMS is standing up against, and yes, there is a war being fought for it right now, and we all are at its forefront. One of the major battles is SCO v. IBM...
-- Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I know what you ment and the spirit that it was offered. Good post.
-- A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 1
The market should be allowed to decide which model should prevail (or if both should coexist), without being tainted by some sort of acquired "morality".
Oh yes? So the North and the South should have let the market decide whether slavery should prevail, without being tainted by some sort of acquired "morality"?
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 1
and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
RMS has never tried to claim credit for Linux. Not. Once. Ever. I challenge you to find a single writing or speech of his that says otherwise.
The market should be allowed to decide which model should prevail (or if both should coexist), without being tainted by some sort of acquired "morality".
So your morality is that all shall kneel before the all-mighty dollar. Don't try and pass it off as neutral.
Being a human question, morality comes into play, and cooperation is a value that is pounded into us early.
I believe future historians will judge RMS as having done about as much harm as good.
On one hand, he wrote software (GCC) that enabled free software to exist. On the other, he has made some speeches to a generally intellegent and thoughtful bunch of people telling them that sharing is good. I hardly think that he's done a whole lot of harm by doing that.
Re:RMS is before his time.
by
millette
·
· Score: 1
I think the FSF has been clear about this from the very start. It was _never_ about a "method of software methodology" (sic), that's the OSF viewpoint. You realise it's not a coincidence the first F in FSF means Free. And from the very start, it was not about price, it was about freedom.
RMS is but one man. He's not here to represent everyone, but for the last 20 years, he represented his ideals. Even he understands not everyone will agree with him, and that's alright.
There were other posts addressing is "dislike" of Debian. From the footnote of this article:
"Meanwhile, once again there is no installable GNU/Linux distribution that we can endorse; all of them include or recommend non-free software."
You can find more background info on the non-free divide, but like RMS reminds us in his footnote, there's a difference between what the developpers admit (or are even aware of) and what is actually the reality as defined by the strickest terms. Also, a thread has surfaced again on the debian mailing lists to modify the social contract about non-free.
RMS is all talk and no walk. Take a look at what ESR and Perens have been doing to combat SCO. Then you see comments where all he does is worry about Linux being identified as GNU. Reminds of the zealots who have to pronounce GNU (guhnew" and Gnome similary and always have to say GNU/Linux not just Linux. Who cares?! It's just words.
Here's Stallman's comments: ""I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says".
Re:Another RMS post
by
nuggz
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
RMS is all talk and no walk RMS has done a lot for free software. He has written significant amounts of it.
He doesn't want Linux called GNU/Linux, he wants a GNU system with the Linux kernel called GNU/Linux.
Think of this like buying a GM vehicle (system) with a Honda engine(kernel). You wouldn't call it a Honda, Likely either a GM, or GM/Honda vehicle.
The SCO mess is a temporary trivial harrassment, not really a serious problem. They have no proven claims, and unless they actually document one, they will probaly collapse under IBMs countersuit.
"he wants a GNU system with the Linux kernel called GNU/Linux."
As I said before, just words, that's all. It doesn't matter what it's called as long it's released under the GPL, people use the code and contribute back to it. He has done a lot in the past but now he just talks and Perens and ESR seem to see a problem w/ SCO and are actually doing something about it instead of bitching about GNU/Linux vs Linux.
What have ESR and Perens actually done with respect to the SCO case? Did they go to court and present evidence, or are they just talking?
I think that talking and explaining your opinion is a worthwhile activity, either on what a product should be named, or legal matters.
If someone has an opinion on what something should be called they can have it and promote it al they want. If it was so unimportant, why are there groups of people fighting against it? Maybe there are armies of people who do care, and we're just not two of them.
Maybe something like comparator, a utility ESR released for analyzing the similarity of source codes? ESR gathering evidence from kernel hackers for use against SCO? Bruce Perens disassembling piece by piece SCO's Las Vegas slidshow? Both of them debunking SCO's claims w/ facts and working on this on their own time? Would you like some links?
Freedom is slavery.
War is peace.
Yes citizen,
it is just words.
But words enable us to communicate concepts,
and thereby spread them.
If distinctions are undermined,
communication is hindered.
Sometimes,
especially when communicating unfamiliar concepts,
notational clarity is important.
-- Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
Sure a lot of people don't like Stallman
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The goals are different. He even mentions it on the article, if you care just about popularity, closed source is more than welcome. If you're a cheap developer who wants to make money of other people's work without giving any back, LGPL is a blessing, GPL is bad. But if your goal is freedom, Stallman most likely is your hero and you agree with almost everything he says. So, don't call him crazy zealot just because his ideas and goals aren't the same as yours. All he is doing is being coerent to his principles. BTW, he's not telling that proprietary software turns people to antisocial, what he says is proprietary software is a reflex of how antisocial and coopoerative our society is. Also, as an economics student, I must point out: this is not anti-capitalist, comunist thing, it can be a market similar to most out there, one close example being the exchange of rights to use patented technology between companies.
I don't have a problem with the license choice, just the hypocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy here. RMS does not advocate GNOME because people can develop non-free software. He advocates it because you can develop any software, unrestricted (i.e. free).
Others in the GNOME community may push the non-free angle of the above, but this doesn't make RMS or other FSS proponents hypocritical.
--
...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...
Re:GNOME?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He advocates it because you can develop any software, unrestricted (i.e. free).
GNOMErs gleefully point [LGPL] out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
There are many reasons why GNOME fans like GNOME. That is only one, and certainly not one that motivates RMS.
Bruce Perens has cited that as the reason why GNOME is better for a business distribution. He believes that if businesses want the option of running proprietary software, a business-oriented distribution should provide that option. RMS believes you are more free if you don't have that option, but he grudgingly concedes that sometimes that option is okay (which is why the LGPL even exists).
steveha
-- lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Why, then, does he advocate GNOME when it (more than anything else in the free software ecosystem) enables closed, non-free propriatory software?
Sorry, sir, KDE enables closed, non-free propriatory software too. All you need is a QT license. And this is not bad.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
lukewarmfusion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I tend to agree with his statement. Maybe your corporation doesn't control citizens, but some corporations are in a position to influence and exert pressure. Record companies, Microsoft, many others... what OS do you use? Do you listen to music by artists that aren't associated with the RIAA? Corporate America is certainly becoming more synonymous with America in general. A hundred years ago, the major players in the world were the rich guys - Rockerfellers and whatnot. Now, it's corporations.
What about Free software on Windows?
by
gosand
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I asked this question in the Slashdot interview questions to Bruce Perens back in July. (What ever happened to that interview anyway?)
My question was modded +5, and I would really like to hear one of the "leaders" answer on it. Here it is as I posted it then...
A lot of people equate Open Source with Linux, but what are your opinions on Open Source on Windows? Of course Open Source works well on Linux, it falls more in line with the philosophy of the OS. In your opinion, is it more beneficial to keep the concepts of Open Source and Linux coupled, or to get the message of Open Source out there in any way possible?
The question still applies to Free software too. Is it possible to run Free software on Windows, and not get RMS' hackles up? OpenOffice is a great example that runs on Windows. Is it worth it to get the word out about alternative to proprietary software, or is the whole movement about alternatives to proprietary OSs?
--
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:What about Free software on Windows?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm pretty sure RMS does not like the idea of open-source on Windows.
With him it's all or nothing (ie. don't use Windows at all since it's not open-source).
Profits below Zero to Negative ?
by
leoaugust
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I love free software esp. when it is the underdog. The following comment is only meant in the sense of what will happen if free software becomes the Big Kid on the Block.
Simply by using a new and unfinished free replacement, before it technically compares with the non-free model, you can help encourage the free developers to persevere until it becomes superior.
I see an analogy with Economic Models where they talk of Perfect Competition and a Level Playing Field leading increasingly towards profits approaching to Zero. It is not really a bad situation in the Creative-Destruction evolution of the market economies.
This economic destination would be perfect if the 'free" software was being written in time that was "leisure" time, or even in "professional" time if it is going to lead to professional and career advancements. Then the concept of Zero Profits is not unreasonable as there are other intangible benefits.
But for many other people the time spent writing "free" software is going to entail expenses - esp. if they they don't have the above two mitigating factors. In that case the programmers are then paying themselves for the software they write - i.e. negative profits.
I know this question has been asked a million/gazillion times. But, hey, it's GNU's 20th Birthday, so why not nostaligically revist it.
Does this mean that people should accept "negative Profits?"
Does it imply that the "free" software users are being subsidized by the programmers themselves.
How will the "societal benefits" of "free" software turn into some profits for the programming community - directly or indirectly.
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
-- To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies...
Re:Profits below Zero to Negative ?
by
Synn
·
· Score: 1
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
Installation, support, customization.
Why do companies pay for Red Hat Enterprise when you can download Linux for free?
Installation, support, customization.
Re:Profits below Zero to Negative ?
by
jaoswald
·
· Score: 1
Perfect competition leads to zero *economic* profit. Which is not the same as zero *accounting* profit. Economic profit also includes compensation for opportunity costs.
The idea is that every factor of production (capital and labor) gets *just enough* compensation to make it worthwhile compared to the other opportunities for which those factors could be used. Any less, and the capital or labor would be used elsewhere; any more, and a competitor could undercut your costs.
Re:Profits below Zero to Negative ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Installation, support, customization.
You are an idiot if you seriously think that those three revenue models actually work for the general case (majority) of OSS. The free software success stories are a minority.
There are two common motivations to develop a free program. One is that there is no program to do the job. Unfortunately, accepting the use of a non-free program eliminates that motivation.
I'm not following this... if there's no program to do the job, then how can one accept the use of a non-free (and non-existent) program?
He goes on further to say that the one true motivation for writing free programs is to replace non-free programs.
That only goes so far, though. Why must the free software folks resign themselves to coding clones of popular products? Why can't they be innovative themselves?
Maybe I'm not fully comprehending the whole free software mantra. I recently saw the OmniWeb Browser movie and was quite impressed with the whole tab/dock functionality. Why couldn't something like that come out of the Mozilla Firebird group? Instead, we're gonna have to duplicate that functionality (I hope) if we want it.
So OmniGroup was innovative and I'm sure they'll be rewarded with their sales. They also have a company structure for R&D to come up with these type of innovations. Same can be said of many other corporations, too. With those types of innovations and associated costs, the companies recoup them (& profit, too) by making them non-free. Unless the free software community becomes more innovative, I'm not entirely satisfied with relying on a completely free software world to keep progress moving.
-- I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
Re:Motivations?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That only goes so far, though. Why must the free software folks resign themselves to coding clones of popular products? Why can't they be innovative themselves?
Because there is no money in it!
The OSS business models simply don't work (except for some minority cases). As a proud Linux Desktop user I see this situation as totally screwed. The Linux Desktop will never be a tier 1 player. Say what you will about Apple and Microsoft, at least they innovate. It is all about money and WE will never catch up. Yes this royally sucks. You know, I feel lied to for believing Stallmans preachings.
any last words ..... freedom!
by
bain
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
-- Sanity is a majority vote.
Re:any last words ..... freedom!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.
He isn't limiting your freedom of choice. He has changed the definition of freedom for you! This is insidious. This why I have no respect for RMS.
Re:any last words ..... freedom!
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
"Non-Free Software carries with it an anti-social mechanism to limit sharing and community" (me quoting RMS from memory).
Non-Free software is about limiting the Freedom of users. Stallman believes that people should be free, and that includes copying anything to help their neighbour/etc. This means that anything that attempts to limit this kind of freedom is inherently negative and should be treated as a problem, not a choice.
This "choice", by the way, only exists if copyright restrictions are taken for granted and I for one do not think the burden of copyright restrictions in the digital age justifies itself.
Re:any last words ..... freedom!
by
bain
·
· Score: 1
The same as free speach, people might not like what others have to say, but the right to say it what is importand.
I agree that non-free software does limit peoples freedom, but denying then the choice of your own free will is even more so.
The key is in education, teach them why it limits their freedom.
-- Sanity is a majority vote.
Re:any last words ..... freedom!
by
ChaosDiscord
·
· Score: 1
I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.
No, that's just silly. If I tell you that shouldn't spend so much time on Slashdot I'm not limiting your freedom of choice, I'm trying to convince you to change your viewpoint. RMS is just trying to spread his view point. If RMS is elected to government and starts passing laws forcing the use of Free Software, I'd agree with you, but not quite yet.
(And your statement that RMS's belief is "only OSS is right" suggests it time to re-read "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'". RMS does not promote OSS and feels that OSS is a regrettable step backward.)
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
Perhaps you'll find the beliefs of the Open Source Initiative more in line with yours. This is a key reason that Free Software and Open Source Software are slightly different (if often allied) camps. The Free Software camp (to the extent you can point to such a beast) has always placed a high value on the morality of the situation.
Re:any last words ..... freedom!
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
The choice between only morally acceptable choices is superior to the "more-free" choice between those choices and morally unacceptable choices. Furthermore, nobody should ever choose the morally unacceptable choice except under the most extreme circumstances.
Stallman also believes that Copyrights (at least on software) are no longer a valid concept. Unless you believe that the Status Quo is inherently better than anything else, it is not clear that copyrights indeed maintain a good balance between incentive and restrictions. In the case of software in particular, it seems copyright are being abused against their original purpose (allowing Closed Source/information secrecy rather than encouraging openness and information availability).
If you accept that copyrights are invalid, the issue of the choice is moot - only Free Software is available.
I have two words for you Mr. Stallman.
by
gregarican
·
· Score: 1
Ayn Rand. Read "Atlas Shrugged" sometime and ask "Who is Bill Gates?"
Re:I have two words for you Mr. Stallman.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
[Gratuitous dry retching at the mention of "Atlas Shrugged."]
Just wait until it's your birthday and I don't get you a cake, a present, balloons, or sing you happy birthday. We'll see what's "redundant" then...
Re:OK mods...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ahahahaha! Awww, c'mon guys! Cut him some slack - he was just wishing a 'happy birthday'. Redundant my ass!
F'in' mods...
Tad inconsistent.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
"Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved."
Why verbatim? Why aren't I 'free' to modify and re-post his article as I see fit? I'd give credit..
free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
RMS's assumption that any non-GNU type licensed software will be stolen for propriety commercial use with no future contributions to its functionality/quality is totally false.
Public domain is free.
GNU is crippled and limits your freedom.
Why homebrew hardware?
by
truthsearch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why will homebrew hardware be necessary? I believe there will always be a part of the population which will not like DRM hardware, and will therefore retain a demand for DRM-free hardware. Luckily hardware works with the natural laws of supply and demand.
I think it's more likely that running a non-DRM OS will just mean that you can't view certain media. No massive loss to me anyway.
Prediction: Nobel Prize for Stallman/Torvalds
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hereby predict, that during their lifetimes (hopefully still long for both), both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds will recieve the Nobel Prize. Im not sure when it will happen, but it could well be 25 years in the future. No matter when, they are both are key to a monumental shift in sociological and economical behavior that is starting to happen right in front of our eyes and has just started. It is so revolutionary that your conventional book on economics would comment on the theory of the Open Source Movement with straight "Can not happen, because it doesnt make sense".
Stallman, way more than Torvalds, went on an personally incredibly risky path when he decided on his path for the future, he probably didnt even profit much personally. He went on, with not much more to rely on than his faith. People dont get a lot braver than this. All you kids here, complaining that "Stallman doesnt get it" and "gives the open source movement a bad name", i kindly ask you to reflect on what you are stating here and please shut up until you have done so. After 20 years, Stallman is still standing, and even if one doesnt agree with him in all details or not at all, he deserves the highest respect for his achievements.
Re:So the HURD community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HURD, I don't know about.
Gimp, for my purposes is doing very well. I simply don't need the expensive features of Adobe Photoshop, so the Adobe from that measure is not doing well.
Games? Frozen Bubbles is great. So is Klickety and Tux Racer and Falcon's Eye. Under a Steel Sky is pretty cool, too. Solitaire is cool, and much cleaner-looking than it has ever been under Windows. I could go on and on...
The point is, the progress of Linux is doing just fine. Thank you, Linux developers, for all of the free and better-quality (than proprietary) stuff you have provided us.
Linux just rocks. The way I, and most of my Linux-savvy friends, measure things, Linux comes out ahead every time.
Well, let me give you a hypothetical example. Document imaging is big business and let's say you have a company called XYZ that specializes in document imaging solutions for hospitals.
One day all the leading industries decide to take an open source document system and spend a few million dollars to code in the features they want. That way they'll have an open source(free) document management system and in the long run spending a million to get it up to speed will save them money over paying companies like yours licensing fees.
So is your company done for? Not really. The key to what your document imaging company provides for hospitals is NOT the software, but the ability of your company to create solutions that improve a hospital's workflow. Nobody knows a hospital's document imaging needs like your company, because you've been doing it for years. No one is better qualified to take that open source project and customize it, repackage it and support it for hospitals than your company.
If the hospitals use that open source software they still need someone to support it. They still need someone to install it. If it doesn't do feature X, they still need someone to add that feature. And that's where your company comes in.
Furthermore you end up with a reduction in costs. It's just not your company fixing bugs and adding features to that software, a lot of other industries are as well. That means your programmers can focus more on tasks suited to support your clients rather than on core basic features or bug fixes.
Think of it in these terms, what are you really selling when you sell a 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 software product over the course of several years? You're selling the ability of your company to make their business more effective. People buy the 2.0 product because they'll be 10% more effecient than if they stay with the 1.0 product. Open source is no different, except instead of selling the software you're selling yourself. YOU make the use of that software 10% more effective, through support or continued customization, so it's cost effective to purchase your services. And instead of selling a 2.0, 3.0 verion of the product they can just buy a yearly support contract from you.
But what if you are a software company that supplies document imaging software to service companies that do document imaging for hospitals?
In the software product model software developers get to work on something they are interested in (developing imaging algorithms), and for a company where they are a profit center, and so are valued for their expertise.
In the service + free software model software developers have to do a job they are not interested in (servicing hospitals), and any work they do on the software is basically viewed as a cost center and so they are unappreciated, and likely to be one of the first to be let go when things get tight, as after all their open source software work benefits the competition as much as their employer.
In short, you can't argue that open source benefits software companies by taking the example of a service company with a software cost center that for some reason happens to be in-house.
Reminds me of a song ...
by
SuperDuG
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Cake - Comfort Eagle
We are building a religion, we are building it bigger, we are widening the corridor and adding new lanes
If you haven't heard the song I would highly recommend it (get it how you please).
Now to the rest of the conversation. The best quote I've ever read is by far: "GNU is like Sex, better when RMS isn't involved" - anoynmous? How true such a comment can be. RMS has again decided to trump his own definition of free by stating that a user cannot be free if they are using a non-free system. But wait isn't that the beauty of free, not that it doesn't require cost, but it is a CHOICE. Can you not be free to chose to use Microsoft or Apple based products?
Are these systems Free Software, of course not, and they will never be as they are part of the new social system we in the 'biz' like to call "Reality". In this system of socioeconomics people like retribution for their work in which you cannot get money for nothin, and you have to actually force those who benifit from your work to give you retribution. Why? Because if people can take something without paying for it, THEY WILL.
Do car dealerships have a sign on the door that says "Here's a car, you can have it for free, but we'd like you to give us some cash for it please". Of course not, and that's why Free Software will fail, but then there's the Open Source movement which seems to have a much better chance as the happy medium between the corperate society and communistic FSF movement.
Communism in which the common man acts with regards to the community as a whole and not the individualistic gain of the self, is not our system. While it seems nice, cozy, and utopic, its not here and my magic 8-ball says that all possibilities point to no. Write all the papers and essays you want, but I'll stick to what works and what works is propritary software.
"I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks" - Fake Bill Gates (simpson's)
"You can't make money by giving something away moron" - My uncle
-- Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Is choosing slavery over death make slavery freedom? This is not to say that such matters are of such a great magnitude, but it is possible to freely choose something not free. Read 1984.
-- Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Reminds me of a song ...
by
advocate_one
·
· Score: 1
"Do car dealerships have a sign on the door that says "Here's a car, you can have it for free, but we'd like you to give us some cash for it please". Of course not, and that's why Free Software will fail,"
Bad analogy... not car dealerships... car manufacturers saying "here's our new car which you can buy readymade and the plans for it are also available for a nominal fee so that you can improve it, but please make all improvements available for everybody to benefit from..."
-- Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:Reminds me of a song ...
by
muleboy
·
· Score: 1
Do car dealerships have a sign on the door that says "Here's a car, you can have it for free, but we'd like you to give us some cash for it please". Of course not, and that's why Free Software will fail, but then there's the Open Source movement which seems to have a much better chance as the happy medium between the corperate society and communistic FSF movement.
Your example makes intuitive sense, yet more and better Free software is written every year. "Free software will fail"? I guess I must be wearing rose-colored glasses. Last time I checked Free software was improving dramatically. I seem to be typing this on a Free system, doing everything I want to do with a computer, including running a web server, a DNS server, a mail server, mailing lists, development, revision system, encryption, and hundreds of other things. How much would that cost on your proprietary system? Would I be able to afford it? The thing that drives people like you nuts, is that Free software can't be "destroyed" in the same way that a rival company can. It can't be bought out, because it isn't for sale. The only people this seems to bother are the capitalist extremists.
Communism in which the common man acts with regards to the community as a whole and not the individualistic gain of the self, is not our system. While it seems nice, cozy, and utopic, its not here and my magic 8-ball says that all possibilities point to no. Write all the papers and essays you want, but I'll stick to what works and what works is propritary software.
Free software is indeed like communism. The few can't deprive the many in this case (and I say this as a believer in capitalism). If proprietary software works for you, go for it. Just don't expect me to accept it for myself when I can do the same things for free, and with the freedom to make derivative works.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
Urkki
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Replace "capitalism" with "free market" and I agree with you. Because capitalism seems to be leading to a situation where big are so big that they can control the market, and it's no longer free...
Blah blah blah blah GNU/Linux blah blah blah hurd blah blah blah everyone who doesn't give away their source code is bad blah blah evil blah evil blah microsoft is the devil blah blah GNU/Linux blah blah GNU GNU GNU blah blah GNU/Linux blah.
RMS
But cooperation is always sought over isolation.
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 0
You are wrong, businesses inherantly seek community, in that almost all business is adverse to making choices that have not already been made by a lot of other businesses.
Indeed, it is this pathologic need for community that keeps many companies locked in to choices like Oracle, Microsoft, Siebel, etc. when they could be using many OS soultions in thier place and have far less restrictions on use.
Yes, businesses are seeking software that fills a need. But a business is never, ever seeking isolation as any kind of goal. Eventually businesses will wake up to find that software where source is availiable is just an extension of the kind of software-related security that they seek now, in financial stability and software escrow (which is a whole aspect that does not have to be negotiated with OS software).
As for cooperation, buisnesses even seek that - they usually check around with other companies before purchasing software if they can, to see how they liked it. Also as the trend continues for reseller and supply-chain integration (can't believe I just said that, but there you go) cooperation is essential for competitivness, and companies that are able to mesh with others easier will have an upper hand.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Shorter version of your question
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 1
Q: How will Standard Oil's employees make their living if you bust their monopoly?
Re:Shorter version of your question
by
jaoswald
·
· Score: 1
One could also say
Q: How will your electric company provide power without a [government-regulated] monopoly?
A: More poorly, with more blackouts, more chances for market makers to gouge California, less accountability for system reliability, less incentive to increase generating capacity,...
Competitive markets are not a panacea. Where their advantages are useful, and the basic requirements (such as low barriers to entry, good information, low externalities...) are present they provide an efficient mechanism for reaching a Pareto-optimal solution for prices and resource allocation.
But the real world doesn't always correspond to these idealized assumptions.
In any case, Standard Oil could point to an excellent record of low prices for consumers of kerosene. The "offense" was to other oil companies and railroad companies. Not to consumers or to SO stockholders.
Re:Shorter version of your question
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 1
Likewise, source code monopolies mostly impact other developers. Consumers are affected only indirectly.
Markets are no panacea it's true, but utilites are public goods and are charged to operate in the public interest rather than in the corporate interest. If Microsoft was a utility I'd be all for it, but then keeping the source a secret would be stupid - instead the government would mandate that Windows be a standard OS for certain uses and pay for development by a small tax on bandwidth or somesuch.
All or nothing?
by
ShaggyZet
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
RMS seems to believe free software use should be an all or nothing proposition, especially with regard to proprietary ports to free systems. That's a fine argument to make.
But what about a more gradual approach? So what if someone wants to run Weblogic and Oracle on Linux instead of Weblogic and Oracle on Windows? Maybe the transition to Tomcat and PostgreSQL on Linux is too much for them right now, for technical or political reasons. Maybe they'll switch eventually.
