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.
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."
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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).
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
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
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).
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.
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 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").
not only GNU turns 20
by
sulli
·
· Score: 5, Funny
but also RMS' beard. Send the Fab Five to do something about it!
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.
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
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:)
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.
Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)?
Hurd is microkernel based. The concept of "binary modules" doesn't exist. Nvidia would live in user space.
Actually, I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I think what I said is somewhat true:).
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
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: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
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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.
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
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?
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.
Why not?
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
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?
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. )
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
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
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: 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.
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
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?
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....
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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: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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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/." -
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.
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.
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...
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
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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 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.
Except for two little facts:
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
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...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.
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