LinuxDevCenter Interviews RMS

prostoalex writes "LinuxDevCenter interviews RMS. Interesting that Stallman supports the free software projects ported to proprietary operating systems: 'Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.'"

Comments

Cygwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Question is, does he support projects such as CygWin?

Re:Cygwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's a silly question. What the hell does it matter? Not often are you going to run into people that are thinking 'hey, I'm gonna try a unix env for windows.' If they know about unix, they'll more than likely end up trying fedora or some live distro, before going through the hassle of installing cygwin.

Re:Cygwin

[homerules]

I don't think he would understand the question. He seemed to be having a tough time at it.

Re:Cygwin

[Lachek]

Done any Cygwin installs lately? Nowadays, it's easier than installing most Windows apps, and that's not supposed to be a funny.

Re:Cygwin

[Lachek]

I don't see why he wouldn't. "His" software is the GNU system environment - i.e. the system utilities that make [what most people call] "Linux" tick. Cygwin is, at its core, GNU on Windows. I don't think he would have more of a concern with that than GNU on Irix, GNU on Solaris, GNU on OS X etc.

Re:Cygwin

[anagama]

• I don't think he would understand the question. He seemed to be having a tough time at it.

This is humorous on one level. Let me comment on the serious level though. I think RMS was simply trying to avoid any confusion. I'm a lawyer, and before a witness testifies, I make certain they understand one thing very clearly - never answer a question you don't fully understand. 100% of the time, it is a mistake to give an answer to what you think or guess the question was driving at. The risk of being misunderstood, then later being branded a "liar" (and people do love to be vicious) far outweighs the risks associated with asking for clarification. It is the questioner's job to ask a clear question and if there is any part that is not understood - there is only one correct answer: "I don't understand the question." I'm also aware that interviewers/reporters for media of various kinds, practically always get facts wrong/misquote etc. My guess, RMS has been bitten in the past answering a question he thought was about X, when the questioner thought it was about Y. So, I don't hold it against him that he asked for clarification - it was the only thing he could do to ensure that his ideas were communicated clearly.

Re:Cygwin

[secretsquirel]

First time I tried linux other than through telnet I used WinLinux, wasn't a hassle at all. Didn't have a computer that I could risk fucking up the windows install on, although knoppix wasn't available then and setting up a dual boot wasn't so easy. Either way, I haven't seen a microsoft bootscreen for almost a year.

Re:Cygwin

[njcoder]

"My guess, RMS has been bitten in the past answering a question he thought was about X, when the questioner thought it was about Y."

I don't think X is part of the GNU project though the FSF has some opinions on it.

As for Y. I have no idea what that is.

Re:Cygwin

[anagama]

Darn it! I knew I shoulda used "A" and "B".

Re:Cygwin

[swv3752]

Y was a failed attempt at replacing X.

Re:Cygwin

[BabyJaysus]

"I'm a lawyer"

YAL?

Re:Cygwin

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, all of the questions rms asked to have explained were completley different than I perceived them

Re:Cygwin

[Karmakanic]

You think Cygwin is easy to install??? What planet do you live on? Okay, maybe the core utilities, yes, but I defy you to install PostgreSQL correctly on the first try!

Re:Cygwin

[Lachek]

Well, the subject at hand was a *nix environment. As you say, the core utilities (the GNU suite, et al) are pretty damn straightforward to install and basic operation is simple. I like the fact that I can install an entire Win32 compilation environment in 5 minutes if I find a source distribution of a tool I need. Sure beats the 2+ hours required to install MS Visual Studio or something. :)

Free apps on non-free OS

[Anml4ixoye]

I am extremely glad that I was able to try open-source apps on Windows. By trying out Mozilla, and then Thunderbird, and then apps like The Gimpe and OpenOffice, I felt confident enough to make the switch. And once I had my primary files running in the software (like mail in Thunderbird on Windows) making the transition was almost flawless. And because the stuff I was using was already familiar, being productive on Linux helped overcome the learning hiccups.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[slickbob13]

At work I'm required to use windows for a few apps that havn't been ported to linux yet. So having Firefox and Openoffice for windows is nice. Then when I go home I have the same apps on Linux.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[ergo98]

You touched on the most important aspect of the F/OSS movement - free as in beer. Many of the adoption of apps like OpenOffice, Linux, and GIMP, have occurred because they're monetarily free (yeah Redhat charges a couple of people, but the installed base of these apps is astronomically greater than the number of payers). I use GIMP not because I care about OSS, but because I'd rather shell out that $50 for the new deluxe collector's edition of The Lord of the Rings - A Journey Too God Damn Long than for a copy of JASC. Ultimately the software industry is being eaten inside out by this sort of "let it all be free!". What was a profession is turning into a hobby.

Cue the standard replies of "but the money will be made up in service!". That's what India is for. And anyways it ignores the reality that most organizations (and individuals) are trying to reduce their IT spending to $0, and they'll do whatever they can to achieve that.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbn-o]

You have just described why price is not the most important aspect of free software: proprietors are willing to distribute their software at zero price in order to get you to pay later and restrict what you can do when you get the non-free software.

When this happens (when Microsoft insists on not losing a sale, so they distribute Windows and Office to a big customer at no fee), if there is no mention of software freedom, the proprietor will get what they want. Focusing on price instead of freedom is a trap because you are tossing aside the only thing free software can compete on for something that plays into the hands of proprietors.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Lachek]

I can't really tell by your post whether you have a problem with this development or not, but let me remind you: what used to be a hobby turned into a profession before it once again morphed into a hobby. In the beginning of time, the only way to make money off of writing software was if you wrote specialized software for one or perhaps a couple of enterprise sites. All other software, including much of the software developed by IT giants, was free-as-in-beer. People thought the notion of paying for software was ridiculous, before it was commodified.