Or, maybe they won't. Isn't it still a positive change, a change providing more freedom? Would RMS rather that that user just stay on Windows forever, using no free or open software at all? I realize that RMS in his ideology above all else, and certainly above any pragmatism, but this kind of transition is a win for everyone. Even if the example user never switches to 100% free software.
MODERATORS, WAKE UP
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Did you wonder how someone could write such a toughtful reply in under 2 minutes?
The parent and the grand-parent have been copied from the comment area at the end of the Linux.com article.
Even if Steve 'Rim' Jobs and cornstalk are the same person, it is immoral to post something as AC just to be able to repost a canned reply.
Parent and grand-parent should be modded down.
RMS still doesn't get it
by
IGnatius+T+Foobar
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
Any given set of software will succeed in the marketplace when it presents a greater value proposition than all the other options. Linux has been growing like gangbusters in the server space because it represents a better value than proprietary Unix, and more recently, Windows servers. Linux is starting to make inroads on the corporate desktop for the same reason: customers are beginning to see the lack of value in Microsoft's offering (think ratio of price to functionality), so as free software's value proposition continues to become more attractive, more customers will make the jump.
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care. They just want to get their work done with the least amount of effort required. This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference. Software freedom, for the rest of the world, is a means to an end: that end being "software that doesn't suck" (as ESR once put it), and that lack of suckage is being brought on by the benefits of collaborative development we already know about.
RMS was a visionary. He started the free software movement, and he contributed a brilliantly built compiler suite and a bunch of other tools. But his PR has been a 20 year disaster, and it is definitely time for him to step down.
-- Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Re:RMS still doesn't get it
by
mihalis
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
RMS still doesn't get it (Score:2)
by IGnatius T Foobar [SNIP]
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
[SNIP]
Free speech thrives at UNCENSORED! BBS - http://uncensored.citadel.org [citadel.org]
Tell me, then, why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software? I can buy perfectly good outlets for my speech, as long as I'm rich, what's the problem? I don't want to say things to "experience freedom" either, I just want to get my message to other people.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it
by
Enrique+G
·
· Score: 0
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care.
I think your missing RMS's point. He very specifically states that he is not going for popularity, but for his personal values, which many people share. PBS doesn't think they're gonna get every person who watches TV to give up on stations with evil commercials, they just continue to make programs for people who do care, screw the rest of us.
Tell me, then, why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software?
I didn't say that we shouldn't care about free software. We should. I do. You do too, evidently.
I'm saying that most people don't, and I don't expect that to change. That's why free software uncoincidentally began succeeding when it actually became a better value to more users, instead of simply having freedom as an end in itself.
-- Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Re:RMS still doesn't get it
by
tarogue
·
· Score: 1
Tell me, then, why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software? I can buy perfectly good outlets for my speech, as long as I'm rich, what's the problem? I don't want to say things to "experience freedom" either, I just want to get my message to other people.
That's already on option. You have number of choices how to spread you ideas. (1) One-on-one convesaion [free & personal] (1) Shout on a street corner [free & local] (2) Pay for time on the local access channel [pay & local] (3) Speak on a radio call-in show [free & local/national] (4) Advertise on national TV/Radio [pay & national]
Obviously, the easiest way to get you message to the most people is to spend money for ad time. It's likely also the best way as well, although if you want to speak to a specific crowd you could call in to the radio show.
Free software is like the radio show. It speaks to a specific segment of people.
-- Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
Re:RMS still doesn't get it
by
CuteAlien
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it's because RMS is a programmer - software does not mean the same thing to non-programmers. I learned to value free software after my last company f*cked up. I proposed to make our software free sometimes, because we did live from hardware mainly and not software, but with no success. After the company did vanish i tried to buy back my sources - but i could not afford the price because one of our former investors could just simple outbid me. So i lost two years of hard work - and the guy who bought it won't do much with it because this ain't some trivial work where he just can put some new guys to it. He would not even had lost much, if i'd also got some rights - i mainly wanted the test-tools and would not even been interested in doing competing work. Losing some of the best work i've done so far - that's hard. RSM might have other reasons - but since than i just love the part that free software ultimatly gives you the right to your own work!
Re:RMS still doesn't get it
by
TALlama
·
· Score: 1
If the widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether free or not.
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything.
Funny, I think the goal of the community should be to make good software. I use GNU utils all the time. I'm on Linux as I type this. I use them because they are, as the parent says, a tool I use to get my job done.
Popularity is great, but Windows is popular, so we all know it's not everything. Freedom is good, too, but freedom to use crap isn't very useful. By making FLOSS a good 'product', you achieve all the goals presented: your job gets done, other people use the tools because they're good, and you and those other people all have 'rights' to the software that serve to perpetiate the benefits. RMS needs to understand that even if 'libre' is more important than 'gratis,' it's still just a secondary goal, forever beneath 'quality'.
No, software it is not a simple tool to an end.
Software controls the access to information in our society. Software controls more everyday, albeit on behave of other "real"/flesh and blood people.
Without access to software (as in the GPL/LGPL), there are certain liberties/options restricted even today.
It's a question of ethics
by
nysus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Forget Stallman.
I pose this single question to the/. crowd and you must answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? Why or why not?
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please describe some things that are naturally limitless.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
happyfrogcow
·
· Score: 1
To answer the AC who asked "Please describe some things that are naturally limitless", I say: Think theoretically for a minute. Think that there is a Very Large amount of Thing X for every person in the world, such that (amount of people)/(amount of Thing X) approaches Zero. If that doesn't work, think dirt. Dirt is essentially limitless, but is sold at gardening stores. Think software. It is trivial to copy software bit for bit. Ignoring the storage limitations and how you might transfer this copy, software is limitless. Storage might be essentially limitless as well if some nanotech storage works out.
In theoretical terms, I believe it is unethical to force a limit on a limitless resource to make a buck. Socially, it is different. Everyone in essence is pitted against one another to fight for their wellbeing.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
nysus
·
· Score: 1
A thought or idea represented as 1s and 0s on a computer networked on the Internet. I'm assuming the transfer of that thought or idea into 1s and 0s has already been compensated for.
--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
iSwitched
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OK, I'll bite, but I swear, after this last one, I gotta go back to work!
Assuming there is such a thing as a limitless resource, it is NOT ethical to impose a limit on it to make a buck. This would explain why I am allowed to breath without charge.
However, I challenge you to provide examples of resources similar to air, that would be perceived as 'limitless'. Careful! One might suggest water, but what about the construction of mains and other infrastructure for delivering water? It is ethical for providers of such infrastructure to recoup their costs. If the entity is a commercial enterprise, a reasonalbe profit for their efforts is ethical as well.
Note, I do believe that various governemnt and provate entities abuse this philosophy and charge too much, but that is the topic of yet another thread.
-- "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
TeknoHog
·
· Score: 1
I'll refer to a section of Kant's Categorical Imperative: If you think that everyone should be doing it, then it can be ethical. IMHO, the society will not function if everyone starts to limit some limitless resource. For example, someone would put tax on speaking or breathing. That would be inevitable after all other monopolies had been taken by others. I think that in the very least, all sensible interaction within society would cease, and we would be back in a primitive survival game.
Kant's Imperative is not a fixed law of ethics, but a way to test your own ideas: sure, I'd love to limit some limitless resource if that would bring me wealth, but it would suck if everyone else did the same, hence I don't like the idea.
-- Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
nysus
·
· Score: 1
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
iSwitched
·
· Score: 1
"A thought or idea represented as 1s and 0s on a computer networked on the Internet. I'm assuming the transfer of that thought or idea into 1s and 0s has already been compensated for."
Aha! Now I see where you are taking this.
If the 1s and 0s represent a single, one-time expression of thought, for which the original author and related parties has already been fairly compensated, and for which the original author or other owner has no further intention of enhancing, perfecting or responding to feedback on, then I might see your point.
An example of this is the ROMs from some of my favorite games from the early 80's (yes I'm old). The copyright owners will not sell then, nor do they maintain them, yet I am not allowed to use them legally. I find this behavior quite unfair (I usually reserve 'ethics' for situations with greater human import).
On the other hand, I am currently employed by a software maker that engages in the business of selling licenses to its proprietary product line. In exchange for cash, our customers obtain software which performs the desired funtion, as well as fixes and certain point-enhancements, and personal service and support. each party is bound to certain obligations which each has mutually agreed to. This arrangement is completely ethical. Only if the arrangement is not mutual, for example, if one party is coerced or otherwise forced into agreement, would a discussion of 'ethics' even be appropriate.
Now if the 1s and 0s represent a formula for a life-saving drug owned by a pharmacuetical company which has already recouped its R&D costs plus a reasonable profit margin... Hmnn... There's some territory for the ethics discussion.
-- "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Re:It's a question of ethics
by
sean.peters
·
· Score: 1
Assuming there is such a thing as a limitless resource, it is NOT ethical to impose a limit on it to make a buck. This would explain why I am allowed to breath without charge.
I assume, then, that you feel that selling compressed oxygen to sick people is unethical? After all, there's an unlimited supply.
One might argue that atmospheric oxygen and bottled oxygen are actually different products, and can be priced differently on that basis. One could make the same argument for free software and proprietary software as well.
Sean
Already and issue
by
Synn
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a valid point, but it's also an issue with commercial software.
Why should I upgrade to Office XP when Office 97 does everything I need? The only real way around that is forcing your clients to upgrade(which Microsoft has been doing with a number of their products) and that hasn't generated a lot of goodwill with customers.
If your product is "done", then it might be time to move onto creating a new product.
Does this mean
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"non-free rent and food carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community."
Of course it is possible
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 1
One of the benefits of Free software is that using it creates other freedoms. For example, let's say you start using OpenOffice on Windows. Sure you are using it on a closed platform, but that's OK because to some degree you have now freed yourself from needing to rely on that platform. You can switch to Linux or another system, and still use OpenOffice. If you find a need that your operating system cannot meet you can move on, at greater cost to yourself than if you had just startted with a Free operating system, but you can do it.
A computers operating system is the least important software in terms of freedom; applications are the most important space for Free software to take hold in.
In practice, it's always better to use free software when you can for your own sake.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Of course it is possible
by
giampy
·
· Score: 1
Well i have to say that i'd rather use proprietary software that runs on an open OS than the other way around.
While i agree that in theory, if the source of an app is open you can recompile it to run on another OS, in reality you need to count on compilers, librares, system calls, API, services...
This means that if some of the above is proprietary it can change, cease to comply to standards or simply cease to exist and you can't do a damn thing about that.
Conversely if the platform is open then its better for developers, since they will always have access to the underlying code, and ultimately it's better for the user since he has a choice among proprietary and open applications.
-- We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Random thoughts on the subject...
by
Infernon
·
· Score: 1
A very interesting read. Very cool. Most of the people I've met that are proponents of open source software tend to be a bit fanatical. Please don't take this as a broad, sweeping generalization, it's just my personal experience. In my opinion, this is a weakness. My personal view is that software should be approached with a 'jeet kune do' philosophy-- best tool for the job. After spending some time with Linux and FreeBSD and learning how they work, I've found that 'free' software has always been a better solution, but that's not to say that other options are wrong because they're red or blue. My point is that you can't rule something out based on what it is. It's 'software prejudice'! Take that buzzterm to the next meeting with your PHB:) Other than that, I think he makes outstanding points in his popularity and driver arguments. In fact, the only thing that I'm disappointed about after reading this is that I can't seem to get his voice out of my head!
It's poetry when a troll whines.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You could at least not link to anti-slash in your sig if you are even trying to make some sort of a point, jackass.
Re:So the HURD community is in good shape, then?
by
emil
·
· Score: 1
Well, you did flame more than a bit.
Just ask some BSD people... there are obvious problems with the GPL. However, the Win98 example is a perfect illistration of what's right.
Invidious Drivers!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Did anyone else notice "For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux?" (emphasis mine).
Doesn't he mean nVidia's video driver?
Invidious means "Tending to provoke envy, resentment, or ill will."
I don't know about you, but I found it funny.
Re:Invidious Drivers!
by
Queuetue
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think all three of these were not only intentional, but whimsically obvious nods to specific proprietary software.
Re:Invidious Drivers!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
OK, so:
Invidious video driver == nVidia's XFree Driver, Prophecy database == Oracle database Indonesia language interpreter and libraries == Java language interpreter and libries (the Island of Java in Indonesia)
I have a crazy question....
by
wturky
·
· Score: 2
RMS talks about having quit his job 20 years ago....
What the heck does he do for money now?? Rent still has to be paid....food bought....clothes bought..... Does he have a job? Where does his income come from? Does he do consulting? Or just make money talking about free software?
Just wondering....I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.....
Re:I have a crazy question....
by
DoctorTuba
·
· Score: 1
Stallman was the recipient of a McArthur award (sometimes called a genius grant). If you're frugal (which he most certainly is) you can live a long time on half a million dollars and its interest.
Re:I have a crazy question....
by
iSwitched
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This thread speaks to a deeper issue that I would love to see discussed in greater detail.
Specifically, it appears that many of the most vocal proponents of free-software have already made their money, and have acheived a certain amount of financial freedom. It is much easier to make simple black and white statements about freedom, software, or anything else, when you have been freed from the responsibily to provide for yourself and your family.
There are a large number of technical people who derrive income from entities that produce proprietary products. I count myself as one. Somehow, it just seems more important to me to feed my children than to subscribe to Stallman's world view. Does that make me evil?
Come on, we're talking software here, how exactly is this tied in with the greater good of humanity? If I discovered my company was murdering people, I'd quit and go to the authorities. But since they're not, I'll take my check please.
-- "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
Re:I have a crazy question....
by
wturky
·
· Score: 1
Ahhhhh, ok. Yeah, that would probably make sense.
Thank you!
Re:I have a crazy question....
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 1
RMS talks about having quit his job 20 years ago....
That's stretching the truth a little... yes he did quit the MIT AI lab, but he continued (with their permission) to make use of MIT's facilities, equipment, office space, etc. It would be fair to describe him as an honourary tenured academic.
What the heck does he do for money now??
He received a "genius grant" from the MacArthur foundation, which is given to academics or artists of particular note usually to enable them to take a sabbatical and concentrate on doing their stuff unemcumbered.
The combination of these two fortunate events has given RMS a very warped view of economics... ideas of supply and demand, for example, simply pass right over his head.
Answer: Software is a Service
by
DG
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Here's my answer to you:
Software is a Service, not a Product.
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.
We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1
And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.
For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.
My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.
You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.
Re:Answer: Software is a Service
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 1
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Yes but we all rely - to a greater or lesser extend - on packaged software. We have a relationship with packaged software vendors. We give them money (not as much as they'd like) and they give us features (not as much as we'd like). The closed source model is good because it requires people who benefit from software to pay towards to cost of developing and maintaining it. So, the cost can be spread a million ways, or ten million, or a hundred million.
The open source model means you can either wait for a feature you want to be implemented, or you can pay for it - but now, the cost isn't spread millions of ways, but only tens or hundreds, and people are free to contribute nothing and still fully benefit. The only people making money on open source aren't those whose core business is writing it, but those on the periphery - Red Hat selling support, IBM selling hardware, etc etc. Basically, closed source aligns the interests of software users and software makers, open source decouples their interests. And that is why open source will always lag behind closed source when it comes to real end-user capability.
Re:Answer: Software is a Service
by
DG
·
· Score: 1
Actually, no, we DON'T (necessarily) depend on packaged software. By far the majority of the stuff we have around here (at least, the stuff that drives the business) was written in-house.
And huge chunks of that are COBOL on mainframes.
The big exception is the desktop stuff - but Linux and OpenOffice prove that it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, the only non-OSS software I use with any regularity is that Godforsaken Lotus Notes (a case in point if there ever was one). All my other desktop stuff in done on a Linux desktop.
Like this reply, for example.:)
And without exception, every time we switch out a proprietary package for something Free, there's a HUGE leap forward in quality and reliability. By the same token, not once - not ONCE - has adopting a proprietary solution done anything but cause trouble and pain.
Seven years I've been working for a major manufacturing company, and my experience with "packaged software vendors" has been nothing but HORRIBLE. Consider this - they all aspire to be the next Microsoft, with EVERYTHING that entails.
My bottom line is my pager - and my pager says OSS/Free is just flat-out superior.
Re:Answer: Software is a Service
by
Molander
·
· Score: 1
I agree!
I create specialized software within the telecominucations industry and my biggest problems comes from dealing with non-free software that my customers use.
The way to make money from free software is to find a niche that companies are willing to pay big bucks to fill because it is too narrow for the general "public" of programmers but still worth a lot of money if you do it right.
Programming as a service is the future.
-- -Sig-
Re:Answer: Software is a Service
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
An custom made software is a service in the same way an custom made shirt is. But when somemone start to make thousands of standard shaped and sized shirts, he or she is targeting to sell them customers don't know how to make the shirts they buy and have not interest in contracting someone to customize them to fit the size of their bodies or their idiosyncrasies. Shirts became products.
Software becomes a product in the moment it is standardized and distributed to thousand of people which just expect to use it just getting it out of the box.
Popularity vs. Freedom...
by
telbij
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
RMS argues that the goals of open source development ought to be freedom rather than popularity. Yet popularity serves a very real purpose in that it attracts money and interest in free software. To that end, proprietary software that makes GNU/Linux more usable to the masses is a good thing in that it makes the system more palatable to end users who have specific needs. RMS is a great torch bearer for altruistic geeks, but actual paid jobs developing free software do not automatically spring up from the rhetoric.
I don't care how much you hate profit and business, they get things done.
And to believe that anything that flies (birds, planes etc) is to believe they're equipped with anti-grav generators...
It might not actually be the case.
--
-
changing the consumer mindset
by
mojoNYC
·
· Score: 1
in order to make 'free' software successful is a change of mindset for the consumer...
everybody likes to get something for nothing, except when they really want something, and are forced to pay for it--the whole corporate shell is geared towards giving a product a higher sense of 'legitimacy' --whether it's the fancy packaging for M$ Word or a $20 CD, along with the store that its purchased in, consumers see these as 'legitimate' products, and, in most cases, will pay for them (happily or not, it doesn't matter)--in many cases, the high price validates the quality/importance of the purchase...
contrast that scenario with the typical free software experience--you find a piece of shareware that does a key piece of work for you, and even though it's only $10, the developer often doesn't get paid, because it's not required...
it's fsckd up when people will agree to pay M$, the RIAA cartel, etc., but they don't think about paying $10 to the actual creator...there needs to be a cultural change, where people recognize, value and encourage the development of free software, and do so by 'voting with their pocketbook'
there are some who do pay, but not enough yet to reach any critical mass--the bottom line is that we need to encourage this sort of financial support--wouldn't you rather pay an artist or developer directly, or is it just too easy to pay the fat cat who sat in the middle?
my.02
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
(please forgive me for responding to this troll, but so many of the assertions he/she makes are common to non-trolls)
RMS asserts no such thing. Only that it may happen. There is ample evidence to support such a concern, so it makes sense to worry about it. Or maybe you have some real evidence that RMS has said this thing you claim he said? I've read a lot of his work and I don't recall it.
No one said public domain was not free. But most of what is in the public domain is not so at the gift of its author, rather it falls into public domain because the exclusionary rights granted by copyright have expired (or were never recognized in the first place). Perhaps you'd like to list for us all of the public domain software you have written? If the list is quite short (or non-existent as I suspect), then give it a rest. You are looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Bull. First, it's the GPL-- General Public License. GNU is a project of the Free Software Foundation. Get it right. Second, copyright law is what limits your freedom. If there were no copyright law at all, then the GPL would actually limit your freedom. But then the GPL would have no force in that situation either, so it's a meaningless assertion. In the meantime, the GPL offers you more rights than you would otherwise have, so complaining that it limits your freedom seems disingenuous at best.
I normally agree with RMS, but
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My ONLY (and very minor) disagreement is that the goal should be to replace the most prevasive 'non free' software with free software, first, and then work on smaller stuff.
Eg, I'd be happy to use a nonfree video driver in the interim, if it enabled me to use a free OS in a given situation instead of a nonfree one.
The thing he misses is the principle of competition. Basically, by its mere existence, a free alternative threatens the nonfree version into playing nice.
He alludes to Java. The GPL implementation is a piece of crud, so nobody uses it. But its existence is enough to prevent Sun from playing at silly buggers. Regardless of the theoretical license terms. If they tried, IBM or some such would just pile behind kaffe.org and grind them into dust.
Thus freedom spreads outwards from comparatively humble free software efforts, de-facto freeing the proprietary software too.
" The thing he misses is the principle of competition. Basically, by its mere existence, a free alternative threatens the nonfree version into playing nice."
Not exactly. By its mere existence, a free (and legitimate--it can't be a piece of crap) alternative forces the nonfree version into recognising it. The nonfree version can either play nicely or really really dirty.
Nonetheless, RMS certainly does miss a few things. Repeatedly.
--
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
This is the guy who didn't want any variables,,,
by
kahei
·
· Score: 1
...starting with 'win' in the Windows-specific part of Emacs because the connotations of the word 'win' are too positive to be associated with the Big Scary OS.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
>copyright law is what limits your freedom.
The copyright only exits if you never ever publically put the source code into the public domain.
Once it is in the public domain, that exact copy of the source code is in the public domain forever.
RMS main mantra of 'free as in beer' in promoting GNU as a license can be considered, at best, false advertising since the software is not free to be used as you wish, including putting into a commercial product, it is only free of cost.
20 years of development...
by
ColdGrits
·
· Score: 1
...and *still* no HURD.
Maybe we'll see HURD 1.0 in 2024?
-- People should not be afraid of their governments -
Governments should be afraid of their people.
Luckily, for the posters here, these posts will be ignored by the writers of any history of software. Richard Stallman operates according to principles.
There is more wisdom in Richard Stallman's nail clippings than the majority of posters here possess.
Free as in...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The word "free" (as in "freedom") is an empty signifier used only in propaganda.
Its perlocutionary effect is to make you identify its speakers' interest with your interest, so that you will cede them control of your life.
Typical Stallman. "It's either the way I think it should be, or it's Wrong." Sorry, RMS, but freedom only being Freedom when it uses your definition is a little too NewSpeak for my tastes.
When I have a choice between F/OSS and proprietary I tend to choose the former, like a good little Unix-Beard Pinko. I finally managed to get our DBA here at work to switch from MS SQL on Win2k to PostgreSQL on Linux (though I'd prefer it were running on FreeBSD)--and he's even starting to like it. I've gotten numerous friends and will eventually even get Mom to switch to, or at least try Linux/BSD (oh, wait; BSD isn't Free).
For RMS to malign me, question my morality and suggest I don't value freedom because I happen to use "Indonesia" and run the "Invidious" binary driver is ludicrous on its face. You have to pick your battles. I think I've done a fair job thus far of winning the ones I choose. In the end, that will do a hell of a lot better a job of spreading F/OSS than "You're either Free (according to my definition) or you're morally impure". That smacks of "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists", if you ask me.
Single-mindedness and zealotry is a losing quality, in whomever it's found.
Re:Blah, blah, blah.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For RMS to malign me, question my morality and suggest I don't value freedom because I happen to use "Indonesia" and run the "Invidious" binary driver is ludicrous on its face. You have to pick your battles. I think I've done a fair job thus far of winning the ones I choose.
I didn't read him as criticising anyone for picking their battles. The worrying phenomenon he is talking about is where e.g. the highlights at an "Open Source" conference are the latest Oracle, Kylix or Sun Java SDK.
By all means, pick your battles and win ground bit by bit. But when you use Oracle on Linux, understand that you are surrendering freedoms, even if you're sticking with it for the forseeable future because you're fighting a different battle at the moment.
Every year that goes by...
by
Charlie+Bill
·
· Score: 1
Steadman's message gets weaker and weaker. The world of free software he envisioned has, ironically, now passed him by. Sure, without his work stuff like Linux wouldn't be around today but he's missed the point of his own dialog.
Open Source is about everybody being allowed to come to the party, take what you created and make it better than it was before. Keep it going past the time of your eventual disinterest in the project. Make it bigger than anyone envisioned.
Steadman has so long tied this to his vision of a utopian operating system but he has so far missed the point. That operating system is -written-, though not by him. Not "yet", though since the time he started some near-enough completely GPL'd distributions have come, become hugely popular and disappeared in the time that "he" has been working on GNU/HURD.
Steadman was a visionary, but Steadman is also an egomaniac. The concept that its REALLY _GNU_/YourFavoriteDistro would be like having a Nascar team be a Shell/Nascar team because that's what fuels it.
Steadman should give up the ego battle with trying to relable Linux and having syntactic rule battles lasting weeks and weeks (e.g. "what IS an operating system") rather than addressing the up-to-date, day-to-day issues like, oh, protecting the GPL from its first major legal assault ever.
Or get serious about Gnu/Hurd as a distro.
Otherwise, we'll be soon releasing a distro called Gnu/GoFuckYourself to prove how lame you truly are.
Re:Every year that goes by...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Steadman?! The hell??
Re:Every year that goes by...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who is Steadman?
Re:Every year that goes by...
by
gregarican
·
· Score: 1
Steadman get *that* much closer to marrying Oprah and her millions. But he just can't seem to drag her wide ass up to the altar!
BETCHA IT WILL INCLUDE TEH SLINGS.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Last one with the can of Crisco please close the lid.
The great unanswered question...
by
cartman
·
· Score: 1
The tremendous question, which remains unanswered by Stallman, is: How will free software generate the revenues necessary to pay programmers? Because it's very difficult to charge money for something people could easily acquire for free.
This question seems to be "brushed aside" by Stallman every time he talks about these issues. He mentions something to the effect of "you can charge for distribution." But right now CheapBytes sells CDs for $0.89 and that's not enough to pay any programmers.
Thus far, free software has been funded by two main factors. First, corporate largesse, where some large corporation (like AOL, IBM, or Sun) deems it worthwhile to fund some project (like Mozilla, the Linux kernel, or OpenOffice). Second, developers donating their time, which is usually done out of interest (as a hobby) or to gain a kind of credential ("I'm one of the authors of Apache").
These two sources of funding have worked very well thus far, but they're both quite limited. Because the funding for free software is limited, the amount of free software is limited as well. The vast majority of the software in the world remains proprietary, and will remain proprietary, until free software has a means of generating revenue to pay more programmers than it does at present.
It seems to me that Stallman should advocate government subsidies for free software development. The money could be distributed as grants to groups of developers who previously have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) productivity in releasing software that a great many people use.
It would only require a few billion dollars a year to produce an enormous amount of free software. This tax wouldn't have to be shouldered by the U.S. alone; it could be paid for by a large number of countries, including European countries, Japan, etc. The total bill per citizen could very well end up being less than $1/year.
This would solve the funding issue for free software. Adequate desktop free software could rapidly be produced.
This suggestion is entirely in line with what the government does already. This is because governments fund much or most of the research that is already carried out, and software is actually a kind of research, not production. Take the NIH as an example (the National Institutes of Health). That publically funded entity produces the majority of the research done on disease; and the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry is dependent on its findings.
Public funding for free software could very easily save the economy money, in the long run. Look at how much money we pay to the Microsoft monopoly...
Re:The great unanswered question...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It seems to me that Stallman should advocate government subsidies for free software development. The money could be distributed as grants to groups of developers who previously have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) productivity in releasing software that a great many people use.
Let's see, you want to replace a thriving part of the economy and unemploy hundreds of thousands of upper middle class developers (money paid to proprietary software makers doesn't just disappear into a black hole, you know) with a government program (with the usual endemic mismanagement, pork-barrel politics, and just plain ineffectiveness) funded through additional taxation (which would inevitably creep upward over time).
I think even Stallman would have trouble keeping a straight face while listening to this one.
Re:The great unanswered question...
by
cartman
·
· Score: 1
Let's see, you want to replace a thriving part of the economy and unemploy hundreds of thousands of upper middle class developers
No part of my suggestion requires that we unemploy "hundreds of thousands of upper middle class developers." No part of my suggestion requires that we "replace" any part of the economy. Did you gather these from my post somewhere, or are you "inferring" it?
with a government program (with the usual endemic mismanagement, pork-barrel politics, and just plain ineffectiveness)
If the government program were so much less efficient than private industry, then more programmers would have to be employed to achieve the same result. However, that's not even what I'm suggesting; I'm not suggesting that any portion of the private economy be replaced. In case you didn't read my post terribly carefully, I'm not suggesting we nationalize the software industry! I'm suggesting a small program funded by a collaboration of public entities, to offer free software in competition with the few monopolistic software enterprises. Since less than 10% of the price of Windows or Office goes to actaual development on that software, I'd be willing to bet that government programs would be even more efficient than private industry in this limited case.
Furthermore, government agencies which only distribute grants (like the NIH) have been shown to be reasonably efficient, relative to private industry.
funded through additional taxation (which would inevitably creep upward over time).
It's not inevitable that the funds devoted to a given project will increase over time. Federal funds to defense and aerospace (for example) dropped precipitously during the 1990s. Your comment is an unwarranted assumption.
I think even Stallman would have trouble keeping a straight face while listening to this one.
Thanks for your considered and intelligent response. It appears you have serious problems with reading comprehension, since most of the things you attributed to my post had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Surely the really clever thing is in the hardware not the software. That is after all why I buy their expensive pieces of silicon. To offload the work from my cpu to their hardware. If there is anything really intresting going on in the drivers then this means it is done by the cpu.
Second with the pace of development by the time any competitor has taken their opensource drivers and applied it to their own hardware it will have come obsolete. And opensource is not the same as putting it under the gpl. They can make restriction on its use.
I for one hope that soon some company will come out with a modern card that has truly open drivers. I would even settle for a lesser price/performance ratio. Just as long as it bloody works with a new kernel thank you very much. G400 are becoming difficult to find.
Maybe a new company will do it or one of the old ones that needs any help it can get.
--
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:What exactly is nvidia's problem
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Surely the really clever thing is in the hardware not the software. That is after all why I buy their expensive pieces of silicon.
No. Hardware is more expensive because it take resources to manufacture copies. The same is not true of software.
You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation.
Doesn't sound like much fun, which is what Open Source is all about...
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
Azghoul
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Corporations can only exert pressure that you allow.
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Should we thank the developers for this "support"?
by
drywater
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I am thankful that NVidia writes a Linux driver that takes advantage of the $399 video card I bought from them. I specifically bought an NVidia for the support of Linux. If there was an open source option that was as effective as the NVidia version I'd certianly go for it, but I'm not going to run my high end video card in framebuffer mode.
Shear Aye for the GNU Guy?
by
JPelorat
·
· Score: 1
I'd watch it!
-- Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Hopefully yes. It has been free in the past, but not without problems - I'm hoping they will keep it free anyway. The last time they had free beer at their party some guy named Darl tried to stop everybody from drinking it by claiming that he had pissed in the beer. Everybody paused for a second, but then kept drinking because they realized he was just being a mormon. Later it came out that what Darl meant was that because he has pissed in the past, and that piss has since evaporated, and that water vapor then turned into rain, and beer is ultimately derived from rain, his piss was therefore in the beer. Some people suggested that the actual situation was probably the reverse and that there would be a very good chance of finding beer in Darl's piss, but nobody wanted to taste his piss to see (it didn't help that he wanted us to sign an NDA saying that we would never piss again).
This is seriously distorting his already bent definition of "free". Freedom, as he defines it, can be applied to software (and with a bit of work books, music etc) and while you might argue with the word used it's a useful concept to have.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
(Note: Although I seem to be speaking for RMS, I do not. I am merely representing his argument as I understand it.)
Information cannot be free. Information is, in itself, nothing more than an artifact. People can be free to know the information, or use it (listen to music, run programs) and share it. Those are the freedoms RMS speaks of when he talks about the freedom of information-- the freedom of the people to do what they want with the information they have.
He is addressing what he sees as a bug in society: the restriction of the flow of information for the purpose of individual profit.
The concept is simple: if information is useful, it will benefit society more if access to that information is unfettered. So, if there is a single case in which the free exchange of information is inhibited, society is diminished.
Some people agree; others do not. I do agree. I believe it is my duty as a member partaking of the benefits of society to contribute back to society, and not hold out potential benefit for the purpose of personal profit.
-- Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Users cannot be free while using a non-free program.
Hey RMS, didn't they offer intorductory logic at MIT?
Seriously, there is no logic to the above statement, it is totally bereft of value as a supporting argument. Particularly since it is patently false.
What should have been said is:
Users cannot be free until the M$'s and RMS's of the world let them make their own software choices free of obfuscation and misrepresentation.
Do you really seek to abridge the rights of end users to use the product which does the job best for them? Do you seek to abridge the rights of developers to dispose of their work as they see fit?
This argument is more akin to religious extremism than reasoned argument. I do not debate your right to have strong (and wrong) opinions. I will hotly debate the conclusions you would have people draw from your opinions.
Your assertion about the Invidious Video Driver Et. Al demonstrates this clearly. Your position seems to indicate that using any non-free software to resolve a problem is somehow wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth. Given two pieces of software X and Y where X is non-free but conforms to the requirements, and Y is free but does not satisfy all requirements, that users should select Y over X, despite the fact that X performs the required job and Y does not. This is where the argument gets it's religious flavor. What other term can I apply to a position which exhorts users to deny the evidence of their senses in the pursuit of some (likely unattainable) Xanadu?
As for those who create software, who has the right to determine how they dispose of their property? Your position on this is merely the antithesis of the Microsoft/SCO position. Nor is your position any more tenable than theirs. Microsoft/SCO assert that free software is somehow immoral, and you assert the opposite. I suggest that neither of your opinions matter a hill of beans.
It is unseemly for anyone who purports to support Free, as in freedom, to seek to villify developers for exercising their freedoms.
The simple fact of the matter is that your extremist position is no more valid than the extremist positions of your antagonists. Like most such positions, it has no place in the real world. In the real world, you seek solutions which work, regardless of their dogmatic purity. Several times in the last century people tried superimposing dogma over reality, by and large those experiments failed. Those that still are with us have had to yield to reality to continue to exist.
There is no one "right" answer in the free v. non-free software debate. The "right" answer is not blanket dogma, but the result of an unbiased analysis of the situation, and a choice based on that analysis and the constraints of the real world we live in, wether you are a producer or a consumer of software.
-- "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A. "Talk minus action equals/." -
Re:Heresy!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
***One*** its not a religion, its a philosophy and a very correct one i might add.
***Two*** You say extremist like its a bad thing. The Middle Road has no inherent virtue. "Extreme" positions are sometimes correct ones.
Here is an example: Person A, believes everyone should be free Person B, believes everyone should be a slave Person C, believes that half should be free and half should be slaves.
Identify the extremists.
***Three*** Arguing for the right to make closed source software is like arguing for the right to own slaves. Existing in reality costs freedom, existing in society costs more. Does my freedom to attack people conflict with their right not to be attacked? The trick is balance; tweaking the system for maximum freedom.
***Four*** "As for those who create software, who has the right to determine how they dispose of their property?"
What makes it their property? (you cant "own" a potato man!) To a slaveowner, a slave is his "property". We need to be very careful about what we consider to be property.
Nvidia for example. I paid for a graphics card. I'm not renting it. I "own" the hardware, but i don't "own" the software? I need to basicly ask permission to use it. That doesn't seem quite right. I own it, but someone else controls it.
***Five*** He's incuraging people to keep GNU pure. Proprietary GNU undermines the whole point!
You're either a troller or an article-skipper...
by
nutsy
·
· Score: 1
... I can't tell which 'cause both subhuman life forms are
depressingly common around here.
Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its
good and useful,
Mr Stallman (do you really think you know him well enough to
call him by first name?) has nothing against commercial sales for
profit. Neither does the GNU project in general. You are missing the
point of free software in Stallman's . Be educated.
why should they give away the design or their work
The premise of this question reeks of egotism and self-importance.
Few software packages today can be claimed to serve a completely new
purpose, or even to serve a pre-existing purpose in a completely new
way. If someone is inclined not to 'give away' their
best-thing-since-sliced-bread software design, I'm inclined to ask what
they're hiding. The GNU General Public Licence requires that
redistributions of GPL-licensed software be done so under the same
licence; think of it as a "share and share alike" clause.
If being a professional (charging) software developer
becomes "bad" or "unfashionable"
Once again, you are missing the point of free software. Also, I
disagree with claiming that a professional necessarily charges for goods
or services, but that's a personal problem of mine.
Clearest articulation yet
by
WillWare
·
· Score: 1
I like this article because (whether you agree with him or not) here RMS is very clear and very specific about what he intends, and how that plays out in the behavior of real people in real situations. It's very interesting to look at the huge number of responses with high scores that seem to intentionally misconstrue RMS's intent.
RMS has an ability to stay focused on issues he regards as essential, while other people try to get him to think about other things. That is a rare and important contribution to public debate. Most people are eager for popularity and see it as a prerequisite for having any public voice at all, so they gladly commingle their viewpoints with those of others. When a viewpoint is widely misunderstood, we need somebody like RMS to advocate for it.
Some of the responses seem to display a misunderstanding about the nature of public debate in a free society. It is good for society for RMS to argue for his viewpoint, even if one disagrees with it.
--
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
s/program/documentation/
by
psgalbraith
·
· Score: 1
It's unfortunate that he doesn't feel the same way about documentation.
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was wondering about this yesterday. As far as I know, the last news was basically, "someone pulled the same thing that happened to Debian on us, it took us a really long time to notice (compared to Debian), we're checking for mangled source right now." Not sure where it went afterward.
How to program for a living in a free world
by
Per+Abrahamsen
·
· Score: 1
First, nobody should be forced to work for free.
For the 97.3% of us, it would be business as usual. We make a living creating specialised software for a single customer, who is usually also our employer. Our work is going to be a bit easier if we can get source for everything, but that is all.
Another 2.5% of the programmers make a living creating software primarily intended for sale to corporate users. These people will have short term problems, while the industry completes the transformation from product based to service based. However, this transformation is already well underway, both Microsoft and Red Hat products are becomming services.
The remaining 0.2% of the programmers are creating software for the home segment, such as games. I don't see how these people can get paid for writing single-user games. Free software is probably not a solution there. However, some of them should be able to gain jobs for massively multiuser games, which can be (and is) sold like a service.
The conflict between OSS & IP
by
BritGeek
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One of the difficulties I personally have with RMS is that there are niggling little inconsistencies between what he says and what he does.
Specifically, while he says that he is fine with software being for "fee", his actions, especially as measured against the LGPL, make that quite hard. This thinly disguised dislike of commercial software bleeds over into his general worldview. He clearly is very binary about whether something is "open" or not, and uses the wonderful "non-free Invidious video driver" example. (Am I the only one who found that particular spoonerism amusing, BTW?)
So, because he can only see the world as "free" or "non-free", he is unwilling to admit that things like video drivers, which are not published as open source, may nonetheless be of significant value to the OSS community. Another way of looking at this is that he simply does not believe in the notion of Intellectual Property, and therefore is unwilling to accept that there are reasonable commercial cases where it should be protected.
I'm probably being to quick to criticize as (Heaven knows!), we all owe him a lot, but I never trust a man that has a simple world view...
-- "The time is always now" - Victor
Re:The conflict between OSS & IP
by
praksys
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Specifically, while he says that he is fine with software being for "fee", his actions, especially as measured against the LGPL, make that quite hard.
There is no inconsistency here. It is hard to charge for free (as in speech) software because without the monopoly power that proprietary software owners have it is hard to persuade people to pay. That is just a consequence of basic economics, not a contradiction between what Stallman says and what he does.
Am I the only one who found that particular spoonerism amusing, BTW?
"Invidious video driver" is not a spoonerism ("videous invideo driver" would be).
So, because he can only see the world as "free" or "non-free", he is unwilling to admit that things like video drivers, which are not published as open source, may nonetheless be of significant value to the OSS community.
Stallman has never claimed that proprietary software has no value or that it is never useful. He claims that giving up some of your freedom in return for something useful is a bad bargain - in exactly the same sense that Benjamin Franklin thought that trading liberty for security was a bad bargain. Security is valuable, but only a fool would allow himself to be enslaved in the hope that it would make him more secure.
Now maybe you do not believe that software can be free in the sense that speech can be free, but if you do beleive it then there is nothing extreme or simplistic about the idea that you shoud not use slave software. It is nothing more or less than the idea that you should not trade away your liberty for convenience.
I totally disagree. RMS *started* the Free Software movement and can promote it in whatever way he wants. In my opinion he's doing a pretty good job at it.:) If you don't like it, you can start your own movement. Someone else already did.
Who pays Dick?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who pays him to do what? And can all developers get some of that action?
It pains me to see how misunderstood RMS is on /.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If Linus was never born, eventually, someone else would have written a kernel. It might have come a few years later, and it might not be as good as the linux kernel, but it would come.
If RMS was never born, BSD would be closed/proprietary. So would KDE and gnome wouldn't exist. The GPL wouldn't exist and the face of Free software would be completely different.
"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less he's apt to look foolish in retrospect." --Quentin Tarantino
Thats true. Ever try to debate religion with an agnostic? it aint easy! Linus takes this approach with Free Software. Its hard to find fault with anything he says because he says very little. He is a good diplomat; he unifies the clans and presents a pleasant face for bussness.
The only problem with this is there are important things that need to be said! RMS is the one saying them. He gets down and dirty despite it being a position of less dignitty. He is not socially conscious enough to be diplomatic, he is blunt and to the point like a laser and i respect that.
There are 2 types of GNU users: -Those who use it because they feel its the best tool for the job, the Open Source Movement -Those who use it because they feel that Freedom is a philosophically superior position, the Free Software Movement
If the situation was reversed, and windows was Free and GNU/linux was closed, I would be a Windows zealot. So, in a way, the license is more important then the code.
Its unfortunate that some newbies have the impresson that he is trying to take credit for "linux". He deserves more credit then he is asking for. Also unfortunate, that its easier to understand Linus' contribution then his, because his is more complex.
He is not trying to "steal linux". He is the granddaddy of us all, and where he leads i will gladly follow.
Bingo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most software is custom written; Free Software is a boon to me, because I can take a base set of software and customize it for my needs.
The client doesn't care because the GPL is *irrelevant* since its not used outside of the company.
Free speech thrives at UNCENSORED! BBS - http://uncensored.citadel.org
So why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software? Both can and are expressions of thought. Yet one is entirely utilitarian but another is sacred? Both seem secred to me. You can make speech private as well as software too. The important part is you have the choice.
I think RMS is on to something. Too many people overvalue their source. They horde it like a gold ring (My precessssiouss!) when it really isn't that valuable. The software you write today will not survive tomorrow. Code is far more valuable than just to run things. So why bury it behind NDAs and closed systems?
There is also a "higher" level of freedom being missed. It isn't the fact that you can use software that is free: its the fact you have a choice if you want to or not. That is far more important than the free software. The fact that someone or team has made a viable unencumbered piece of software I can chose to use is what makes OSS really special and hopefully the dominate social trend for the next hundred years.
Tell me, then, why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software?
I didn't say that we shouldn't care about free software. We should. I do. You do too, evidently.
I'm saying that most people don't, and I don't expect that to change. That's why free software uncoincidentally began succeeding when it actually became a better value to more users, instead of simply having freedom as an end in itself.
-- Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Please mod this up as +5, funny!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, ah, er... never mind...
Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Aidtopia
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Today, I can choose to write free software or closed software. It's my choice, and I like it that way. I have nothing against the free software movement, but I disagree with RMS when he suggests that I shouldn't have the freedom to develop software and try to make it a commercial product of it. Why should I only be allowed to market services like installation and support?
Software developers should be like academians? OK. Not all mathematicians share their advances. I know some who develop proprietary models of the stock market for an investment company. It's not for everyone, but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose such a pursuit.
And what makes software so special? Shouldn't hardware be open? Aren't chips mostly designed with source code now? Aren't production costs getting so low that they are essentially commodities like software?
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
pandrijeczko
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You and the other commercially orientated programmers that have moaned about Stallman's comments need to stop throwing your "toys out of the pram" and re-read the article properly again - I did not see any mention in the article about being denied the right to create commercial closed software.
The article is not about software directly but about exercising the right to exercise personal freedom and the right to choice of either open or closed source software - please remember that no programmer is forced to write open source software.
Firstly, you need to accept that a lot of people (myself included) are unwilling to pay hundreds of dollars/pounds/Euros etc. for a lot of the commercial software, Microsoft OSes and applications included, that are out there currently. Microsoft's penetration currently is due to the fact that a lot of new PCs have Windows etc. on them and because businesses pay large amounts of money for licensing - the CDs from that licensing get copied and passed around employees and their friends to the point where most home users have MS Office installed because they got it freely. Add to that the free availability of pirated software on Usenet and you have a whole heap of people using *ILLEGAL* free software. (I have been in the telecoms IT industry now for over 20 years and I have *NEVER* known anyone to buy a legitimate copy of MS Office or Windows yet everyone I know seems to have both!)
Therefore, on the assumption that a whole lot of people won't pay some of the prices asked for commercial software no matter what you do to them, surely it's better that they choose the *LEGAL* free alternatives?
Secondly, why should I allow a (corrupt?) business to dictate to me exactly how I should or should not use something I have purchased legally. Why should I be denied the option of choice? Why should I have to endure sub-standard product on my PC if I believe a cheaper (or free) alternative is better? That does not give me the right to dictate what you should use because you too have a right to choice...
Thirdly, how can you call someone that creates a proprietary stock market model a "mathematician"? A mathematician is a theorist who simply explores the science of mathematics in order to further his knowledge and the rest of human-kind - a "commercial statistician" (the best description I can come up with) has a remit of making the company he works for more money; sure, the model may be his/her own but there is a fixed end goal.
Fourthly, software is "intangible" - anyone with a computer and a knowledge of programming can create software. Hardware requires access to expensive manufactuting tools and therefore cannot be open to all by it's very nature.
Finally, adaption. I personally do not care whether or not people are still making money from software in 10/20/30 years time because it's irrelevant to the whole issue. The business market and simple laws of supply and demand dictate that commercial software is viable now but, just like the dinosaurs died out eventually, so might commercial software in the future - remember that universities and academics were giving away software long before anyone thought of selling it so what is guaranteed is that free software will continue and there isn't a damn thing Microsoft or anyone else can do about it...
All that matters is that people have the right to choice and the Open Source movement simply ensures that freedom remains nothing more.
All power to Stallman! I don't agree with everything he says but I defend him wholeheartedly in preserving the rights of you, me and everyone else to choose...
-- Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
steveha
·
· Score: 1
I did not see any mention in the article about being denied the right to create commercial closed software.
Search Google for what Stallman said during the "Freedom Zero" debate. Stallman rejects the idea that you should be free to choose any license you want for software that you write; he believes that you should use the GPL. He never quite says he wants other licenses made illegal, but he has never ruled that out, either.
-- lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
Don't say it as if its such a far-fetched extreme thing.
It is simply the belief that copyright restrictions are no longer justifying their own existence and are becoming too big a burden. GPL is a way for people who oppose copyright to "fight fire with fire". If copyright law is cancelled, all licenses will become irrelevant (almost effectively equivalent to GPL).
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
steveha
·
· Score: 1
You are mistaken. GPL depends on copyright law! If there were no copyright law, GPL would be almost effectively equivalent to the BSD license.
The whole point of GPL is to force people to give back any changes they make to the code. And what forces them to give back? The copyright laws upon which GPL is based.
And forcing all software developers to use the GPL on all code they write really is a "far-fetched extreme thing".
steveha
-- lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
GPL depends on copyright law, but it uses copyright law to prevent others from using copyright law for restrictive purposes. That's what I meant by "fighting fire with fire".
The GPL does not force people to give back changes they make. It only disallows people from distributing derivative works under restrictive licensing. One of the effects of this is that to distribute derivative works one must contribute back.
The "GPL world" only uses copyright to enforce the GPL license itself which prohibits any other use of copyright restrictions in regards to anything and everything possible. The "BSD world" allows others to distribute the work or derivative works under restrictive licensing, which uses copyright to restrict others.
Without copyright, there would be no restrictions, which is more similar to the GPL world.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
steveha
·
· Score: 1
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright. Microsoft downloads EMACS, changes it so it says MSMACS, makes some little tweak to make it incompatible with normal EMACS, and sells it. No one can stop them, because there is no copyright. They give out source code to no one.
This is more similar to GPL than to BSD? I don't think so.
steveha
-- lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
dido
·
· Score: 1
No, production costs aren't getting so low as software. Perhaps if you could have a chip foundry on your desk to make an integrated circuit by writing the VHDL code, and if it was as easy to fabricate a printed circuit board as it is to write a subroutine, then maybe. However, today it still costs well over a billion dollars to open up a chip fabrication plant, and billions more to operate it till it turns up a profit. It costs a significant amount of time and effort to make and fabricate a printed circuit board, and a lot of specialized expensive equipment to make one that uses surface mount devices and other modern components. By contrast, the only equipment you need to develop software is your computer.
-- Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright.
Ok.
Microsoft downloads EMACS
What's Microsoft?
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Aidtopia
·
· Score: 1
re-read the article properly again - I did not see any mention in the article about being denied the right to create commercial closed software.
I read the article quite closely. RMS clearly argues that all software should be open. In fact, the whole point of the essay seems to be that it's not enough to have hybrid free/closed systems. For example, he says it's unacceptable to have proprietary drivers on an otherwise "free" system. He says that businesses that make their commercial software run on Linux aren't helping the movement. He's also always quick to point out that open source software is not necessarily the same as free software.
He's not saying I can't write closed software, but there's certainly no room for it in his vision. If he's successful in pushing for the complete incarnation of his vision, then I'll have lost a freedom.
please remember that no programmer is forced to write open source software
Please re-read my post. I never said that we can't write closed software and profit from it. I said that's a freedom we stand to lose if RMS ever gets his way. I'm all for open and free source alternatives, as long as they are part of the spectrum of choice.
(I have been in the telecoms IT industry now for over 20 years and I have *NEVER* known anyone to buy a legitimate copy of MS Office or Windows yet everyone I know seems to have both!)
Allow me to introduce myself. My name's Adrian, and I've (grudingly) purchased several versions of Windows and Office. I've never used illegally copied software at home. And when I've been expected to use it at work, I've raised a stink until the company paid up or switched to a free (as in beer) alternative.
But copyright and license violation (and the belief that MS is evil) are irrelevant to the topic. There's lots of legal software out there, that's used legally, and that's not made by evil companies. To say RMS-style free source is the only option because it's what the market will bear is specious at best. Like I said, I'm totally behind the idea of open and free alternatives, but I'm against the FSF-only model.
Thirdly, how can you call someone that creates a proprietary stock market model a "mathematician"?
www.webster.com: "mathematician: a specialist or expert in mathematics"
My point is these friends are developing new mathematical theories (not just statistical models), and they're not sharing them with the world at large. They have that right. (They've also been making buckets of money with their model for more than a decade now, but only because their model is closed and because they're small enough not to influence the market.)
Fourthly, software is "intangible" - anyone with a computer and a knowledge of programming can create software. Hardware requires access to expensive manufactuting tools and therefore cannot be open to all by it's very nature.
There's a hardware/software convergence going on. Processors run microcode. Chips are designed as software. Manufacturing of both is getting quite cheap. There are lots of individuals designing processors now, and prototyping with inexpesive PALs. Manufacturing of printed circuit boards and even VLSI chips can be farmed out analogously to farming out duplication of software media. It's a cost of distribution, just like bandwidth or burning CDs is a small cost to distribute this otherwise intangible idea of software.
There's an open cores movement--processor and chip implementations in software that follow the same principles as the open source movement. If RMS opposes closed drivers on a free source machine, shouldn't he also oppose running free source on closed hardware?
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Aidtopia
·
· Score: 1
No, [hardware] production costs aren't getting so low as software.
Actually, for a couple hundred bucks, you can design and implement your own processors with a PAL programmer. There's even an open cores movement with VHDL code for processors, VGA controllers, etc. Sure, they're not as fast as there custom counterparts, but the field is moving into the realm of hobbyist, open-sourcer, and individual innovation.
Even in small quantities, printed circuit boards can be farmed out for dollars a board. Sure, that's more expensive than farming out duplication of CDs, but not by much, and not for that much longer.
I think chips and boards will become analogous to binaries. It's just a way to distribute the implementation of hardware without giving away the source.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
steveha
·
· Score: 1
Okay, imagine that there's no copyright. [...] What's Microsoft?
Irrelevant to whether lack of copyright is equal to the GPL.
P.S. Microsoft would be hurt, but they would survive. They would no longer just sell software, they would make you actually sign a contract before you get the software. And if you say "now imagine both copyright and contract law vanishing", I won't bother to reply.
Note that Red Hat is making money supporting Linux. Microsoft could do something similar, and since they would never release the source code, they would have no competition in the support business for Windows.
Also note that without copyright, they could make a "MS Linux" by taking Linux source code, changing some internals to make it incompatible, and selling it. No one else could support that, either. (You may say that wise people won't buy it; that's true. I'm just pointing out that lack of copyright law would make it possible.)
steveha
-- lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
I still believe they would be ripped appart without copyright. You could take, say WinXP, and replace it part by part with Free Software having a working system all the way. Also contracts aren't that effective without copyright -- once the cat is out of the bag you can only go after the one who let it out, the damage is done.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Mutually Exclusive Freedoms
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 1
Contract law is not equivalent to copyright, because since there's no slavery (mostly:), contracts are always reasonably breakable (and it only takes one to breach the contract, noone else is bound).
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
B'Trey
·
· Score: 1
It is "free as in beer." You can drink all the beer you want. What you can't do is set up a beer stand and sell the beer you got for free to passers-by. (You can, however, sell them the cup and give them the beer for free.)
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN!
by
InsomniaCity
·
· Score: 1
Hemos forgot the obligatory disclaimer!
-- You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
Re:mod me troll -1 but... (mod parent up)
by
sisukapalli1
·
· Score: 1
Someone mod parent up...
Whoever you are, anon, very well said. Very insightful indeed. Please reveal your id so that I can put you on my friend list...
S
Read RMS alongside Paul Graham
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just finished reading Paul Graham's article What You Can't Say in yesterday's/., then caught up to this one. I think it's instructive to read them together.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
gammoth
·
· Score: 1
Corporations can distort the market, cheat honest suppliers, benifit from publicly financed transport systems and universities, and use the money from obscene profits in ways I disagree with.
Leave out the 'use tax money in ways I disagree with'. It's such a bad argument, and goes against accepted economic definitions of wealth.
Do you want people to say, I disagree with the military being used to protect your corporate interests, and therefore I will deduct that portion from my income tax? Do you want privately financed armies? (Apologies in advance for the straw man argument.)
You can only put something in the public domain if you explicitly state so, or you remit your right to retain copyright.
That is, some thing with an (at the time) unattributed author is not considered public domain until such time the author declares his/her intent. Up until that point, you may treat it as public domain with the knowledge that at any time the author could come after you if they so choose (up to the time limitations, anyway).
So it's not really public domain unless you can prove it is. All it takes is one irate person on a project team who disagrees...
GPL helps to protect you from some of that. They can't "take it back" once it's released GPL, as long as you haven't monkeyed with it and rereleased it without attribution or source.
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
Per+Abrahamsen
·
· Score: 1
Security was lax, the site got compromised. So they upped security and worked hard to undo the damage.
If you have a public site with low security, it *will* get hacked. FSF has now learned that lesson the hard way, what's more to figure out?
Mozilla is not a really good example...
by
moogla
·
· Score: 1
because a lot of the hard up-front work and design was funded by Netscape (AOL): they had full-time salaried programmers working on it.
The same goes with IBM and Eclipse.
Few projects will have this kind of backing and resources.
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:Mozilla is not a really good example...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Few projects will have this kind of backing and resources.
How many? Less than 5? Between 5 and 10? Between 10 and 100? Between 100 and 500?
Fighting the illogical left
by
Loundry
·
· Score: 1
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
Not flamebait, just the same leftist, irrational claptrap which is so popular among young people in general and college students in particular. It should not be shunned as flamebait, but engaged so that its irrational and superstitious aspects can be exposed for all to see and judge.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
Glittering generalities like this may make you feel good, but your emotions teach you nothing.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA.
The USA is one of the few countries in the world where an individual's standard of living is most affected by his/her own choices.
The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example.
While this may seem like yet another "let's enrich the greedy fat cats" thing to you, you have to keep in mind that oil was and is the lifeblood of the American economy. Sure, some fat cats suffered. What are the long-reaching effects on American economy if the oil flow is interrupted? From the politicians' viewpoint, the idea to invade oil-rich companies was more about protecting American interests than it was about enriching someone you hate.
Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
The DMCA stems from the problems with copyright law and "intellectual property" laws. If you don't fix those problems, then we can only expect to see even more garbage a la DMCA.
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
There are lots of big-money pressures steering the government (which is a nice face put on deadly force). Trial lawyers and unions are both huge donators to the "anti-corporate" branches of our gross government.
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
The USA is already a class-based system. If you want to be in the lower class, then get some tattoos, get multiple piercings in your face, and practice riding your skateboard on someone else's property. If you want to be in the upper class, get some education in a desired skill in the marketplace, make contacts, stop feeling bad about yourself, and work hard. It's not like we live in the degenerate UK, where the class you're born into is the class where you stay, and people know what class you're in as soon as you open your mouth. Your point sounds a lot like "The sky is falling" and "We have to do something!" More emotional reasoning.
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Yes, that is a scary idea. Making decisions based of fear is a poor choice. We need more people making decisions based on reason and evidence rather than our petty, childish emotions.
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard,
Majority vote (I take it you mean "majority rule") is bad in and of itself. It's becuase of this Tyranny of the Majority that blacks, gays, and women have had such a rough go at life.
The major flaw that I see with Leftist ideology is that even the biggest scumbag loser gets a vote. Why should the lazy and stupid have the right to vote away the money that I've earned? What, you mean there are no lazy and stupid people?
(This is the point where some Leftist will respond and claim that they are, by definition, more intelligent than me. They'll probably make some snide joke in response to my rhetorical question about the lack of existence of the lazy and stupid.)
-- I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Stallman will have nothing to do with 'Open Source'. He is for 'Free Software', and sees a big difference between them...
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Nexus7
·
· Score: 1
The software is indeed free, as much as you are free by virtue of living in a democratic country. The restrictions on its redistribution are deisgned only to prevent you from restricting others' freedoms to use, modify and redistribute it. The GPL states as much. You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't (without penalty) yell "Fire!" in a movie hall.
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have 4 words for you...
by
Darth+RadaR
·
· Score: 1
MOD DOWN! COPIED FROM LINUX.COM!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The parent and grandparent post were both copied from the linked linux.com article. Check for yourself and Mod Down please.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
Concerned+Onlooker
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure that after reading all of Ayn Rand's books you are an expert on what makes economies work. Has it ever occurred to you that the Greens are long term thinkers? Corporations and big business are generally about plunder (get there first and claim/take all the resources), while others are thinking about a long term way towards quality of life for more than the people who have managed to acquire more wealth than they need.
I used to be an avid fan of Ayn Rand too, but she's limited to the one dimension of greed. If you look around and "see the world for what it is" you will find many people who don't really fit into this paradigm. It doesn't mean they don't want to work for a living, it's just that they also live balanced lives.
And greedy people are not just trying to "better their own lives." They are pathological in their quest to acquire...everything. To "win."
-- http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:You sir
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Are you arguing that it is bad to support a cause you believe in?
I suppose a soldier fighting a war to be free, is in a way, a pawn of the government that wants him to be free.
Would you like to receive my pamphlet containing the 17 basic steps to self actualization?
-- Blar.
2 + 2
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I thought it was a bit odd that somebody claiming to be a "professional economist" would go by the alias "Steve 'Rim' Jobs". I wish I had some mod points right about now so I could mod down that asshole.
AC is correct. Never mod up Steve "Rim" Jobs
by
moogla
·
· Score: 1
Just look at the posting history... wow! That's called a reality check.
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:AC is correct. Never mod up Steve "Rim" Jobs
by
greenrd
·
· Score: 1
Alas, if only he didn't plagiarise, and instead identified it quite explicitly as a copy (and from where), such posts could still be worthy of an upmod.
First, it took little moral courage to eliminate slavery, and it did not trigger a war. The Civil War occurred because the north needed to prevent the south from becoming a separate country or else the north would turn into financial ruin. The slaves were freed for a few reasons, the immorality of slavery only being one. We could argue cause and affect all day, but most who research the details find the Civil War occurred for economic reasons.
Nobody is being oppressed or having their human rights violated by using proprietary software.
True, but it's close. The 95 year copyright protection, DMCA, and other laws are an abuse of my limited right to intellectual property. Intellectual property should become public after a limited time, and open source sort of works around the issue with the GPL. Current copyright law is an abuse of my constitutional rights.
And many would argue that we are oppressed (in a way) by proprietary software. Sure, we're not being forced to perform slave labor, but we are continually obligated to pay more and more money to companies because they won't let us use the source.
Re:So the HURD community is in good shape, then?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Jihad HQ [anti-slash.org]
Apache is the Anti-slash???
Re:You sir
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No but I am arguing that someone who acts as a mindless drone is a tool. "Anything RMS says is the gospel." Repeat 30 times. The original poster must be in league with L. Runs Hubbard's Church of $cientology as well I'd be willing to bet.
XP plays nice on an NT system where you may have many users who want to store their documents in more than one place, have their own clipart... hell just being able to RUN the software as an unprivledged user is kinda nice.
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
HAHAHAHAHAHA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This improves life quality and the karma (not the/. one) of the human beans.
Today is the first day I've actually Laughed Out Loud when reading a comment.
But in all seriousness, Human Bean Rights is an issue that we will have to deal with in the future. Are they Humans? Are they Beans? And, perhaps most importantly, can we eat them?
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
DAldredge
·
· Score: 0
What is left to figure out? What happened! If they don't know what happened it will be harder to stop it in the future.
Sticking their heads in the stand is stupid, and I expect better behavior from the FSF then this.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>You can, however, sell them the cup and give them the beer for free.)
Only if the people subsequently given free beer are told that they too have a legal obligation to pass the beer onto anyone who asks for it.
at least one glaring factual error
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example"
No, the Brits had said that the US might do that. the US never said anything at all like that.
of course, to the hate-america-first crowd, I suppose thats only a minor distinction.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't (without > penalty) yell "Fire!" in a movie hall.
No, but you're less free than you would be were you allowed to do so.
Freedom begins with property rights
by
rumblin'rabbit
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Freedom begins with property rights - the freedom to hoard, destroy, sell, rent, lend, or give away the fruits of your labours. Stillman's rejection of all but the last option is repugnant. It's not freedom, it's slavery to the whole of society.
Re:Free Software vs Control - Military Application
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I disagree. Of course, I agree that you should be free to discriminate against military organisations, but I think it's inherently incompatible with Free Software.
Free Software doesn't restrict use. At all. It grants rights to make copies under some circumstances. Once you start attempting to restrict use, you end up in EULA territory.
Of course, you could restrict distribution - simply don't grant anybody the right to make copies, and make anybody you give a copy to sign a contract that states that they won't give it to a military organisation. But that's not very Free now, is it?
RMS says: " Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee."
RMS says: "Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved."
Now, does this mean I can take his article, in part or whole, and publish it in a book, magazine, or web site and charge for it? Without paying him?
Can I take the 'Collected Works of RMS' and publish for my profit?
Dude, sign me up for this FSF stuff!
Re:You sir
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All i am saying is that i agree with most of what he says and trust his judgment. Also, I feel he deserves more respect then he is given.
I think i may have come off a bit more vehement than i intended.
Erm, isn't the "mindless drone" the person that continues to curse at their computer screen and smash hard on their keyboard each and every time their computer crashes without doing something about it?
Isn't the "mindless drone" the person that endlessly parts with their hard earned money for upgrade after upgrade knowing full well that their PC will *STILL* not do quite what they want it to after the upgrade?
Is a "mindless drone" someone who spends time and effort looking at the alternatives they have and choosing to use software that is simply *RIGHT* for the job they want to do, whether it's a commercial or free package?
Notice that I have not once mentioned specific operating systems here because all OSes and applications have usability issues that someone somewhere won't like.
However, it does strike me now that the Linux / BSD / OS X / Open Source advocates here always seem to also be knowledgeable and well-informed (ex-) Windows users also without the reverse being true...
-- Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Re:Free Software vs Control - Military Application
by
Hairy1
·
· Score: 1
You are free to license your software in any way you choose. However, I would suggest that it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce the license, as I doubt any country creating weapons with the code would blink an eye at violating the license terms.
No, he's saying that it is bad to support a cause you believe in if there is no money to be made from it...
-- Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The GNU system includes a kernel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
GNU software (gcc, emacs) didn't need Linux to become useful and/or usable.
The great-great-grandparent said "GNU", not "GNU software". The original goal of the GNU project was to produce a Free operating system, and the Linux kernel was the last necessary piece of that system.
I'm really lowballing it...
by
moogla
·
· Score: 1
as every person who has spent the time to put a project on freshmeat or sourceforge probably believes he or she deserves commercial backing.
Meanwhile you can probably list on a piece of notebook paper all the open source software that has had the benefit of paid, full time employees.
Let's see: Apache, Linux, Eclipse, Gnome (but really that's Helix now), Mono, OpenOffice (at one time), Mozilla, KDE (QT), Octave, CSound, Mosix, linux-wlan, Slash, Bugzilla, Zope, (the AOL webserver written in TCL which I can't remember whatsit called...), anaconda, RPM, (and the redhat conf tools), blender, Cinerella, and that's about all that I can think of. About 40% of these are instances of software that was once closed that was subsequently opened.
Some projects get corporate support, but they don't get salaried employees. I'm not saying other software sucks, but a lot of the big-name stuff was not all a hobbiest effort, and this has to be recognized.
What are we arguing about, anyway?
-- Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:You sir
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hear what you are saying, and think that people should rebel against the norm when it is restrictive or otherwise infringes on personal choice. But I draw the line between belief and fanaticism when I read some of the comments where folks are ready to drink the Jonestown Kool-Aid for this Stallman fellow.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
a+whoabot
·
· Score: 1
Most people on Slashdot don't care(or know much about -- I know I don't) this "economy"; I think that's where your strife with them comes from.
Many have some level of greviances, and when they hear of and see rich/powerful people who reached this "higher" level through what they know as a "capitalist" system, naturally some opposing force begins to sound nice to them. Surely you must agree that some people work just as hard as the richest people but still are below the poverty line. People want to have "success"(or insert whatever word you want to use to represent some sort of "goal") and even with working hard they don't get it. Continuing with that, I guess that's why a lot of people do not define success or The Right Thing as dealing much with any sort of stance they hold within this "economy". Which is another reason "they" don't appear to "grasp... why economies grow...[etc]": it's more a case of wanting something else(like maybe more freedom to "lift" samples for collage music, or modify source code for use in their open-source program, or whatever), and so they'll argue against "capitalism" in order to bring about some other non-economic benefits to them/people.
Sure, people may seem to talk as if they claim to know what's best for every "realm" of thought, but that's just cause they're passionate about what matters to them, non? Surely it's not too painful to just take people's seemingly over-arching comments and just try to relate it back to what they want, what their perspective is.
Equals
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ChessBase = Scid; Hiarcs = Crafty... I don't know what kind of app Bookup is, but I'm sure it has its free counterpart.
Btw: both Crafty and Scid are avaliable both in Linux and Windows versions.
Is it me, or is he saying something unfassionable and something that will come true in the future? I suppose he grew out of the time where he could only discuss his ideas with only a few friends in the kitchen, but it looks like the majority of us is still fighting for the 'earth is flat' model, where the reality is: Stallman just maybe right and what he says just may become the truth of the next century.
This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
This statement surprises me. Free Software is all about value for the user, and stuff that an IT manager should care about. Open Source is the one where the user doesn't really see the advantage, except the hard-to-verify advantage of having fewer bugs.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference.
The escalating DRM conflict will show how much free software kicks proprietary software's ass, as tangible value to the user -- not just freedom for freedom's sake. The users will be able to see a difference. Actually, they already can. Today. (For an example, try out different types of DVD player software, and try to take some sample snapshots from a movie. Try to do some things in Apple's iTunes with a file that you downloaded from their store, and notice that it lets you do less.) But it's going to get more extreme, as time goes on. The world has passed through a crossroads where the difference between software designed for the users' interest, and software designed for someone else's interest, are diverging rapidly.
RMS was a visionary.
He still is, he just seems lessened because his visions are coming true. There was a time when "The Right to Read" appeared to be a ridiculously paranoid morality play that no one could take seriously. Just a few years later, the dystopia it describes doesn't seem terribly far-fetched anymore.
The users are the ones who have the most to gain from Free Software. It's not for hackers or philosophers.
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
AoT
·
· Score: 1
You don't own corporations, you own an itsy bitsy bit of corporations. You go on to contradict yourself, the corporatization of the US is merchantilist. These corporations have millions or billions of dollars, which they got from the government, that they use to influence government decisions. As long as money is a protected form of speech we will move ever towards a corporate state.
PS Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is the destruction of heirarchal systems and capitalism is necessarily heirarchal.
On morals, values and the word 'free'
by
Stygius
·
· Score: 1
In the same way that you do not need to criticize totalitarian ideologies on moral grounds - referring to faulty methods and inadequate results is quite enough - there is really no reason to condemn "non-free" software on account of the "antisocial system" that it carries with it. Whenever there is an argument of "morals", or more specifically, values, it can never conclusively be decided if not, as Finnish philosopher von Wright notes, the participants share a common value basis.
Thus, as long as Richard Stallman keeps asserting that free software should be adopted for "moral" reasons only, we may without contradiction justify ignoring his arguments by saying that we do not share a common value basis with him.
The objective (in Immanuel Kant's sense of the word) reasons to adopt open-source software are an entirely different matter, however. I believe that the word "open" rather than "free" is the key term to use when speaking of the superiority of (GNU/)Linux and *BSD as opposed to proprietary operating systems. The former word is a mere description, allowing us to examine merit independent of anybody's whim; the latter speaks to our morals and convictions, which can never be intersubjective.
Even in languages which do not have the freedom/price ambiguity of English, the word 'free' has been so severely misused, got so value-overloaded, that it should, I believe, be avoided in any rational discussion, in any language.
Re:On morals, values and the word 'free'
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you argue that morality is a flawed concept that shouldn't be used by RMS to describe software, then doesn't it follow that morality shouldn't be used by anyone to describe anything? Why the double standard? Your arguments are so vast and sweeping, its nonsense to talk about how they relate to RMS. You're attacking the entire concept of morality just to say RMS shouldn't use it to talk about software!
The term "open" is also ambiguous; just because you are free to see the source, doesn't mean you are free to use the source.
Don't touch it, it's pure evil!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out."
I wonder. If MS were to open source it today, would a community develop around it, or would there be a chorus of developers crying "Don't touch it, it's pure evil!"
Sadly we'll never know.
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 1
You could of course go to savannah.gnu.org, and read for yourself what happened and what has been done about it. But instead you stupidly stick your head in the sand and critisize the FSF from a position of ignorance. But I guess if it wasn't posted on slashdot it didn't happen in your sad world.
Re:Free Software vs Control - Military Application
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I *strongly* disagree. I think what you said is a VERY strong form of discrimination and you should release your software under the GPL.
I mean, where do you draw the line? Is genetic research offensive? Can someone use your software to make a clone of a cow? Of a chicken? Of a human? What about nuclear energy? What if they use it to make bombs?
What if? What if? What if?
And what's military? Is a terrorist organization a militar group? If not, then you're a terrorist!;)
Just play by the rules. If you like the GPL, then use it, otherwise don't.
Translated to portuguese (pt_BR)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This was translated to portuguese (pt_BR) at Propus.
Este texto foi traduzido para o portugues em Propus.
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
DAldredge
·
· Score: 0
Did you read my parent post?
Perhaps you should.
GNU RMS/Bathing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As a celebration of going 20 years without bathing, the GNU Foundation sprung for a bar of Irish Spring and offered RMS a twinkie if he would take a bath.
Although RMS originally refused, the President of the GNU Foundation, Chester T. Molester, bobbed the twinkie in a sexually suggestive manner leaving Stallman with an errection and no bar of soap.
RMS could not turn his back on his long-held philosophy ("It's my soap, and my dick, and I'll wash it for as long as I damn well please") RMS thus performed an about face and insisted the rest of the free-software stinky hippie community join him in a world penis washing celebration.
The two additional hippies agreed and have set the time of the event to midnite, GMT. Get your GNU/Irish Spring bars of soap ready, and wash vigorously...GNU/Linux appreciates your cooperation.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
plugger
·
· Score: 1
You can sell the beer if you want, you just have to give your customers access to the recipe so they can then produce and maybe sell their own beer.
The differences are ideological and the possibility of the two camps seeing eye to eye is nil. Perhaps it is time for people to accept that they have different goals and move on from there. The one true solution is, as with most things, neither here nor there. Me, I'll stick with GNU/BSD licenses for most software that I use or wish I could use for free (speech, not beer) for the time being because it is in line with my philosophy. It's just a shame that there are so many extremists on either side of this debate.
100% Free Software world still has programmer jobs
by
ChaosDiscord
·
· Score: 1
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
If all software becomes free, the need for software will vanish? Of course not.
The first important point: most software written is written for internal company use only. Most programmers write software that is never sold, just used by the company that hired them. Great, the custom billing software I wrote for MegaCorp is open source. Does it change anything? Nope. Their jobs aren't going to change, open source doesn't change anything.
There will still be demand for software. Someone will figure out a way to charge for it. I suspect a combination of methods of various forms. Perhaps donations will work. Perhaps they'll use a variant on the Street Performer Protocol. Perhaps users desiring features will pledge money to contracts for developers (on a small level a web site might collect small pledges from end users and the first developer to finish gets the money. On a large level, a group of companies requiring software might pool the money they're willing to spend and simply contract someone to write the software.) A wealthy individual might front a large amount of money on a product or feature they want.
Finally some software can be tied to non-free content. For example, maybe the DoomQuake 47 engine is free, but the actual game content (the level design, monsters, etc) will cost you money.
Ultimately I have faith in the market, and it's that faith that leaves me confident that there will be jobs for programmers. People want software and are willing to pay for it. Programmers want money and can write software. Something will be worked out. It may be new and different. It may, regrettably, shrink the market, but that's the nature of many mature markets. Things will work themselves out.
I am going to be an Architect.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And I certainly don't work for free. However, I certainly don't simply draw up blueprints which I then sell directly to people, either.
I sell services. The Blueprints are open, you can go down to your local building department and see them for free. I can't keep any secrets from you on how I did a particular thing, for it's, by law, available. The only thing off-limits is items that directly impact the security of a building, such as the elctrical plans for a Bank. But blueprints don't make a building, and can't be simply cut-and-pasted together. So I draw up a house, and make it just for you, and make certain that it works, and then make certain that the contractor builds it like they are supposed to and doesn't cheat you.
I also sell my Design. Once I draw something, just like once you code something, it's design is now copywrited. If I draw up a house for you, and I don't sell you the rights too, then I can turn around and sell that design to someone else, or reuse it, or get published about it and make money off of books about my design. You could design something, but it probably would be ugly and wouldn't work as well- just like if I tried to write my own CAD application. So you'd rather hire me to do this, so you can get back to what you're good at so you can pay me to do what I'm good at.
And, finally, I sell my liability. Unlike you commercial software developers, I'm directly liable for anything I do for years and years. If I make you a house, and the roof leaks, then you can sue me and I'll have to pay to fix it. If it falls down and kills someone, I'll probably never work as an Architect again. By hiring me to draw up your house, you know it's gonna work, it's gonna look great, and if it doesn't then you can do something about that. Also anything bigger than a house has to have a stamp by an Architect who's reviewed the blueprints and made certain that nothing's going to fall down & that the place isn't a firetrap.
Item one, sure, you can write programs, even have the source free, and sell the binaries custom compiled for your client's hardware.
Item two, sure, you can sell your design to others, or have that be a good reason for someone to hire you.
Item three, you don't have, and until commercial software producers are willing to set up to the plate, and cut the crap about 'software being too hard' to be properly liable for, I can't muster much sympathy for ya. Open Source software is kind of an end-run around your stupid EULA's that allow you to sell things that don't work to people who can't understand them because there is no way for them to see the code.
What I do, as an Architect, is much closer to what an open source developer might do when hired by a Bank to make some in-house software- and is *nothing* like what you do as a producer of Commerical software. So it's not too far off to see software becoming more like Engineering and Architecture, and less like the racket it is today.
Stallman misundersood
by
Peaker
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The vast majority of replies here seem to be critics of RMS who try to explain why they disagree with his "extreme position" (while implicitly suggesting that they understand what they're disagreeing with).
It seems that in every single one of those cases, the critics did not really get RMS's point and what he is trying to say.
Most of the questions being raised are actually answered (almost literally) in the documents in the GNU Philosophy documentation.
I'll list some of the common misunderstandings anyways, and answer them as I understand Stallman's approach:
How are we going to make a living? See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument. Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living. Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.
He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software. That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.
Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?
Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.
Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!
Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.
Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.
This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck. It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you. It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.
Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.
Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.
Open Source or Free Software ,etc
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think Open Source and Free Software blah blah are for ideal people in an ideal world, not for realistic people in a realistic world....
There are basically 2 kinds of freedom: the freedom to do any damn thing you please, and the freedom to do any damn thing you please except take away somebody elses freedom. RMS believes in the latter.
--
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:Free Software vs Control - Military Application
by
cookiepus
·
· Score: 1
Hypothetical Scenario:
"I develop open source AI software and I really don't like poofs, and emailed RMS once about modifying the GPL to include a provision that no queers should be allowed to use the software. The simple fact is that fags would gladly use AI software to figure out how to make all children of the world suck their filthy knobs. RMS replied that I should fuck off on account of being an idiot"
Ya see, philosophically, a bias is a bias. You may feel that your objection to the military is "objectively" valid, and someone may feel that his homophobia is objective.
You'd both be wrong, both being merely biased fools. Do not be upset when others find your point of view far less convincing than you do.
Free as in Freedom, not price.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 1
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
First, this is not his problem or the responsibility of the Free Software community. It's your problem if you want to make a living doing something people can and will do for themselves. I understand and appreciate your genuine need to put food on the table, but the world is full of jobs and you won't come anywhere close to starving if you can't make money distributing copies of software. Apparently people don't need the financial incentive to justify writing software that so many people assumed was required 20 years ago when people dismissed RMS' idea for a completely free OS.
Second, to answer your question more along the line you had probably hoped: You can sell your expertise. There is always a market for experts, even in fields where findings are public domain (like much of the information courts and lawyers deal with) or readily available (like technical information on cars, houses, plumbing, and electrical work). Many millions of people make a decent living doing jobs based on selling their expertise.
You can write software that is the basis for a service you sell to other people--perhaps the service is mostly automated (like selling inexpensive licenses to tracks of music online). You can write documentation for a fee, you can maintain programs beyond the desire of the community to maintain them (perhaps someone will pay you to work on the free software in their Red Hat 6.x or 7.x GNU/Linux system).
The real question is for you: the free software world is where we are headed. What will you do to adapt to that world?
Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good?
I'm sure RMS would agree--they should charge as much as they can get and they do. And they can continue to do so in a world where all published software is free software. Competition on an even playing field is not just good, it's better than getting involved with a monopoly (a.k.a., all software proprietors).
If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession?
RMS never said that "software developers should work for free" or anything like that. He has said quite the opposite in the essay I just linked to, in fact. He maintains that all published software should be free software. And this use of the word free is as in freedom, not price. Perhaps you should have read the article's first paragraph or read more about what GNU stands for via the link to the GNU website he linked to in his article (not reading either makes me mildly curious which moderators gave your post an undeserved +5 informative).
We don't need to kow-tow to businesses.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 1
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
You say that like it's both true and a bad thing. It is neither.
It's clearly untrue because some of the largest corporations in the world run free software and work hard to change the licenses to their software to become free software licenses.
It's a good thing that corporations are working with us as equals, rather than masters, because it means we can work with them or compete against them as we choose. This is one of the big differences between the open source movement and the free software movement--the open source movement was formed specifically to speak to businesses whereas the free software movement was formed to give computer users software freedom. As a citizen and computer user, I know which movement is more aimed at my interests and those of society as a whole.
I would not want more situations where corporations dominate over and exploit citizens and small investors (Among US corporations the list of corporate abusers, most of which are apparently insufficiently punished so as to deter future wrongdoing, includes Wal-Mart, MCI/Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco). But don't take my word for it.
You should read what RMS actually says.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice.
Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.
Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux.
Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.
However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software.
Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").
For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.
Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.
"The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we have eliminated all our non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install must run a completely free operating system.
We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will decide to follow it too."
The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you
Re:You should read what RMS actually says.
by
dbIII
·
· Score: 1
his goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice.
Your evidence of this is where, exactly?
Emacs. Running emacs on X did not help the hurd, so he found a new developer and forked the project away from the existing developer. The mailing list emails of the time look incredibly childish. Plus the whole man vs info idiocy.
The long held grudge against Trolltech and KDE long after they moved from their own free licence to his GPL is another example.
Where I come from it is generally perceived to be bad form to try to get a ride to fame on the name of others - which is quite openly what the whole LiGnuX and gnu/linux name thing was about. It worked with emacs - I used to think that RMS wrote the thing. Remember, what's good for gnu is not always going to be good for the rest of us. If we all started using hurd tomorrow it would be good for them - but it and we are not ready for that now in a lot of applications.
GNU is very political. I just wish the GNU pages would spend less time putting others down and have more documentation. You go to find out something about GRUB and all you get is pages talking about how bad LILO is and a bunch of dead links where the GRUB documentation is supposed to be. You read a man page on a program, and half of that tells you how the real documentation is in info, then when you use a sane info reader like pinfo you find the docementation is sketchy anyway, and you can get it all from the man page.
Re:You should read what RMS actually says.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 1
None of your examples are specific enough or pan out to support your premise that RMS is against choice.
Emacs. Running emacs on X did not help the hurd, so he found a new developer and forked the project away from the existing developer. The mailing list emails of the time look incredibly childish. Plus the whole man vs info idiocy.
I'll have to ask you for a specific thread so I can see exactly what you're referring to. As for man and info, the choice of info is not to everyone's liking (including my own), but this is hardly denying choice. Nowhere in the licenses that cover GNU are you denied the freedom to make derivative works or distribute those derivatives to help other people. This power could be denied because that's how US copyright law works by default. It takes special action to grant these powers.
The long held grudge against Trolltech and KDE long after they moved from their own free licence to his GPL is another example.
Again, a specific post or essay would be helpful here. I remember when Qt was not free and eventually GNOME and Harmony were started. GNOME took off and the Harmony project became unnecessary because Qt was made free. RMS RMS examined and explained the legal issues involved in Qt's GPL-incompatibility including how KDE had been infringing upon the copyrights of some GPL-covered works. This was KDE developer's fault, not RMS or the FSF.
Contrary to the picture you're attempting to paint, RMS granted the forgiveness that KDE developers legally needed in order to continue to distribute their own (previously copyright infringing) code. RMS urged KDE's developers to get forgiveness from the other copyright holders whose code they had infringed upon. This is not the behavior of someone who holds a grudge, this is the behavior of someone who recognizes how valuable KDE is to the free software community and wants to make KDE legally available to all.
I just wish the GNU pages would spend less time putting others down and have more documentation.
Then I hope you'll choose to help them out by writing the documentation you feel is absent or lacking quality. I'm sure many free software projects would welcome your discerning eye. But I don't think this has anything to do with RMS disliking choice or denying others the ability to choose.
Without people like Mr. Stallman, The free software movement would not be where it is today. His "problem" is that he envisions a perfect world where all software is free. This is a noble goal, but the reality is that this will never be. There will always be need (and a market) for non-free software.
When RMS first started the GNU project people were quick to tell him how it was impossible to make a completely free operating system. People pointed out how nobody would work on free software because it's so unlikely they'll be paid for it (thus implying that computer software is chiefly developed because people are being paid to do that). I would guess one could find old e-mail list threads where people challenged RMS for seemingly leaving businesses out of the plan.
History tells a different story, one that is not kind to these naysayers. Today, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is the preeminent free software license. One can find developers who will frown upon licensing software in such a way that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. This decentralized social movement, known as the free software movement, is successfully challenging an incredibly well-funded proprietor while the former corporate computer heavyweight is distributing free software. We might not live to see a day when all published software is free software, but I would be more careful about saying what will "never be".
Uhh, no, you don't get it.
by
twitter
·
· Score: 1
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
Non free software does not do what users want it to do, it's makers hold users in contempt and seek to demoralize everyone. Non-free really is evil when you think about it.
Which campaign of terror by the BSA do you need to be reminded of? Is it $250,000 lawsuits against public shool systems that had teachers install Microsoft Word from home so they could read crappy formats Microsoft pushed on central offices? Or do you need to remember the encouragement they have given disgruntled workers to fink of their employers for "stolen" software? How about the way laws are aranged so that the BSA can search your premisis with nothing more than hearsay and then charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars for the disruption if they find so much as one paint program with an expired "free trial period" even if no one is using it? Remember all of that now?
So how is it that the above is legal? It's because makers of text editors would convince you that sharing text editors is wrong. The BSA and it's contituant companies would try to convince you not only that it's wrong to share their work but that it's wrong to even try to understand it. They want you to think that you can't do what they do. At the same time they try to convince you that anyone who would try to do the same thing on their own is sinister and strange. It seems to be working. People are afraid to trust free software and have trouble understanding why it exists.
Free software exists to solve the needs of users. It does this in a way that comercial software can't: direct modification by those who would bother. The weight of imperical evidence now clearly shows that free software not only meets more user needs than comercial software, it meets them much better.
RMS undertood this clearly the first time he someone refused to share a piece of software with him. It was a printer driver with a bug that frustrated Stallman. The bug was bad enough, but the anti-social refusal to share the souce code for such a simple program was shocking. RMS rewarded the turd by rewriting the driver himself. It wasted his effort, but ultimately destroyed the anti-social work of the selfish programmer. As the most complex of applications are really nothing more than a combination of simple programs, there is no difference except scale between that programmer's refusal to share and Microsoft's empire of closed source junk. It was clear from the first NDA, which RMS refused to sign.
Stallman correctly understood that there was no limit on what kind of information people would try to hoad like source code. The primary benifit of electronic information is the ability to be coppied effortlessly and without cost to the author. It is the ultimate medium of sharing. Yet today we have people scrambling content of music and even books.
The difference between purposes of free and non free software expresses itself in very practical ways. The same people working on Digital Rights Denial are making software that does not do what I want it to. When I write a letter to my wife, I don't want the software I use to do anything but record and transmit what I wrote. I don't want that software to lock up my words in some kind of wierd format or database that I won't be able to read in a year or so. The purpose of non free formats and methods is to hold my work for ransom and continue to charge me money every two or three years so that I can read my own work and communicate with other people trapped in the world of propriatory junk. They understand what I want and use it against me. Free software, made by co-operative users, does exacly what the users want it to.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Re:Uhh, no, you don't get it.
by
goldspider
·
· Score: 1
It's amazing how simple commercial software works: if you don't like the product or the restrictions the maker put on it, simply don't buy it. Nobody's telling you you shouldn't be allowed to use Linux or any other free software. They're just saying that their product is better and worth paying for. Whether you agree or disagree with that assertion is YOUR choice!
And people don't trust free software, not because the EVIL BSA have brainwashed them into believing that free software is bad, but because there is often a better product out there that they have determined is worth paying for.
Face it, there is less than zero technical support for most free software (unless you count "RTFM"), let alone any warranty to speak of in the event that it ruins something on an unwitting user's computer.
Now go wipe the anti-capitalist foam that's managed to build up around your mouth.
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Uhh, no, you don't get it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The bug was bad enough, but the anti-social refusal to share the souce code for such a simple program was shocking. RMS rewarded the turd by rewriting the driver himself. It wasted his effort, but ultimately destroyed the anti-social work of the selfish programmer. [...] When I write a letter to my wife
Please send me that letter. I'll give you my email address. What's that? No? My, that's some shocking anti-social behavior you've got going there my man. I think I'll just call you a "turd" and write my own. Thanks anyway.
I'm helping out with this GNU-alternative organization.
http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=35255&cid =83495
KEEP FIGHTING.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
kcbrown
·
· Score: 1
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music!
No, but they can force you to pay money to them even when you don't want to, e.g. through taxes on CD-Rs designed to "compensate" them for their "losses" (see Canada as an example of this in action, and the U.S. for an example of the same thing as applied to audio DAT). And they can force you to play your music/movies/etc only on certain equipment by making sure that any tools you might use to transfer it to a different form of media are illegal to distribute and thus impossible to get, e.g. via the DMCA.
They can do this because the government listens to them much more than it listens to you or any other individual citizen, because they can pay politicians much more than you can and, in some cases, can even influence what the media says about those politicians (indeed, sometimes they and the media are the same entity, so the amount of influence is even greater) and thus, ultimately, what the people in general think about those politicians.
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand the scope of the influence and control these corporations have over the government and, thus, over you? You're not nearly as free as you may think, and the amount of freedom you have is likely to shrink greatly over time, thanks to these corporations. They don't want you to be free: they want you to be captive, because a captive audience is a guaranteed source of income.
-- Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
RMS "got it" a long time ago.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 1
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight[sic] be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
Perhaps RMS is looking down the road further than a lot of people. Not everyone appreciates how computers connect us together and give us the most democratic communications medium we have. RMS didn't create this medium, but he sure made it more useful than it would be had we left it to proprietors. We should be thankful someone with such forthrightness got the GNU project and its goal of software freedom started as early as he did.
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
I think the free software that drives the Internet's most valued features (e-mail service, web service, and Google-based web indexing, to name a few) would, if they could talk, challenge you on that.
Heh. I hadn't noticed this article until just now, but maybe my subconscious hit it: I ended up importing the book Free as in Freedom, a book written about RMS, into Wikisource today.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
RMS's assumption that any non-GNU type licensed software will be stolen for propriety commercial use with no future contributions to its functionality/quality is totally false
considering some companies are attempting to steal GPL-ed code I think your certainty is naive.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
possible to roll your own system (GNU/Herd, GNU/Linux
That should read GNU/Hurd, Linux - RMS gets to rename linux when he releases his own distribution. He got to name emacs by default, since the program was based on his text macros, but he didn't write linux (and put it down for years as being not worth looking at) or put together a distro like Debian etc did.
Slaves are just a tool to get a job done
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
Exactly the same could have been said about slavery. "Slaves are just a tool to get a job done, people don't run slave teams to experience or promote freedom, they do so to harvest their crops and dig their mines or whatever, so talking about the benefits of freedom are irrelevant to the topic."
The point here is that while freedom of software may not be of immediate concern from a worms eye view of the purpose of programs, it is immensely important when seen from a wider point of view, and that wider view is what this discussion is about. Some people like to see beyond the limited horizons of a worm.
"You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't"
take someone else's car (without their permission) and keep it.
It would be easy to make a long list of things one could not do because it limited the freedom of another. A free society must guarantee equal freedom for all citizens. All individuals' freedom is thus in balance.
The GPL creates this sort of balance: You are free to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software, but you cannot restrict other individuals' freedom to use, copy, modify, or distribute. This protects everyone from monopolism. Monopolies are the opposite of freedom. They are equivalent to dictatorships. And, yes, copyright is a monopoly, but it was supposed to be limited.
Therefore the parent was absolutely correct when he said, "The software is indeed free..."
-- All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
LuYu
·
· Score: 1
> You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't (without
> penalty) yell "Fire!" in a movie hall.
No, but you're less free than you would be were you allowed to do so.
The problem with the logical extension of this argument is that it results in all possible freedom concentrated in one individual. If one individual has the freedom to harm all others and their property, that individual would be a totalitarian dictator. This would also mean that relative to him, no one else would have any freedom at all. So by guaranteeing every individuals' freedom, society also limits freedom. That is the difference between a free society and a free individual. Complete and absolute freedom for all individuals is logically impossible.
-- All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America???
by
Azghoul
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but you see, there is nothing that says you must by CD-Rs, is there? Canadians often come across the border to Buffalo to shop, so they're more than welcome to buy CD-Rs from us.
They cannot force me to play music I have on certain equipment. All my music is on CD, or MP3. I can do what I want with those.
To that, you might say, "But look, down the road all music will be in the XYZ format, which you cannot use!". Then I am free to opt out of that new generation of music, and maintain my current collection.
Since they are the producers of said music, they must be given the right to do with it what they please: If they want to make it hard for people to use, so be it!
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand that you are not locked into buying what the corporations are selling? To be self-sufficient? To enjoy your life without being a mindless consumer?
You are very correct about your last point: Corporations certainly DO want us to be captive consumers. But we are only such as long as we ALLOW ourselves to be so. We can opt out any time we choose!
You know, I am the classic example of the one everyone in the open source community wants to win over. What's more, I WANT to be won over, yet no one asks me what I want. I often get TOLD what I want, but no one asks. By the way, if I am won over, I will bring a whole lot of users with me.
What do I want? A place where I can go and cast a vote for what I want. Am I willing to pay for getting what I want? Yes.
Re:free is public domain and not GNU
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your argument makes no sense. Allowing someone to shout fire would be allowed under the `your freedom to punch stops at my nose` doctrine - it would be up to the fellow moviegoers to assess the situation and decide whether or not to ignore the speaker. This is how it should be - indeed how it is, what with the amount of information processed in using, say, the London Underground system.
> Complete and absolute freedom for all individuals is logically impossible.
A minimum number of laws are required, not the laughable number we see today it most civilised countries.
Re:Savannah Compromise? What happened?
by
webworm
·
· Score: 1
Can someone give me that artikel trough mail?
OSS is better. Lotus Notes is almost OSS.
by
solprovider
·
· Score: 1
I agree with most of your post.
Most software is written in-house for the uses of one company. Most companies would benefit if they would share the expense of writing and maintaining that software with other companies. Most desktops could already be running OSS software to the company's advantage.
GM and Ford need very similar software internally that does not affect their products that compete. They both need desktop software. They both need systems to communicate with their dealers. They both need systems to communicate with their providers. Both companies using the same software for the providers would make it easier for the providers, without changing the competition.
--- I disagree about Lotus Notes.
I have never had anyone complain about Lotus Notes once they understand it. Lotus Notes provides application development so fast that it changes how businesses work. Replication frees salespeople and other travellers from needing to be on the network to keep updates synchronized. The security is incredible. The administration and support required are minimal, much less than other platforms.
It does have a reputation for being slow or unfriendly. That is usually because the developers suck, not because the platform sucks.
One benefit that rarely gets much press is that applications are portable, open source, and easily shared.
Portable means that they can be moved from server-to-server, or company-to-company, with little modfication.
Except for very few proprietary software companies, most of the code is open source, and released as public domain. Even the system databases are open, so you can modify the central directory or the mail application. As usual, if you customize the system software, you may have difficulties during the next upgrade, but that applies to Apache too. We would like you to maintain our credits, but I have yet to see anybody specify even a BSD-like license in a Notes template. There are websites that share the templates, and many in the community pass them around.
At GM, I worked on an application called CalPrint. It reads your calendar (part of the mail application) and produces many reports suitable for printing. I believe the original application was written by somebody at Toyota. Several people at Lotus Consulting worked on it and added Y2K bugs and other things. I worked on it for GM and removed the bugs, added quite a bit of functionality, and upgraded it to work with the new release of Lotus Notes. My version has been passed around, and I am certain others have continued development.
The Lotus Notes program is not open. But all the applications are open.
--- If you post the reasons you dislike Lotus Notes, I will answer them. Sometimes people complain because the keyboard shortcuts are based on the pre-MS standards, but that would not apply to a Slashdotter. Sometimes it is because the UI is using the defaults, and Lotus does not use good defaults. Most of the other reasons are from poor development. Given the usual application developed by the usual Notes developer, I can usually increase the speed 10-100 times, and make the UI much more usable/friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails. While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools. The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance?
Happy Birthday
Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future? Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good? If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession? Like you, I dont agree with monopolies and those that abuse them, but thats another issue. If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable", then isnt that a bit unfair on good, honest and reliable developers? We dont live in a 23rd century moneyless community, and communism didnt really take off in its various guises, so what are you promoting, a utopian future in every sense, a turn away from capitalism? But how can this just apply to software?
Moderators: this isn't meant as a flamebait.
I don't want to be the one dissin' RMS, but I think he needs a sanity check or just stop being a "spokesperson" for the Free software community. It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software. This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
Thank you for reading this.
but also RMS' beard. Send the Fab Five to do something about it!
sulli
RTFJ.
But will RMS be happy that this artcle is posted to www.linux.com and not www.gnulinux.free?
So, was the Hurd mentioned as the new GNU kernel that Stallman still wants to use? I mean, Linux is supposed to be replaced by the Hurd, any day now...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What would we have done without ya?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I agree completely.
Next we need to open source electronics so that paying electrical engineer jobs vanish
Mr Stallman asks the question, "What does it mean to run free software?". Each person or organization who chooses an open source OS, application or other tool over a proprietary one chooses to do so for a their own reasons. In this article Stallman discusses why he chose this path but he is arguing that each person or organization should make the choice for the same reasons he did, with the same motivation.
Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.
While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.
The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents.
Usability for the community at large must go beyond RPMs and a GUI that mimics Windows. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users.
Organizations like the FSF and SEUL need to consider how to partner include Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and change mangement experts into their projects. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance.
They've demonstrated not only that it is possible to roll your own system (GNU/Herd, GNU/Linux, EMACS, and the myriad utilities), but also why it is necessary. What must come next in this new era of DRM are those who can create their own hardware, free of the oppression and lock-in that tomorrow's systems will have. But we will not ask ourselves what we can run on our homebrew hardware, because an answer is ready thanks to the efforts of the Free Software Foundation.
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)? If not, does Stallman think that developers can create drivers for proprietary hardware that are at least as good as, if not better than, those provided by the manufacturer?
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Anybody else envision some larger than life figurehead standing at a podium telling you exactly what you need to do to be happy and that they have all the answers? I enjoy the spirit of cooperation and the quality of code that has come out of open source and free software but I'll be damned if I think it's the only way to do things.
Why did you say something so untrue? How is corporate American becoming America? I own corporations, yet I have very little control over other citizens. If they don't want my products, they don't buy them from me.
The average citizen has far more control over my corporation than I have over them. They can refuse to buy. They can open their own competitive business. They can vote in the town I am in to ban my product or my business. They can zone me out of their neighborhoods. They tax my sales and use that money in ways I disagree with. They tax my property. They tax the money I pay my employees. They tax my profits, too.
How is Corporate America a bad thing? Corporations that are friendly with the government are given benefits (cheap loans, tariffs against competition, and even regulating competition out of the business) is NOT a free market, but a mercantilist one. America was never supposed to be mercantilist, it was supposed to be capitalist. Capitalism allows no monopoly, but mercantilism does.
And mercantilism can only happen from government getting involved in economic planning -- ruin from the start.
GNU/I GNU/thought GNU/that GNU/he GNU/demands GNU/GNU GNU/placed GNU/before GNU/everything GNU/when GNU/speaking GNU/to GNU/him.
GNU/But GNU/I GNU/am GNU/could GNU/be GNU/wrong GNU/on GNU/this.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...GNUArt, which charter have been proof-read by RMS has gotten 3 year old last Thursday !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
No, I have to disagree. Evolution doesn't happen in phases like you are trying to explain it. All through mankind we have wanted to create something with only one thing in mind - it needs to be better than the previous solution. It doesn't matter what we're talking about - be it about making camp fire or cooking food. Mankind finds better solutions all the time but who is the on to judge which one is better than the other one. We can easily see that we just can't be objective so it turns out to be relatively pointless to talk about better innovation and how it effects on our everyday life. Evolutionary steps happen in our everyday life, think about you when you first learned to walk you thought wow this is better than crawling around well that you can call an 'evolutionary step' but if we are talking about manufacturing cars. Nothing evolutionary has happened since Henry Ford invented the motorized vehicle. It's been the same four wheels and the steering wheel combination even to this day. So, as a conclusion I would like to point out that it is quite useless to talk about evolutionary steps or 5 years, or five minutes. I mean, I wouldn't know the difference. Would you?
Gnu's Not linUx
There is a webpage for the 20th anniversary of the GNU project, but I can't see any planned events. Does anybody know if there are or have been some GNU parties around the world?
What happend about the Savannah compromise? According to a LWN.net interview with FSF director Bradley Kuhn it appears that the FSF is NOT trying to figure out what really happened.
Why not?
And still a virgin.
From Stallman's article:
an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage
but some people LIKE accepting bondage.... Steve
If you have read his writings, he has fairly convincingly argued from first principles that software should be free. I, and many others, have read this and been inspired, because the world he ultimately wants to live in is about co-operation and sharing.
However, RMS often leaves people behind with his extreme on/off view. This sentance is pivotal:
This is seriously distorting his already bent definition of "free". Freedom, as he defines it, can be applied to software (and with a bit of work books, music etc) and while you might argue with the word used it's a useful concept to have.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
I think a lot of people like the idea of free software, but we're willing to accept compromise. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Free software have inherantly good vibes because we're not imposing arbitrary limitations on what people can do with what we made (which is ultimately beneficial) but it's not like I'm a slave to the machine because I use the NVidia video drivers.
Yeah, I'd like to have free drivers, but Alan Cox himself has said he cannot think of a way to justify NVidia freeing their code - their fears of what would happen to their business if they did that are justified, he thinks. That's good enough for me. In this case, it just isn't practical. I don't like it, but that's life.
RMS sees it differently. That alienates people.
Don't worry about it man. It's just Slashdork groupthink. Nobody in the sane world believes in any of this bullshit about corporations controlling citizens.
God bless Richard Stallman for giving us GNU.
God Bless Linus Torvalds for making it usable.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
I read today that Win98 is nearly 25% of the desktop clients on the internet.
If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out.
Win98 is not open, and now everyone who drank the coolaid is beginning to feel the effects of the arsenic.
Commercial software is always a ring in your nose. The GPL can also be a ring, but it is lighter and the developing entity generally does not hold the chain as tightly.
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
I don't think Mr. Stallman defines freedom in the same way I do. I don't think Mr. Stallman's concept of morality is anywhere near mine either. I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally unnacceptable. I think Mr. Stallman is a bit out of touch with reality and with his importance to the world.
The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral.
Did anyone else start thinking up new lyrics to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band when they read that first sentence? Perhaps a new Free Software Song is in the making....
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Stallman says:
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Isn't it odd that two apparently unrelated, or even diametrically opposed, groups can have such similar sentiments as their "mission statements"? I guess some will claim that my paraphrasing is optimistic or even naieve, but I believe it, and I believe a lot of others do as well.
So, we have now a view of Stallman working on free software as a microcosmic version of the U.S. working on world freedom. Discuss!
everything in moderation
SCO will win their lawsuit and purchase GNU for two keyboards and a can of Mountain Dew. Then we will be using SCO/GNU/Lunixware.
If I were to design hardware for a computer I should (for the greater good) provide open source drivers for my hardware (this would not mean I would have to provide source code for advanced hardware engines). This would allow my hardware to be used under many systems (and would increase profits, but that isn't important).
If I were to design hardware for a computer I should not have to release the schematics for my hardware and let others make and sell their own devices (this would decrease profits and might ruin me).
We should stop RMS before he says any more. I don't give a shit about Graphical User Interfaces or ridiculous beards but that attitude is wrong.
Are you kidding? The entire group of slashdot seems to be Greens with no grasp of why economies grow (capitalism) or fall (mercantilism/socialism). It is very important that people start to realize that the bad parts of the economy are due to mercantilism, and the good parts are do to profit-"greedy" people who are trying to better their own lives...
I can see where he is going with this. But before much of this can happen, other things have to happen. I recently changed my sig to compare RMS to Abraham Lincoln. I did some (quick, incomplete) research on the emancipation proclimation. One site describes is as "The first of many documents that slowly freed human slaves in the United States." The operative word here being "slowly". Much of the tech industry is still in its infancy. The best we can hope for right now is a "melting pot" effect. As people become more tech-aware and tech-savvy, maybe they'll embrace free software more, and even contribute to it. All it takes is enough of proprietary software, commercial entities and monopolies to get on the nerves of most people before radical change can take effect. I just believe that RMS is really ahead of his time. He could very well be the "first of his kind that slowly freed people from technical constraints."
Just my $.02.
FLR
RMS is all talk and no walk. Take a look at what ESR and Perens have been doing to combat SCO. Then you see comments where all he does is worry about Linux being identified as GNU. Reminds of the zealots who have to pronounce GNU (guhnew" and Gnome similary and always have to say GNU/Linux not just Linux. Who cares?! It's just words.
Here's Stallman's comments:
""I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says".
This guy is way out there
The goals are different. He even mentions it on the article, if you care just about popularity, closed source is more than welcome. If you're a cheap developer who wants to make money of other people's work without giving any back, LGPL is a blessing, GPL is bad. But if your goal is freedom, Stallman most likely is your hero and you agree with almost everything he says. So, don't call him crazy zealot just because his ideas and goals aren't the same as yours. All he is doing is being coerent to his principles. BTW, he's not telling that proprietary software turns people to antisocial, what he says is proprietary software is a reflex of how antisocial and coopoerative our society is. Also, as an economics student, I must point out: this is not anti-capitalist, comunist thing, it can be a market similar to most out there, one close example being the exchange of rights to use patented technology between companies.
Free Software.... where do you want to go today?
Why, then, does he advocate GNOME when it (more than anything else in the free software ecosystem) enables closed, non-free propriatory software?
GNOMErs gleefully point this out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
I don't have a problem with the license choice, just the hypocrisy.
I tend to agree with his statement. Maybe your corporation doesn't control citizens, but some corporations are in a position to influence and exert pressure. Record companies, Microsoft, many others... what OS do you use? Do you listen to music by artists that aren't associated with the RIAA? Corporate America is certainly becoming more synonymous with America in general. A hundred years ago, the major players in the world were the rich guys - Rockerfellers and whatnot. Now, it's corporations.
My question was modded +5, and I would really like to hear one of the "leaders" answer on it. Here it is as I posted it then...
The question still applies to Free software too. Is it possible to run Free software on Windows, and not get RMS' hackles up? OpenOffice is a great example that runs on Windows. Is it worth it to get the word out about alternative to proprietary software, or is the whole movement about alternatives to proprietary OSs?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I love free software esp. when it is the underdog. The following comment is only meant in the sense of what will happen if free software becomes the Big Kid on the Block.
I see an analogy with Economic Models where they talk of Perfect Competition and a Level Playing Field leading increasingly towards profits approaching to Zero. It is not really a bad situation in the Creative-Destruction evolution of the market economies.
This economic destination would be perfect if the 'free" software was being written in time that was "leisure" time, or even in "professional" time if it is going to lead to professional and career advancements. Then the concept of Zero Profits is not unreasonable as there are other intangible benefits.
But for many other people the time spent writing "free" software is going to entail expenses - esp. if they they don't have the above two mitigating factors. In that case the programmers are then paying themselves for the software they write - i.e. negative profits.
I know this question has been asked a million/gazillion times. But, hey, it's GNU's 20th Birthday, so why not nostaligically revist it.
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
I'm not following this... if there's no program to do the job, then how can one accept the use of a non-free (and non-existent) program?
He goes on further to say that the one true motivation for writing free programs is to replace non-free programs.
That only goes so far, though. Why must the free software folks resign themselves to coding clones of popular products? Why can't they be innovative themselves?
Maybe I'm not fully comprehending the whole free software mantra. I recently saw the OmniWeb Browser movie and was quite impressed with the whole tab/dock functionality. Why couldn't something like that come out of the Mozilla Firebird group? Instead, we're gonna have to duplicate that functionality (I hope) if we want it.
So OmniGroup was innovative and I'm sure they'll be rewarded with their sales. They also have a company structure for R&D to come up with these type of innovations. Same can be said of many other corporations, too. With those types of innovations and associated costs, the companies recoup them (& profit, too) by making them non-free. Unless the free software community becomes more innovative, I'm not entirely satisfied with relying on a completely free software world to keep progress moving.
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
Sanity is a majority vote.
Ayn Rand. Read "Atlas Shrugged" sometime and ask "Who is Bill Gates?"
Just wait until it's your birthday and I don't get you a cake, a present, balloons, or sing you happy birthday. We'll see what's "redundant" then...
"Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved."
Why verbatim? Why aren't I 'free' to modify and re-post his article as I see fit? I'd give credit..
RMS's assumption that any non-GNU type licensed software will be stolen for propriety commercial use with no future contributions to its functionality/quality is totally false.
Public domain is free.
GNU is crippled and limits your freedom.
Why will homebrew hardware be necessary? I believe there will always be a part of the population which will not like DRM hardware, and will therefore retain a demand for DRM-free hardware. Luckily hardware works with the natural laws of supply and demand.
Developers: We can use your help.
I hereby predict, that during their lifetimes (hopefully still long for both), both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds will recieve the Nobel Prize. Im not sure when it will happen, but it could well be 25 years in the future. No matter when, they are both are key to a monumental shift in sociological and economical behavior that is starting to happen right in front of our eyes and has just started. It is so revolutionary that your conventional book on economics would comment on the theory of the Open Source Movement with straight "Can not happen, because it doesnt make sense".
Stallman, way more than Torvalds, went on an personally incredibly risky path when he decided on his path for the future, he probably didnt even profit much personally. He went on, with not much more to rely on than his faith. People dont get a lot braver than this. All you kids here, complaining that "Stallman doesnt get it" and "gives the open source movement a bad name", i kindly ask you to reflect on what you are stating here and please shut up until you have done so. After 20 years, Stallman is still standing, and even if one doesnt agree with him in all details or not at all, he deserves the highest respect for his achievements.
HURD, I don't know about.
Gimp, for my purposes is doing very well. I simply don't need the expensive features of Adobe Photoshop, so the Adobe from that measure is not doing well.
Games? Frozen Bubbles is great. So is Klickety and Tux Racer and Falcon's Eye. Under a Steel Sky is pretty cool, too. Solitaire is cool, and much cleaner-looking than it has ever been under Windows. I could go on and on...
The point is, the progress of Linux is doing just fine. Thank you, Linux developers, for all of the free and better-quality (than proprietary) stuff you have provided us.
Linux just rocks. The way I, and most of my Linux-savvy friends, measure things, Linux comes out ahead every time.
Well, let me give you a hypothetical example. Document imaging is big business and let's say you have a company called XYZ that specializes in document imaging solutions for hospitals.
One day all the leading industries decide to take an open source document system and spend a few million dollars to code in the features they want. That way they'll have an open source(free) document management system and in the long run spending a million to get it up to speed will save them money over paying companies like yours licensing fees.
So is your company done for? Not really. The key to what your document imaging company provides for hospitals is NOT the software, but the ability of your company to create solutions that improve a hospital's workflow. Nobody knows a hospital's document imaging needs like your company, because you've been doing it for years. No one is better qualified to take that open source project and customize it, repackage it and support it for hospitals than your company.
If the hospitals use that open source software they still need someone to support it. They still need someone to install it. If it doesn't do feature X, they still need someone to add that feature. And that's where your company comes in.
Furthermore you end up with a reduction in costs. It's just not your company fixing bugs and adding features to that software, a lot of other industries are as well. That means your programmers can focus more on tasks suited to support your clients rather than on core basic features or bug fixes.
Think of it in these terms, what are you really selling when you sell a 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 software product over the course of several years? You're selling the ability of your company to make their business more effective. People buy the 2.0 product because they'll be 10% more effecient than if they stay with the 1.0 product. Open source is no different, except instead of selling the software you're selling yourself. YOU make the use of that software 10% more effective, through support or continued customization, so it's cost effective to purchase your services. And instead of selling a 2.0, 3.0 verion of the product they can just buy a yearly support contract from you.
We are building a religion, we are building it bigger, we are widening the corridor and adding new lanes
If you haven't heard the song I would highly recommend it (get it how you please).
Now to the rest of the conversation. The best quote I've ever read is by far: "GNU is like Sex, better when RMS isn't involved" - anoynmous? How true such a comment can be. RMS has again decided to trump his own definition of free by stating that a user cannot be free if they are using a non-free system. But wait isn't that the beauty of free, not that it doesn't require cost, but it is a CHOICE. Can you not be free to chose to use Microsoft or Apple based products?
Are these systems Free Software, of course not, and they will never be as they are part of the new social system we in the 'biz' like to call "Reality". In this system of socioeconomics people like retribution for their work in which you cannot get money for nothin, and you have to actually force those who benifit from your work to give you retribution. Why? Because if people can take something without paying for it, THEY WILL.
Do car dealerships have a sign on the door that says "Here's a car, you can have it for free, but we'd like you to give us some cash for it please". Of course not, and that's why Free Software will fail, but then there's the Open Source movement which seems to have a much better chance as the happy medium between the corperate society and communistic FSF movement.
Communism in which the common man acts with regards to the community as a whole and not the individualistic gain of the self, is not our system. While it seems nice, cozy, and utopic, its not here and my magic 8-ball says that all possibilities point to no. Write all the papers and essays you want, but I'll stick to what works and what works is propritary software.
"I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks" - Fake Bill Gates (simpson's)
"You can't make money by giving something away moron" - My uncle
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Replace "capitalism" with "free market" and I agree with you. Because capitalism seems to be leading to a situation where big are so big that they can control the market, and it's no longer free...
Blah blah blah blah GNU/Linux blah blah blah hurd blah blah blah everyone who doesn't give away their source code is bad blah blah evil blah evil blah microsoft is the devil blah blah GNU/Linux blah blah GNU GNU GNU blah blah GNU/Linux blah.
RMS
You are wrong, businesses inherantly seek community, in that almost all business is adverse to making choices that have not already been made by a lot of other businesses.
Indeed, it is this pathologic need for community that keeps many companies locked in to choices like Oracle, Microsoft, Siebel, etc. when they could be using many OS soultions in thier place and have far less restrictions on use.
Yes, businesses are seeking software that fills a need. But a business is never, ever seeking isolation as any kind of goal. Eventually businesses will wake up to find that software where source is availiable is just an extension of the kind of software-related security that they seek now, in financial stability and software escrow (which is a whole aspect that does not have to be negotiated with OS software).
As for cooperation, buisnesses even seek that - they usually check around with other companies before purchasing software if they can, to see how they liked it. Also as the trend continues for reseller and supply-chain integration (can't believe I just said that, but there you go) cooperation is essential for competitivness, and companies that are able to mesh with others easier will have an upper hand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Q: How will Standard Oil's employees make their living if you bust their monopoly?
A: Less offensively, in a competitive market.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
But what about a more gradual approach? So what if someone wants to run Weblogic and Oracle on Linux instead of Weblogic and Oracle on Windows? Maybe the transition to Tomcat and PostgreSQL on Linux is too much for them right now, for technical or political reasons. Maybe they'll switch eventually.
Or, maybe they won't. Isn't it still a positive change, a change providing more freedom? Would RMS rather that that user just stay on Windows forever, using no free or open software at all? I realize that RMS in his ideology above all else, and certainly above any pragmatism, but this kind of transition is a win for everyone. Even if the example user never switches to 100% free software.
Did you wonder how someone could write such a toughtful reply in under 2 minutes?
The parent and the grand-parent have been copied from the comment area at the end of the Linux.com article.
Even if Steve 'Rim' Jobs and cornstalk are the same person, it is immoral to post something as AC just to be able to repost a canned reply.
Parent and grand-parent should be modded down.
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
Any given set of software will succeed in the marketplace when it presents a greater value proposition than all the other options. Linux has been growing like gangbusters in the server space because it represents a better value than proprietary Unix, and more recently, Windows servers. Linux is starting to make inroads on the corporate desktop for the same reason: customers are beginning to see the lack of value in Microsoft's offering (think ratio of price to functionality), so as free software's value proposition continues to become more attractive, more customers will make the jump.
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care. They just want to get their work done with the least amount of effort required. This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference. Software freedom, for the rest of the world, is a means to an end: that end being "software that doesn't suck" (as ESR once put it), and that lack of suckage is being brought on by the benefits of collaborative development we already know about.
RMS was a visionary. He started the free software movement, and he contributed a brilliantly built compiler suite and a bunch of other tools. But his PR has been a 20 year disaster, and it is definitely time for him to step down.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Forget Stallman.
/. crowd and you must answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? Why or why not?
I pose this single question to the
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
This is a valid point, but it's also an issue with commercial software.
Why should I upgrade to Office XP when Office 97 does everything I need? The only real way around that is forcing your clients to upgrade(which Microsoft has been doing with a number of their products) and that hasn't generated a lot of goodwill with customers.
If your product is "done", then it might be time to move onto creating a new product.
"non-free rent and food carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community."
One of the benefits of Free software is that using it creates other freedoms. For example, let's say you start using OpenOffice on Windows. Sure you are using it on a closed platform, but that's OK because to some degree you have now freed yourself from needing to rely on that platform. You can switch to Linux or another system, and still use OpenOffice. If you find a need that your operating system cannot meet you can move on, at greater cost to yourself than if you had just startted with a Free operating system, but you can do it.
A computers operating system is the least important software in terms of freedom; applications are the most important space for Free software to take hold in.
In practice, it's always better to use free software when you can for your own sake.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A very interesting read. Very cool.
Most of the people I've met that are proponents of open source software tend to be a bit fanatical. Please don't take this as a broad, sweeping generalization, it's just my personal experience.
In my opinion, this is a weakness. My personal view is that software should be approached with a 'jeet kune do' philosophy-- best tool for the job. After spending some time with Linux and FreeBSD and learning how they work, I've found that 'free' software has always been a better solution, but that's not to say that other options are wrong because they're red or blue.
My point is that you can't rule something out based on what it is. It's 'software prejudice'! Take that buzzterm to the next meeting with your PHB:)
Other than that, I think he makes outstanding points in his popularity and driver arguments. In fact, the only thing that I'm disappointed about after reading this is that I can't seem to get his voice out of my head!
You could at least not link to anti-slash in your sig if you are even trying to make some sort of a point, jackass.
Well, you did flame more than a bit.
Just ask some BSD people... there are obvious problems with the GPL. However, the Win98 example is a perfect illistration of what's right.
Did anyone else notice "For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux?" (emphasis mine).
Doesn't he mean nVidia's video driver?
Invidious means "Tending to provoke envy, resentment, or ill will."
I don't know about you, but I found it funny.
RMS talks about having quit his job 20 years ago....
What the heck does he do for money now?? Rent still has to be paid....food bought....clothes bought..... Does he have a job? Where does his income come from? Does he do consulting? Or just make money talking about free software?
Just wondering....I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.....
Here's my answer to you:
Software is a Service, not a Product.
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.
We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1
And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.
For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.
My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.
You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
RMS argues that the goals of open source development ought to be freedom rather than popularity. Yet popularity serves a very real purpose in that it attracts money and interest in free software. To that end, proprietary software that makes GNU/Linux more usable to the masses is a good thing in that it makes the system more palatable to end users who have specific needs. RMS is a great torch bearer for altruistic geeks, but actual paid jobs developing free software do not automatically spring up from the rhetoric.
I don't care how much you hate profit and business, they get things done.
And to believe that anything that flies (birds, planes etc) is to believe they're equipped with anti-grav generators...
It might not actually be the case.
-
everybody likes to get something for nothing, except when they really want something, and are forced to pay for it--the whole corporate shell is geared towards giving a product a higher sense of 'legitimacy' --whether it's the fancy packaging for M$ Word or a $20 CD, along with the store that its purchased in, consumers see these as 'legitimate' products, and, in most cases, will pay for them (happily or not, it doesn't matter)--in many cases, the high price validates the quality/importance of the purchase...
contrast that scenario with the typical free software experience--you find a piece of shareware that does a key piece of work for you, and even though it's only $10, the developer often doesn't get paid, because it's not required...
it's fsckd up when people will agree to pay M$, the RIAA cartel, etc., but they don't think about paying $10 to the actual creator...there needs to be a cultural change, where people recognize, value and encourage the development of free software, and do so by 'voting with their pocketbook'
there are some who do pay, but not enough yet to reach any critical mass--the bottom line is that we need to encourage this sort of financial support--wouldn't you rather pay an artist or developer directly, or is it just too easy to pay the fat cat who sat in the middle?
my .02
(please forgive me for responding to this troll, but so many of the assertions he/she makes are common to non-trolls)
RMS asserts no such thing. Only that it may happen. There is ample evidence to support such a concern, so it makes sense to worry about it. Or maybe you have some real evidence that RMS has said this thing you claim he said? I've read a lot of his work and I don't recall it.
No one said public domain was not free. But most of what is in the public domain is not so at the gift of its author, rather it falls into public domain because the exclusionary rights granted by copyright have expired (or were never recognized in the first place). Perhaps you'd like to list for us all of the public domain software you have written? If the list is quite short (or non-existent as I suspect), then give it a rest. You are looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Bull. First, it's the GPL-- General Public License. GNU is a project of the Free Software Foundation. Get it right. Second, copyright law is what limits your freedom. If there were no copyright law at all, then the GPL would actually limit your freedom. But then the GPL would have no force in that situation either, so it's a meaningless assertion. In the meantime, the GPL offers you more rights than you would otherwise have, so complaining that it limits your freedom seems disingenuous at best.
My ONLY (and very minor) disagreement is that the goal should be to replace the most prevasive 'non free' software with free software, first, and then work on smaller stuff.
Eg, I'd be happy to use a nonfree video driver in the interim, if it enabled me to use a free OS in a given situation instead of a nonfree one.
The thing he misses is the principle of competition. Basically, by its mere existence, a free alternative threatens the nonfree version into playing nice.
He alludes to Java. The GPL implementation is a piece of crud, so nobody uses it. But its existence is enough to prevent Sun from playing at silly buggers. Regardless of the theoretical license terms. If they tried, IBM or some such would just pile behind kaffe.org and grind them into dust.
Thus freedom spreads outwards from comparatively humble free software efforts, de-facto freeing the proprietary software too.
...starting with 'win' in the Windows-specific part of Emacs because the connotations of the word 'win' are too positive to be associated with the Big Scary OS.
:)
I'm glad I don't have to work with him
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Is the beer free?
>copyright law is what limits your freedom.
The copyright only exits if you never ever publically put the source code into the public domain.
Once it is in the public domain, that exact copy of the source code is in the public domain forever.
RMS main mantra of 'free as in beer' in promoting GNU as a license can be considered, at best, false advertising since the software is not free to be used as you wish, including putting into a commercial product, it is only free of cost.
...and *still* no HURD.
Maybe we'll see HURD 1.0 in 2024?
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Luckily, for the posters here, these posts will be ignored by the writers of any history of software.
Richard Stallman operates according to principles.
There is more wisdom in Richard Stallman's nail clippings than the majority of posters here possess.
The word "free" (as in "freedom") is an empty signifier used only in propaganda.
Its perlocutionary effect is to make you identify its speakers' interest with your interest, so that you will cede them control of your life.
Anyone who uses the word is evil.
ARBEIT MACHT FREI
When I have a choice between F/OSS and proprietary I tend to choose the former, like a good little Unix-Beard Pinko. I finally managed to get our DBA here at work to switch from MS SQL on Win2k to PostgreSQL on Linux (though I'd prefer it were running on FreeBSD)--and he's even starting to like it. I've gotten numerous friends and will eventually even get Mom to switch to, or at least try Linux/BSD (oh, wait; BSD isn't Free).
For RMS to malign me, question my morality and suggest I don't value freedom because I happen to use "Indonesia" and run the "Invidious" binary driver is ludicrous on its face. You have to pick your battles. I think I've done a fair job thus far of winning the ones I choose. In the end, that will do a hell of a lot better a job of spreading F/OSS than "You're either Free (according to my definition) or you're morally impure". That smacks of "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists", if you ask me.
Single-mindedness and zealotry is a losing quality, in whomever it's found.
Steadman's message gets weaker and weaker. The world of free software he envisioned has, ironically, now passed him by. Sure, without his work stuff like Linux wouldn't be around today but he's missed the point of his own dialog.
Open Source is about everybody being allowed to come to the party, take what you created and make it better than it was before. Keep it going past the time of your eventual disinterest in the project. Make it bigger than anyone envisioned.
Steadman has so long tied this to his vision of a utopian operating system but he has so far missed the point. That operating system is -written-, though not by him. Not "yet", though since the time he started some near-enough completely GPL'd distributions have come, become hugely popular and disappeared in the time that "he" has been working on GNU/HURD.
Steadman was a visionary, but Steadman is also an egomaniac. The concept that its REALLY _GNU_/YourFavoriteDistro would be like having a Nascar team be a Shell/Nascar team because that's what fuels it.
Steadman should give up the ego battle with trying to relable Linux and having syntactic rule battles lasting weeks and weeks (e.g. "what IS an operating system") rather than addressing the up-to-date, day-to-day issues like, oh, protecting the GPL from its first major legal assault ever.
Or get serious about Gnu/Hurd as a distro.
Otherwise, we'll be soon releasing a distro called Gnu/GoFuckYourself to prove how lame you truly are.
Last one with the can of Crisco please close the lid.
The tremendous question, which remains unanswered by Stallman, is: How will free software generate the revenues necessary to pay programmers? Because it's very difficult to charge money for something people could easily acquire for free.
This question seems to be "brushed aside" by Stallman every time he talks about these issues. He mentions something to the effect of "you can charge for distribution." But right now CheapBytes sells CDs for $0.89 and that's not enough to pay any programmers.
Thus far, free software has been funded by two main factors. First, corporate largesse, where some large corporation (like AOL, IBM, or Sun) deems it worthwhile to fund some project (like Mozilla, the Linux kernel, or OpenOffice). Second, developers donating their time, which is usually done out of interest (as a hobby) or to gain a kind of credential ("I'm one of the authors of Apache").
These two sources of funding have worked very well thus far, but they're both quite limited. Because the funding for free software is limited, the amount of free software is limited as well. The vast majority of the software in the world remains proprietary, and will remain proprietary, until free software has a means of generating revenue to pay more programmers than it does at present.
It seems to me that Stallman should advocate government subsidies for free software development. The money could be distributed as grants to groups of developers who previously have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) productivity in releasing software that a great many people use.
It would only require a few billion dollars a year to produce an enormous amount of free software. This tax wouldn't have to be shouldered by the U.S. alone; it could be paid for by a large number of countries, including European countries, Japan, etc. The total bill per citizen could very well end up being less than $1/year.
This would solve the funding issue for free software. Adequate desktop free software could rapidly be produced.
This suggestion is entirely in line with what the government does already. This is because governments fund much or most of the research that is already carried out, and software is actually a kind of research, not production. Take the NIH as an example (the National Institutes of Health). That publically funded entity produces the majority of the research done on disease; and the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry is dependent on its findings.
Public funding for free software could very easily save the economy money, in the long run. Look at how much money we pay to the Microsoft monopoly...
Second with the pace of development by the time any competitor has taken their opensource drivers and applied it to their own hardware it will have come obsolete. And opensource is not the same as putting it under the gpl. They can make restriction on its use.
I for one hope that soon some company will come out with a modern card that has truly open drivers. I would even settle for a lesser price/performance ratio. Just as long as it bloody works with a new kernel thank you very much. G400 are becoming difficult to find.
Maybe a new company will do it or one of the old ones that needs any help it can get.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation.
Doesn't sound like much fun, which is what Open Source is all about...
Corporations can only exert pressure that you allow.
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Personally, I am thankful that NVidia writes a Linux driver that takes advantage of the $399 video card I bought from them. I specifically bought an NVidia for the support of Linux. If there was an open source option that was as effective as the NVidia version I'd certianly go for it, but I'm not going to run my high end video card in framebuffer mode.
I'd watch it!
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
This is seriously distorting his already bent definition of "free". Freedom, as he defines it, can be applied to software (and with a bit of work books, music etc) and while you might argue with the word used it's a useful concept to have.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
(Note: Although I seem to be speaking for RMS, I do not. I am merely representing his argument as I understand it.)
Information cannot be free. Information is, in itself, nothing more than an artifact. People can be free to know the information, or use it (listen to music, run programs) and share it. Those are the freedoms RMS speaks of when he talks about the freedom of information-- the freedom of the people to do what they want with the information they have.
He is addressing what he sees as a bug in society: the restriction of the flow of information for the purpose of individual profit.
The concept is simple: if information is useful, it will benefit society more if access to that information is unfettered. So, if there is a single case in which the free exchange of information is inhibited, society is diminished.
Some people agree; others do not. I do agree. I believe it is my duty as a member partaking of the benefits of society to contribute back to society, and not hold out potential benefit for the purpose of personal profit.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hey RMS, didn't they offer intorductory logic at MIT?
Seriously, there is no logic to the above statement, it is totally bereft of value as a supporting argument. Particularly since it is patently false.
What should have been said is: Users cannot be free until the M$'s and RMS's of the world let them make their own software choices free of obfuscation and misrepresentation.
Do you really seek to abridge the rights of end users to use the product which does the job best for them? Do you seek to abridge the rights of developers to dispose of their work as they see fit?
This argument is more akin to religious extremism than reasoned argument. I do not debate your right to have strong (and wrong) opinions. I will hotly debate the conclusions you would have people draw from your opinions.
Your assertion about the Invidious Video Driver Et. Al demonstrates this clearly. Your position seems to indicate that using any non-free software to resolve a problem is somehow wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth. Given two pieces of software X and Y where X is non-free but conforms to the requirements, and Y is free but does not satisfy all requirements, that users should select Y over X, despite the fact that X performs the required job and Y does not. This is where the argument gets it's religious flavor. What other term can I apply to a position which exhorts users to deny the evidence of their senses in the pursuit of some (likely unattainable) Xanadu?
As for those who create software, who has the right to determine how they dispose of their property? Your position on this is merely the antithesis of the Microsoft/SCO position. Nor is your position any more tenable than theirs. Microsoft/SCO assert that free software is somehow immoral, and you assert the opposite. I suggest that neither of your opinions matter a hill of beans.
It is unseemly for anyone who purports to support Free, as in freedom, to seek to villify developers for exercising their freedoms.
The simple fact of the matter is that your extremist position is no more valid than the extremist positions of your antagonists. Like most such positions, it has no place in the real world. In the real world, you seek solutions which work, regardless of their dogmatic purity. Several times in the last century people tried superimposing dogma over reality, by and large those experiments failed. Those that still are with us have had to yield to reality to continue to exist.
There is no one "right" answer in the free v. non-free software debate. The "right" answer is not blanket dogma, but the result of an unbiased analysis of the situation, and a choice based on that analysis and the constraints of the real world we live in, wether you are a producer or a consumer of software.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
... I can't tell which 'cause both subhuman life forms are depressingly common around here.
Mr Stallman (do you really think you know him well enough to call him by first name?) has nothing against commercial sales for profit. Neither does the GNU project in general. You are missing the point of free software in Stallman's . Be educated.
The premise of this question reeks of egotism and self-importance. Few software packages today can be claimed to serve a completely new purpose, or even to serve a pre-existing purpose in a completely new way. If someone is inclined not to 'give away' their best-thing-since-sliced-bread software design, I'm inclined to ask what they're hiding. The GNU General Public Licence requires that redistributions of GPL-licensed software be done so under the same licence; think of it as a "share and share alike" clause.
Once again, you are missing the point of free software. Also, I disagree with claiming that a professional necessarily charges for goods or services, but that's a personal problem of mine.
RMS has an ability to stay focused on issues he regards as essential, while other people try to get him to think about other things. That is a rare and important contribution to public debate. Most people are eager for popularity and see it as a prerequisite for having any public voice at all, so they gladly commingle their viewpoints with those of others. When a viewpoint is widely misunderstood, we need somebody like RMS to advocate for it.
Some of the responses seem to display a misunderstanding about the nature of public debate in a free society. It is good for society for RMS to argue for his viewpoint, even if one disagrees with it.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
It's unfortunate that he doesn't feel the same way about documentation.
I was wondering about this yesterday. As far as I know, the last news was basically, "someone pulled the same thing that happened to Debian on us, it took us a really long time to notice (compared to Debian), we're checking for mangled source right now." Not sure where it went afterward.
First, nobody should be forced to work for free.
For the 97.3% of us, it would be business as usual. We make a living creating specialised software for a single customer, who is usually also our employer. Our work is going to be a bit easier if we can get source for everything, but that is all.
Another 2.5% of the programmers make a living creating software primarily intended for sale to corporate users. These people will have short term problems, while the industry completes the transformation from product based to service based. However, this transformation is already well underway, both Microsoft and Red Hat products are becomming services.
The remaining 0.2% of the programmers are creating software for the home segment, such as games. I don't see how these people can get paid for writing single-user games. Free software is probably not a solution there. However, some of them should be able to gain jobs for massively multiuser games, which can be (and is) sold like a service.
Specifically, while he says that he is fine with software being for "fee", his actions, especially as measured against the LGPL, make that quite hard. This thinly disguised dislike of commercial software bleeds over into his general worldview. He clearly is very binary about whether something is "open" or not, and uses the wonderful "non-free Invidious video driver" example. (Am I the only one who found that particular spoonerism amusing, BTW?)
So, because he can only see the world as "free" or "non-free", he is unwilling to admit that things like video drivers, which are not published as open source, may nonetheless be of significant value to the OSS community. Another way of looking at this is that he simply does not believe in the notion of Intellectual Property, and therefore is unwilling to accept that there are reasonable commercial cases where it should be protected.
I'm probably being to quick to criticize as (Heaven knows!), we all owe him a lot, but I never trust a man that has a simple world view...
"The time is always now" - Victor
I totally disagree. RMS *started* the Free Software movement and can promote it in whatever way he wants. In my opinion he's doing a pretty good job at it. :) If you don't like it, you can start your own movement. Someone else already did.
Who pays him to do what? And can all developers get some of that action?
If Linus was never born, eventually, someone else would have written a kernel. It might have come a few years later, and it might not be as good as the linux kernel, but it would come.
If RMS was never born, BSD would be closed/proprietary. So would KDE and gnome wouldn't exist. The GPL wouldn't exist and the face of Free software would be completely different.
"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less he's
apt to look foolish in retrospect." --Quentin Tarantino
Thats true. Ever try to debate religion with an agnostic? it aint easy!
Linus takes this approach with Free Software. Its hard to find fault with anything he says because he says very little. He is a good diplomat; he unifies the clans and presents a pleasant face for bussness.
The only problem with this is there are important things that need to be said! RMS is the one saying them. He gets down and dirty despite it being a position of less dignitty. He is not socially conscious enough to be diplomatic, he is blunt and to the point like a laser and i respect that.
There are 2 types of GNU users:
-Those who use it because they feel its the best tool for the job, the Open Source Movement
-Those who use it because they feel that Freedom is a philosophically superior position, the Free Software Movement
If the situation was reversed, and windows was Free and GNU/linux was closed, I would be a Windows zealot. So, in a way, the license is more important then the code.
Its unfortunate that some newbies have the impresson that he is trying to take credit for "linux". He deserves more credit then he is asking for. Also unfortunate, that its easier to understand Linus' contribution then his, because his is more complex.
He is not trying to "steal linux". He is the granddaddy of us all, and where he leads i will gladly follow.
Most software is custom written; Free Software is a boon to me, because I can take a base set of software and customize it for my needs.
The client doesn't care because the GPL is *irrelevant* since its not used outside of the company.
I think most people don't think. Me included.
I was amused to find this in your signature:
Free speech thrives at UNCENSORED! BBS - http://uncensored.citadel.org
So why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software? Both can and are expressions of thought. Yet one is entirely utilitarian but another is sacred? Both seem secred to me. You can make speech private as well as software too. The important part is you have the choice.
I think RMS is on to something. Too many people overvalue their source. They horde it like a gold ring (My precessssiouss!) when it really isn't that valuable. The software you write today will not survive tomorrow. Code is far more valuable than just to run things. So why bury it behind NDAs and closed systems?
There is also a "higher" level of freedom being missed. It isn't the fact that you can use software that is free: its the fact you have a choice if you want to or not. That is far more important than the free software. The fact that someone or team has made a viable unencumbered piece of software I can chose to use is what makes OSS really special and hopefully the dominate social trend for the next hundred years.
Oh, ah, er... never mind...
Today, I can choose to write free software or closed software. It's my choice, and I like it that way. I have nothing against the free software movement, but I disagree with RMS when he suggests that I shouldn't have the freedom to develop software and try to make it a commercial product of it. Why should I only be allowed to market services like installation and support?
Software developers should be like academians? OK. Not all mathematicians share their advances. I know some who develop proprietary models of the stock market for an investment company. It's not for everyone, but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose such a pursuit.
And what makes software so special? Shouldn't hardware be open? Aren't chips mostly designed with source code now? Aren't production costs getting so low that they are essentially commodities like software?
It is "free as in beer." You can drink all the beer you want. What you can't do is set up a beer stand and sell the beer you got for free to passers-by. (You can, however, sell them the cup and give them the beer for free.)
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Hemos forgot the obligatory disclaimer!
You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
Someone mod parent up...
Whoever you are, anon, very well said. Very insightful indeed. Please reveal your id so that I can put you on my friend list...
S
Just finished reading Paul Graham's article What You Can't Say in yesterday's /., then caught up to this one. I think it's instructive to read them together.
Corporations can distort the market, cheat honest suppliers, benifit from publicly financed transport systems and universities, and use the money from obscene profits in ways I disagree with.
Leave out the 'use tax money in ways I disagree with'. It's such a bad argument, and goes against accepted economic definitions of wealth.
Do you want people to say, I disagree with the military being used to protect your corporate interests, and therefore I will deduct that portion from my income tax? Do you want privately financed armies? (Apologies in advance for the straw man argument.)
You can only put something in the public domain if you explicitly state so, or you remit your right to retain copyright.
That is, some thing with an (at the time) unattributed author is not considered public domain until such time the author declares his/her intent. Up until that point, you may treat it as public domain with the knowledge that at any time the author could come after you if they so choose (up to the time limitations, anyway).
So it's not really public domain unless you can prove it is. All it takes is one irate person on a project team who disagrees...
GPL helps to protect you from some of that. They can't "take it back" once it's released GPL, as long as you haven't monkeyed with it and rereleased it without attribution or source.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Security was lax, the site got compromised. So they upped security and worked hard to undo the damage.
If you have a public site with low security, it *will* get hacked. FSF has now learned that lesson the hard way, what's more to figure out?
because a lot of the hard up-front work and design was funded by Netscape (AOL): they had full-time salaried programmers working on it.
The same goes with IBM and Eclipse.
Few projects will have this kind of backing and resources.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
This will be taken as flamebait, but I don't care.
Not flamebait, just the same leftist, irrational claptrap which is so popular among young people in general and college students in particular. It should not be shunned as flamebait, but engaged so that its irrational and superstitious aspects can be exposed for all to see and judge.
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
Glittering generalities like this may make you feel good, but your emotions teach you nothing.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA.
The USA is one of the few countries in the world where an individual's standard of living is most affected by his/her own choices.
The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example.
While this may seem like yet another "let's enrich the greedy fat cats" thing to you, you have to keep in mind that oil was and is the lifeblood of the American economy. Sure, some fat cats suffered. What are the long-reaching effects on American economy if the oil flow is interrupted? From the politicians' viewpoint, the idea to invade oil-rich companies was more about protecting American interests than it was about enriching someone you hate.
Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the consumer.
The DMCA stems from the problems with copyright law and "intellectual property" laws. If you don't fix those problems, then we can only expect to see even more garbage a la DMCA.
Also note this is not a reflection of the mass population in USA, but the direction the goverment and corporate pressures on them are steering USA into.
There are lots of big-money pressures steering the government (which is a nice face put on deadly force). Trial lawyers and unions are both huge donators to the "anti-corporate" branches of our gross government.
Pretty soon the USA will turn into a class based system where only the rich and influential can effect the government and freedom of it's population goes out the window.
The USA is already a class-based system. If you want to be in the lower class, then get some tattoos, get multiple piercings in your face, and practice riding your skateboard on someone else's property. If you want to be in the upper class, get some education in a desired skill in the marketplace, make contacts, stop feeling bad about yourself, and work hard. It's not like we live in the degenerate UK, where the class you're born into is the class where you stay, and people know what class you're in as soon as you open your mouth. Your point sounds a lot like "The sky is falling" and "We have to do something!" More emotional reasoning.
The scary part is most of it's citizens and for that matter the world will think the USA is still in a democracy, but it will be ruled by the rich and influential
Yes, that is a scary idea. Making decisions based of fear is a poor choice. We need more people making decisions based on reason and evidence rather than our petty, childish emotions.
Majority vote is only effective if the votes are informed and heard,
Majority vote (I take it you mean "majority rule") is bad in and of itself. It's becuase of this Tyranny of the Majority that blacks, gays, and women have had such a rough go at life.
The major flaw that I see with Leftist ideology is that even the biggest scumbag loser gets a vote. Why should the lazy and stupid have the right to vote away the money that I've earned? What, you mean there are no lazy and stupid people?
(This is the point where some Leftist will respond and claim that they are, by definition, more intelligent than me. They'll probably make some snide joke in response to my rhetorical question about the lack of existence of the lazy and stupid.)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
But I keep pointing it out ...
...
Stallman will have nothing to do with 'Open Source'. He is for 'Free Software', and sees a big difference between them
The software is indeed free, as much as you are free by virtue of living in a democratic country. The restrictions on its redistribution are deisgned only to prevent you from restricting others' freedoms to use, modify and redistribute it. The GPL states as much. You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't (without penalty) yell "Fire!" in a movie hall.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bob the Angry Flower.
Atlas Shrugged 2
;)
/*drunk.. fix later*/
The parent and grandparent post were both copied from the linked linux.com article.
Check for yourself and Mod Down please.
I used to be an avid fan of Ayn Rand too, but she's limited to the one dimension of greed. If you look around and "see the world for what it is" you will find many people who don't really fit into this paradigm. It doesn't mean they don't want to work for a living, it's just that they also live balanced lives.
And greedy people are not just trying to "better their own lives." They are pathological in their quest to acquire...everything. To "win."
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Are you arguing that it is bad to support a cause you believe in?
I suppose a soldier fighting a war to be free, is in a way, a pawn of the government that wants him to be free.
Would you like to receive my pamphlet containing the 17 basic steps to self actualization?
Blar.
I thought it was a bit odd that somebody claiming to be a "professional economist" would go by the alias "Steve 'Rim' Jobs". I wish I had some mod points right about now so I could mod down that asshole.
Just look at the posting history... wow! That's called a reality check.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
n/t
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
First, it took little moral courage to eliminate slavery, and it did not trigger a war. The Civil War occurred because the north needed to prevent the south from becoming a separate country or else the north would turn into financial ruin. The slaves were freed for a few reasons, the immorality of slavery only being one. We could argue cause and affect all day, but most who research the details find the Civil War occurred for economic reasons.
Nobody is being oppressed or having their human rights violated by using proprietary software.
True, but it's close. The 95 year copyright protection, DMCA, and other laws are an abuse of my limited right to intellectual property. Intellectual property should become public after a limited time, and open source sort of works around the issue with the GPL. Current copyright law is an abuse of my constitutional rights.
And many would argue that we are oppressed (in a way) by proprietary software. Sure, we're not being forced to perform slave labor, but we are continually obligated to pay more and more money to companies because they won't let us use the source.
Developers: We can use your help.
Jihad HQ [anti-slash.org]
Apache is the Anti-slash???
No but I am arguing that someone who acts as a mindless drone is a tool. "Anything RMS says is the gospel." Repeat 30 times. The original poster must be in league with L. Runs Hubbard's Church of $cientology as well I'd be willing to bet.
XP plays nice on an NT system where you may have many users who want to store their documents in more than one place, have their own clipart... hell just being able to RUN the software as an unprivledged user is kinda nice.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
This improves life quality and the karma (not the /. one) of the human beans.
Today is the first day I've actually Laughed Out Loud when reading a comment.
But in all seriousness, Human Bean Rights is an issue that we will have to deal with in the future. Are they Humans? Are they Beans? And, perhaps most importantly, can we eat them?
What is left to figure out? What happened! If they don't know what happened it will be harder to stop it in the future.
Sticking their heads in the stand is stupid, and I expect better behavior from the FSF then this.
>You can, however, sell them the cup and give them the beer for free.)
Only if the people subsequently given free beer are told that they too have a legal obligation to pass the beer onto anyone who asks for it.
"The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example"
No, the Brits had said that the US might do that. the US never said anything at all like that.
of course, to the hate-america-first crowd, I suppose thats only a minor distinction.
> You don't for exmaple, call the US a non-free country because you can't (without
> penalty) yell "Fire!" in a movie hall.
No, but you're less free than you would be were you allowed to do so.
Freedom begins with property rights - the freedom to hoard, destroy, sell, rent, lend, or give away the fruits of your labours. Stillman's rejection of all but the last option is repugnant. It's not freedom, it's slavery to the whole of society.
I disagree. Of course, I agree that you should be free to discriminate against military organisations, but I think it's inherently incompatible with Free Software.
Free Software doesn't restrict use. At all. It grants rights to make copies under some circumstances. Once you start attempting to restrict use, you end up in EULA territory.
Of course, you could restrict distribution - simply don't grant anybody the right to make copies, and make anybody you give a copy to sign a contract that states that they won't give it to a military organisation. But that's not very Free now, is it?
RMS says: " Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee." RMS says: "Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved." Now, does this mean I can take his article, in part or whole, and publish it in a book, magazine, or web site and charge for it? Without paying him? Can I take the 'Collected Works of RMS' and publish for my profit? Dude, sign me up for this FSF stuff!
All i am saying is that i agree with most of what he says and trust his judgment. Also, I feel he deserves more respect then he is given.
I think i may have come off a bit more vehement than i intended.
Erm, isn't the "mindless drone" the person that continues to curse at their computer screen and smash hard on their keyboard each and every time their computer crashes without doing something about it?
Isn't the "mindless drone" the person that endlessly parts with their hard earned money for upgrade after upgrade knowing full well that their PC will *STILL* not do quite what they want it to after the upgrade?
Is a "mindless drone" someone who spends time and effort looking at the alternatives they have and choosing to use software that is simply *RIGHT* for the job they want to do, whether it's a commercial or free package?
Notice that I have not once mentioned specific operating systems here because all OSes and applications have usability issues that someone somewhere won't like.
However, it does strike me now that the Linux / BSD / OS X / Open Source advocates here always seem to also be knowledgeable and well-informed (ex-) Windows users also without the reverse being true...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
You are free to license your software in any way you choose. However, I would suggest that it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce the license, as I doubt any country creating weapons with the code would blink an eye at violating the license terms.
No, he's saying that it is bad to support a cause you believe in if there is no money to be made from it...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
as every person who has spent the time to put a project on freshmeat or sourceforge probably believes he or she deserves commercial backing.
Meanwhile you can probably list on a piece of notebook paper all the open source software that has had the benefit of paid, full time employees.
Let's see: Apache, Linux, Eclipse, Gnome (but really that's Helix now), Mono, OpenOffice (at one time), Mozilla, KDE (QT), Octave, CSound, Mosix, linux-wlan, Slash, Bugzilla, Zope, (the AOL webserver written in TCL which I can't remember whatsit called...), anaconda, RPM, (and the redhat conf tools), blender, Cinerella, and that's about all that I can think of. About 40% of these are instances of software that was once closed that was subsequently opened.
Some projects get corporate support, but they don't get salaried employees. I'm not saying other software sucks, but a lot of the big-name stuff was not all a hobbiest effort, and this has to be recognized.
What are we arguing about, anyway?
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I hear what you are saying, and think that people should rebel against the norm when it is restrictive or otherwise infringes on personal choice. But I draw the line between belief and fanaticism when I read some of the comments where folks are ready to drink the Jonestown Kool-Aid for this Stallman fellow.
Most people on Slashdot don't care(or know much about -- I know I don't) this "economy"; I think that's where your strife with them comes from.
Many have some level of greviances, and when they hear of and see rich/powerful people who reached this "higher" level through what they know as a "capitalist" system, naturally some opposing force begins to sound nice to them. Surely you must agree that some people work just as hard as the richest people but still are below the poverty line. People want to have "success"(or insert whatever word you want to use to represent some sort of "goal") and even with working hard they don't get it. Continuing with that, I guess that's why a lot of people do not define success or The Right Thing as dealing much with any sort of stance they hold within this "economy". Which is another reason "they" don't appear to "grasp... why economies grow...[etc]": it's more a case of wanting something else(like maybe more freedom to "lift" samples for collage music, or modify source code for use in their open-source program, or whatever), and so they'll argue against "capitalism" in order to bring about some other non-economic benefits to them/people.
Sure, people may seem to talk as if they claim to know what's best for every "realm" of thought, but that's just cause they're passionate about what matters to them, non? Surely it's not too painful to just take people's seemingly over-arching comments and just try to relate it back to what they want, what their perspective is.
Btw: both Crafty and Scid are avaliable both in Linux and Windows versions.
including RMS should go on and re-read : this article that was discussed earlier on /.
Is it me, or is he saying something unfassionable and something that will come true in the future? I suppose he grew out of the time where he could only discuss his ideas with only a few friends in the kitchen, but it looks like the majority of us is still fighting for the 'earth is flat' model, where the reality is: Stallman just maybe right and what he says just may become the truth of the next century.
You can't handle the truth.
Btw: Crafty and Scid are both avaliable in Linux and Windows versions. :)
The users are the ones who have the most to gain from Free Software. It's not for hackers or philosophers.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You don't own corporations, you own an itsy bitsy bit of corporations. You go on to contradict yourself, the corporatization of the US is merchantilist. These corporations have millions or billions of dollars, which they got from the government, that they use to influence government decisions. As long as money is a protected form of speech we will move ever towards a corporate state.
PS Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is the destruction of heirarchal systems and capitalism is necessarily heirarchal.
A blog about stuff.
In the same way that you do not need to criticize totalitarian ideologies on moral grounds - referring to faulty methods and inadequate results is quite enough - there is really no reason to condemn "non-free" software on account of the "antisocial system" that it carries with it. Whenever there is an argument of "morals", or more specifically, values, it can never conclusively be decided if not, as Finnish philosopher von Wright notes, the participants share a common value basis.
Thus, as long as Richard Stallman keeps asserting that free software should be adopted for "moral" reasons only, we may without contradiction justify ignoring his arguments by saying that we do not share a common value basis with him.
The objective (in Immanuel Kant's sense of the word) reasons to adopt open-source software are an entirely different matter, however. I believe that the word "open" rather than "free" is the key term to use when speaking of the superiority of (GNU/)Linux and *BSD as opposed to proprietary operating systems. The former word is a mere description, allowing us to examine merit independent of anybody's whim; the latter speaks to our morals and convictions, which can never be intersubjective.
Even in languages which do not have the freedom/price ambiguity of English, the word 'free' has been so severely misused, got so value-overloaded, that it should, I believe, be avoided in any rational discussion, in any language.
"If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out."
I wonder. If MS were to open source it today, would a community develop around it, or would there be a chorus of developers crying "Don't touch it, it's pure evil!"
Sadly we'll never know.
You could of course go to savannah.gnu.org, and read for yourself what happened and what has been done about it. But instead you stupidly stick your head in the sand and critisize the FSF from a position of ignorance. But I guess if it wasn't posted on slashdot it didn't happen in your sad world.
I *strongly* disagree. I think what you said is a VERY strong form of discrimination and you should release your software under the GPL.
;)
I mean, where do you draw the line? Is genetic research offensive? Can someone use your software to make a clone of a cow? Of a chicken? Of a human? What about nuclear energy? What if they use it to make bombs?
What if? What if? What if?
And what's military? Is a terrorist organization a militar group? If not, then you're a terrorist!
Just play by the rules. If you like the GPL, then use it, otherwise don't.
This was translated to portuguese (pt_BR) at Propus. Este texto foi traduzido para o portugues em Propus.
Did you read my parent post?
Perhaps you should.
As a celebration of going 20 years without bathing, the GNU Foundation sprung for a bar of Irish Spring and offered RMS a twinkie if he would take a bath.
Although RMS originally refused, the President of the GNU Foundation, Chester T. Molester, bobbed the twinkie in a sexually suggestive manner leaving Stallman with an errection and no bar of soap.
RMS could not turn his back on his long-held philosophy ("It's my soap, and my dick, and I'll wash it for as long as I damn well please") RMS thus performed an about face and insisted the rest of the free-software stinky hippie community join him in a world penis washing celebration.
The two additional hippies agreed and have set the time of the event to midnite, GMT. Get your GNU/Irish Spring bars of soap ready, and wash vigorously...GNU/Linux appreciates your cooperation.
You can sell the beer if you want, you just have to give your customers access to the recipe so they can then produce and maybe sell their own beer.
The differences are ideological and the possibility of the two camps seeing eye to eye is nil. Perhaps it is time for people to accept that they have different goals and move on from there. The one true solution is, as with most things, neither here nor there. Me, I'll stick with GNU/BSD licenses for most software that I use or wish I could use for free (speech, not beer) for the time being because it is in line with my philosophy. It's just a shame that there are so many extremists on either side of this debate.
If all software becomes free, the need for software will vanish? Of course not.
The first important point: most software written is written for internal company use only. Most programmers write software that is never sold, just used by the company that hired them. Great, the custom billing software I wrote for MegaCorp is open source. Does it change anything? Nope. Their jobs aren't going to change, open source doesn't change anything.
There will still be demand for software. Someone will figure out a way to charge for it. I suspect a combination of methods of various forms. Perhaps donations will work. Perhaps they'll use a variant on the Street Performer Protocol. Perhaps users desiring features will pledge money to contracts for developers (on a small level a web site might collect small pledges from end users and the first developer to finish gets the money. On a large level, a group of companies requiring software might pool the money they're willing to spend and simply contract someone to write the software.) A wealthy individual might front a large amount of money on a product or feature they want.
Finally some software can be tied to non-free content. For example, maybe the DoomQuake 47 engine is free, but the actual game content (the level design, monsters, etc) will cost you money.
Ultimately I have faith in the market, and it's that faith that leaves me confident that there will be jobs for programmers. People want software and are willing to pay for it. Programmers want money and can write software. Something will be worked out. It may be new and different. It may, regrettably, shrink the market, but that's the nature of many mature markets. Things will work themselves out.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
And I certainly don't work for free. However, I certainly don't simply draw up blueprints which I then sell directly to people, either.
I sell services. The Blueprints are open, you can go down to your local building department and see them for free. I can't keep any secrets from you on how I did a particular thing, for it's, by law, available. The only thing off-limits is items that directly impact the security of a building, such as the elctrical plans for a Bank. But blueprints don't make a building, and can't be simply cut-and-pasted together. So I draw up a house, and make it just for you, and make certain that it works, and then make certain that the contractor builds it like they are supposed to and doesn't cheat you.
I also sell my Design. Once I draw something, just like once you code something, it's design is now copywrited. If I draw up a house for you, and I don't sell you the rights too, then I can turn around and sell that design to someone else, or reuse it, or get published about it and make money off of books about my design. You could design something, but it probably would be ugly and wouldn't work as well- just like if I tried to write my own CAD application. So you'd rather hire me to do this, so you can get back to what you're good at so you can pay me to do what I'm good at.
And, finally, I sell my liability. Unlike you commercial software developers, I'm directly liable for anything I do for years and years. If I make you a house, and the roof leaks, then you can sue me and I'll have to pay to fix it. If it falls down and kills someone, I'll probably never work as an Architect again. By hiring me to draw up your house, you know it's gonna work, it's gonna look great, and if it doesn't then you can do something about that. Also anything bigger than a house has to have a stamp by an Architect who's reviewed the blueprints and made certain that nothing's going to fall down & that the place isn't a firetrap.
Item one, sure, you can write programs, even have the source free, and sell the binaries custom compiled for your client's hardware.
Item two, sure, you can sell your design to others, or have that be a good reason for someone to hire you.
Item three, you don't have, and until commercial software producers are willing to set up to the plate, and cut the crap about 'software being too hard' to be properly liable for, I can't muster much sympathy for ya. Open Source software is kind of an end-run around your stupid EULA's that allow you to sell things that don't work to people who can't understand them because there is no way for them to see the code.
What I do, as an Architect, is much closer to what an open source developer might do when hired by a Bank to make some in-house software- and is *nothing* like what you do as a producer of Commerical software. So it's not too far off to see software becoming more like Engineering and Architecture, and less like the racket it is today.
It seems that in every single one of those cases, the critics did not really get RMS's point and what he is trying to say.
Most of the questions being raised are actually answered (almost literally) in the documents in the GNU Philosophy documentation.
I'll list some of the common misunderstandings anyways, and answer them as I understand Stallman's approach:
How are we going to make a living?
See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument.
Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living.
Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.
He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software.
That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.
Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?
Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.
Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!
Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.
Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.
This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck.
It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you.
It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.
Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.
Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.
I think Open Source and Free Software blah blah are for ideal people in an ideal world, not for realistic people in a realistic world....
There are basically 2 kinds of freedom: the freedom to do any damn thing you please, and the freedom to do any damn thing you please except take away somebody elses freedom. RMS believes in the latter.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Hypothetical Scenario:
"I develop open source AI software and I really don't like poofs, and emailed RMS once about modifying the GPL to include a provision that no queers should be allowed to use the software. The simple fact is that fags would gladly use AI software to figure out how to make all children of the world suck their filthy knobs. RMS replied that I should fuck off on account of being an idiot"
Ya see, philosophically, a bias is a bias. You may feel that your objection to the military is "objectively" valid, and someone may feel that his homophobia is objective.
You'd both be wrong, both being merely biased fools. Do not be upset when others find your point of view far less convincing than you do.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
First, this is not his problem or the responsibility of the Free Software community. It's your problem if you want to make a living doing something people can and will do for themselves. I understand and appreciate your genuine need to put food on the table, but the world is full of jobs and you won't come anywhere close to starving if you can't make money distributing copies of software. Apparently people don't need the financial incentive to justify writing software that so many people assumed was required 20 years ago when people dismissed RMS' idea for a completely free OS.
Second, to answer your question more along the line you had probably hoped: You can sell your expertise. There is always a market for experts, even in fields where findings are public domain (like much of the information courts and lawyers deal with) or readily available (like technical information on cars, houses, plumbing, and electrical work). Many millions of people make a decent living doing jobs based on selling their expertise.
You can write software that is the basis for a service you sell to other people--perhaps the service is mostly automated (like selling inexpensive licenses to tracks of music online). You can write documentation for a fee, you can maintain programs beyond the desire of the community to maintain them (perhaps someone will pay you to work on the free software in their Red Hat 6.x or 7.x GNU/Linux system).
The real question is for you: the free software world is where we are headed. What will you do to adapt to that world?
I'm sure RMS would agree--they should charge as much as they can get and they do. And they can continue to do so in a world where all published software is free software. Competition on an even playing field is not just good, it's better than getting involved with a monopoly (a.k.a., all software proprietors).
RMS never said that "software developers should work for free" or anything like that. He has said quite the opposite in the essay I just linked to, in fact. He maintains that all published software should be free software. And this use of the word free is as in freedom, not price. Perhaps you should have read the article's first paragraph or read more about what GNU stands for via the link to the GNU website he linked to in his article (not reading either makes me mildly curious which moderators gave your post an undeserved +5 informative).
Digital Citizen
You say that like it's both true and a bad thing. It is neither.
It's clearly untrue because some of the largest corporations in the world run free software and work hard to change the licenses to their software to become free software licenses.
It's a good thing that corporations are working with us as equals, rather than masters, because it means we can work with them or compete against them as we choose. This is one of the big differences between the open source movement and the free software movement--the open source movement was formed specifically to speak to businesses whereas the free software movement was formed to give computer users software freedom. As a citizen and computer user, I know which movement is more aimed at my interests and those of society as a whole.
I would not want more situations where corporations dominate over and exploit citizens and small investors (Among US corporations the list of corporate abusers, most of which are apparently insufficiently punished so as to deter future wrongdoing, includes Wal-Mart, MCI/Worldcom, Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco). But don't take my word for it.
Digital Citizen
Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.
Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by many years. So that makes it very hard to found the free software movement on anything to do with the Linux kernal.
Actually, RMS is not against commercial software, he's all for it so long as it is distributed with the freedoms of free software. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of the article this thread is based on where RMS distinguishes between free as in price and free as in freedom (or as free software advocates like to say, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'.").
For RMS and a lot of other people, there are significant moral objections to non-free software, well rooted in their shared desire to build communities of people who have the freedom to share with one another. It's perfectly reasonable, given this stance, to object to any distribution of non-free software. It's also objectionable to see an organization (such as Debian) distribute software that belies their own goals (even Debian has some cognitive dissonance about the non-free software they distribute). Debian appears to be working toward getting rid of their non-free software. When they do, I'm guessing RMS will reevaluate his stance on Debian.
Again, you are getting this from where, exactly? I see an organization that is only asking you to do as they do and I see an organization that takes a harder line on proprietary software than they ask of you:
The FSF is led by RMS and his essays and talks are those people first look to when figuring out what the FSF and free software are all about. He is firm in his stance that all published software ought to be free software and he won't hesitate to disagree with you (some people find this uncomfortable because they're used to dealing with people who will silently retreat or lie and agree to your face and then harbor a dissenting point of view). If he ever said you were not a "good enough" person "unless you
Digital Citizen
When RMS first started the GNU project people were quick to tell him how it was impossible to make a completely free operating system. People pointed out how nobody would work on free software because it's so unlikely they'll be paid for it (thus implying that computer software is chiefly developed because people are being paid to do that). I would guess one could find old e-mail list threads where people challenged RMS for seemingly leaving businesses out of the plan.
History tells a different story, one that is not kind to these naysayers. Today, the GNU General Public License (GPL) is the preeminent free software license. One can find developers who will frown upon licensing software in such a way that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. This decentralized social movement, known as the free software movement, is successfully challenging an incredibly well-funded proprietor while the former corporate computer heavyweight is distributing free software. We might not live to see a day when all published software is free software, but I would be more careful about saying what will "never be".
Digital Citizen
Non free software does not do what users want it to do, it's makers hold users in contempt and seek to demoralize everyone. Non-free really is evil when you think about it.
Which campaign of terror by the BSA do you need to be reminded of? Is it $250,000 lawsuits against public shool systems that had teachers install Microsoft Word from home so they could read crappy formats Microsoft pushed on central offices? Or do you need to remember the encouragement they have given disgruntled workers to fink of their employers for "stolen" software? How about the way laws are aranged so that the BSA can search your premisis with nothing more than hearsay and then charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars for the disruption if they find so much as one paint program with an expired "free trial period" even if no one is using it? Remember all of that now?
So how is it that the above is legal? It's because makers of text editors would convince you that sharing text editors is wrong. The BSA and it's contituant companies would try to convince you not only that it's wrong to share their work but that it's wrong to even try to understand it. They want you to think that you can't do what they do. At the same time they try to convince you that anyone who would try to do the same thing on their own is sinister and strange. It seems to be working. People are afraid to trust free software and have trouble understanding why it exists.
Free software exists to solve the needs of users. It does this in a way that comercial software can't: direct modification by those who would bother. The weight of imperical evidence now clearly shows that free software not only meets more user needs than comercial software, it meets them much better.
RMS undertood this clearly the first time he someone refused to share a piece of software with him. It was a printer driver with a bug that frustrated Stallman. The bug was bad enough, but the anti-social refusal to share the souce code for such a simple program was shocking. RMS rewarded the turd by rewriting the driver himself. It wasted his effort, but ultimately destroyed the anti-social work of the selfish programmer. As the most complex of applications are really nothing more than a combination of simple programs, there is no difference except scale between that programmer's refusal to share and Microsoft's empire of closed source junk. It was clear from the first NDA, which RMS refused to sign.
Stallman correctly understood that there was no limit on what kind of information people would try to hoad like source code. The primary benifit of electronic information is the ability to be coppied effortlessly and without cost to the author. It is the ultimate medium of sharing. Yet today we have people scrambling content of music and even books.
The difference between purposes of free and non free software expresses itself in very practical ways. The same people working on Digital Rights Denial are making software that does not do what I want it to. When I write a letter to my wife, I don't want the software I use to do anything but record and transmit what I wrote. I don't want that software to lock up my words in some kind of wierd format or database that I won't be able to read in a year or so. The purpose of non free formats and methods is to hold my work for ransom and continue to charge me money every two or three years so that I can read my own work and communicate with other people trapped in the world of propriatory junk. They understand what I want and use it against me. Free software, made by co-operative users, does exacly what the users want it to.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm helping out with this GNU-alternative organization. http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=35255&cid =83495
KEEP FIGHTING.
No, but they can force you to pay money to them even when you don't want to, e.g. through taxes on CD-Rs designed to "compensate" them for their "losses" (see Canada as an example of this in action, and the U.S. for an example of the same thing as applied to audio DAT). And they can force you to play your music/movies/etc only on certain equipment by making sure that any tools you might use to transfer it to a different form of media are illegal to distribute and thus impossible to get, e.g. via the DMCA.
They can do this because the government listens to them much more than it listens to you or any other individual citizen, because they can pay politicians much more than you can and, in some cases, can even influence what the media says about those politicians (indeed, sometimes they and the media are the same entity, so the amount of influence is even greater) and thus, ultimately, what the people in general think about those politicians.
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand the scope of the influence and control these corporations have over the government and, thus, over you? You're not nearly as free as you may think, and the amount of freedom you have is likely to shrink greatly over time, thanks to these corporations. They don't want you to be free: they want you to be captive, because a captive audience is a guaranteed source of income.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Perhaps RMS is looking down the road further than a lot of people. Not everyone appreciates how computers connect us together and give us the most democratic communications medium we have. RMS didn't create this medium, but he sure made it more useful than it would be had we left it to proprietors. We should be thankful someone with such forthrightness got the GNU project and its goal of software freedom started as early as he did.
I think the free software that drives the Internet's most valued features (e-mail service, web service, and Google-based web indexing, to name a few) would, if they could talk, challenge you on that.
Digital Citizen
Oh yeah, and he's inspired many people to do great things, for an against the causes he believes in.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Heh. I hadn't noticed this article until just now, but maybe my subconscious hit it: I ended up importing the book Free as in Freedom , a book written about RMS, into Wikisource today.
RMS's assumption that any non-GNU type licensed software will be stolen for propriety commercial use with no future contributions to its functionality/quality is totally false
considering some companies are attempting to steal GPL-ed code I think your certainty is naive.
> Is that like passing water?
If we're talking about American beer, certainly.
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
Exactly the same could have been said about slavery. "Slaves are just a tool to get a job done, people don't run slave teams to experience or promote freedom, they do so to harvest their crops and dig their mines or whatever, so talking about the benefits of freedom are irrelevant to the topic."
The point here is that while freedom of software may not be of immediate concern from a worms eye view of the purpose of programs, it is immensely important when seen from a wider point of view, and that wider view is what this discussion is about. Some people like to see beyond the limited horizons of a worm.
A better analogy:
It would be easy to make a long list of things one could not do because it limited the freedom of another. A free society must guarantee equal freedom for all citizens. All individuals' freedom is thus in balance.
The GPL creates this sort of balance: You are free to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software, but you cannot restrict other individuals' freedom to use, copy, modify, or distribute. This protects everyone from monopolism. Monopolies are the opposite of freedom. They are equivalent to dictatorships. And, yes, copyright is a monopoly, but it was supposed to be limited.
Therefore the parent was absolutely correct when he said, "The software is indeed free..."
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Yes, but you see, there is nothing that says you must by CD-Rs, is there? Canadians often come across the border to Buffalo to shop, so they're more than welcome to buy CD-Rs from us.
They cannot force me to play music I have on certain equipment. All my music is on CD, or MP3. I can do what I want with those.
To that, you might say, "But look, down the road all music will be in the XYZ format, which you cannot use!". Then I am free to opt out of that new generation of music, and maintain my current collection.
Since they are the producers of said music, they must be given the right to do with it what they please: If they want to make it hard for people to use, so be it!
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand that you are not locked into buying what the corporations are selling? To be self-sufficient? To enjoy your life without being a mindless consumer?
You are very correct about your last point: Corporations certainly DO want us to be captive consumers. But we are only such as long as we ALLOW ourselves to be so. We can opt out any time we choose!
You know, I am the classic example of the one everyone in the open source community wants to win over. What's more, I WANT to be won over, yet no one asks me what I want. I often get TOLD what I want, but no one asks. By the way, if I am won over, I will bring a whole lot of users with me.
What do I want? A place where I can go and cast a vote for what I want. Am I willing to pay for getting what I want? Yes.
Your argument makes no sense. Allowing someone to shout fire would be allowed under the `your freedom to punch stops at my nose` doctrine - it would be up to the fellow moviegoers to assess the situation and decide whether or not to ignore the speaker. This is how it should be - indeed how it is, what with the amount of information processed in using, say, the London Underground system.
> Complete and absolute freedom for all individuals is logically impossible.
A minimum number of laws are required, not the laughable number we see today it most civilised countries.
Can someone give me that artikel trough mail?
I agree with most of your post.
Most software is written in-house for the uses of one company. Most companies would benefit if they would share the expense of writing and maintaining that software with other companies. Most desktops could already be running OSS software to the company's advantage.
GM and Ford need very similar software internally that does not affect their products that compete. They both need desktop software. They both need systems to communicate with their dealers. They both need systems to communicate with their providers. Both companies using the same software for the providers would make it easier for the providers, without changing the competition.
---
I disagree about Lotus Notes.
I have never had anyone complain about Lotus Notes once they understand it. Lotus Notes provides application development so fast that it changes how businesses work. Replication frees salespeople and other travellers from needing to be on the network to keep updates synchronized. The security is incredible. The administration and support required are minimal, much less than other platforms.
It does have a reputation for being slow or unfriendly. That is usually because the developers suck, not because the platform sucks.
One benefit that rarely gets much press is that applications are portable, open source, and easily shared.
Portable means that they can be moved from server-to-server, or company-to-company, with little modfication.
Except for very few proprietary software companies, most of the code is open source, and released as public domain. Even the system databases are open, so you can modify the central directory or the mail application. As usual, if you customize the system software, you may have difficulties during the next upgrade, but that applies to Apache too. We would like you to maintain our credits, but I have yet to see anybody specify even a BSD-like license in a Notes template. There are websites that share the templates, and many in the community pass them around.
At GM, I worked on an application called CalPrint. It reads your calendar (part of the mail application) and produces many reports suitable for printing. I believe the original application was written by somebody at Toyota. Several people at Lotus Consulting worked on it and added Y2K bugs and other things. I worked on it for GM and removed the bugs, added quite a bit of functionality, and upgraded it to work with the new release of Lotus Notes. My version has been passed around, and I am certain others have continued development.
The Lotus Notes program is not open. But all the applications are open.
---
If you post the reasons you dislike Lotus Notes, I will answer them. Sometimes people complain because the keyboard shortcuts are based on the pre-MS standards, but that would not apply to a Slashdotter. Sometimes it is because the UI is using the defaults, and Lotus does not use good defaults. Most of the other reasons are from poor development. Given the usual application developed by the usual Notes developer, I can usually increase the speed 10-100 times, and make the UI much more usable/friendly.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.