Now, finally, the hobbyists and enthusiasts have started to catch up with those who made billions by commodifying what's essentially nothing but pancake recipes, and get booed as by the masses as economy-shattering un-American commies. There was never a viable business model in cranking out fancy text editors in VB and charging $9.99 for each installation to begin with, no more than there was a viable business model in "developing web-driven eTailing and interactive marketing solutions" in the 90s.

I have nothing but respect for software developers, but if someone can do something as well as you - except for free, and in their spare time - you have no right to complain while you are in a market-driven economy. There are plenty of business that will pay good money for an in-house system developer, to do the sort of work that software people got paid to do before commodification took place.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Mr. Slippery]

Ultimately the software industry is being eaten inside out by this sort of "let it all be free!"

No, only the COTS software industry is in danger of being "eaten". (And since 90+% of what comes out of that industry is crap...) There will always be a need for skilled developers to write the software that runs the telephone system, your bank, NASA's ground systems, etcetera. More of that may turn to being integration of free/open source software components, sure, but that means less time wasted on re-inventing the wheel and more of getting cool stuff done.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[ergo98]

To preface I am neither for or against F/OSS. I'm just pointing out that the freedom that most people care about isn't what Mr. Stallman is talking about. ...the software that runs the telephone system, your bank...

Let's revisit this in 10 years. Virtually every vertical market is homogenizing on a couple of standard systems - banks will tell you that their core business is banking, and the IT needs are secondary, and if they can share some of their systems with their peers in the industry, they will (back-end IT systems aren't a competitive force anymore). Telephone companies are the same. Both of them have IT as a matter of need, but they see it as a nuisance rather than a benefit.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[ergo98]

I can't really tell by your post whether you have a problem with this development or not

Indeed, because I was simply making a factual point. Naturally everyone has to polarize to their sides though (see the other post classically bringing up Microsoft).

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Lachek]

Yeah, my brain just couldn't grasp the idea of not taking sides. It is pretty rare to find this behaviour in people these days, especially on /.

SkyNet, is that you? :)

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[inode_buddha]

" You touched on the most important aspect of the F/OSS movement - free as in beer."

I disagree. IMHO the important aspect is "free as in freedom", which BTW works well with the service industry model.

If the dollar is all you are seeing then what are you missing and not seeing? Or, to state it another way, if your own freedom isn't worth much to you, then how do you treat others'?

IMHO, a more accurate way to state your position might have been to say that "The most important aspect of of the FOSS movement for business purposes is "free as in beer". And that is the whole crux of the matter -- what is the most important aspect for a given purpose?

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[secretsquirel]

when Microsoft insists on not losing a sale, so they distribute Windows and Office to a big customer at no fee

hahahahahaha, good one; don't you mean when the next Windows comes out a big customers computers all seem to not be able to use the web because some new 'security' ''feature'' in frontpage wont let them view pages because they can't authorize your 'digital security signature' or something. Of course there will be workarounds but then all your point-and-click superiours will say "what? I'm not digitally secure so I have to hack into webpages to view them? screw this!"

Will microsoft give them a sweet deal?, possibly, will they give it away free, or sell it and give support for free?, I hope I live to see the day.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbn-o]

Will microsoft give them a sweet deal?, possibly, will they give it away free, or sell it and give support for free?, I hope I live to see the day.

Some time ago, it was revealed that Microsoft's Orlando Ayala, a top Microsoft executive for foreign sales, distributed a memo instructing that "Under NO circumstances lose against Linux[sic].". Microsoft has a slush fund to pay for big would-be customers' licenses. Microsoft was prepared to use some of this money to reduce the cost of licensed Microsoft proprietary software for the city government of Munich, Germany. The same article also mentions sharply discounted or free training for city workers, or allowing teachers "to use Microsoft software purchased for the workplace at home for no extra charge".

Support with proprietary software is always a trap, of course, because you have to convince the proprietor to do what you want done (you can't do it for yourself no matter how skilled a programmer you are, no matter how talented your hired help is). But Munich was offered a support contract which included "Windows XP [support] for six years -- a year beyond the five-year base contract, and [Microsoft] said the city could skip the next Office upgrade, too".

The cost of locking someone in now pays off in spades down the road when people are less likely to even consider alternatives. Microsoft knows this, hence they are willing to do what it takes to get large clients. The city government of Munich ended up going with a GNU/Linux system instead, but reducing the sale price to $0 is definately on the menu.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbolden]

That's because with a few exceptions like retailing (Walmart, Amazon being examples) no player is trying to use IT to gain a competitive advantage. They all are at about the same level.

During the 1990s companies did try and gain a major advantage (many were succesful BTW) using high IT spending to drastically reduce other costs, and thus cut their total costs considerably. 2000 opened with the strategy of drastically reducing IT costs without increasing other costs too much. The downside is that almost no progress has been made.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[drinkypoo]

Value for the money is the single strongest selling point to the average person. People will forgive software some faults if it is cheap. The fact that software is Free does not matter to people unless it provides some tangible benefit - like being free. If it also makes the quality or interoperability better, that is another important factor. Unfortunately a lot of Free software is just not as good as the proprietary competitors, and most users are happy to buy a bunch of specific software if they're sure it will do the things they need it to do. They don't care about freedom, just money - a feature of a capitalistic society.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Anonymous Coward]

What was a profession is turning into a hobby

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[abulafia]

Cue the standard replies of "but the money will be made up in service!". That's what India is for.

Maybe. We'll see. The difference between "please execute this plan" and "How do we best do blah" is what I bet my company on. Sure, in theory you can outsource market knowledge. How many companies have oursourced executives, recently?

And anyways it ignores the reality that most organizations (and individuals) are trying to reduce their IT spending to $0, and they'll do whatever they can to achieve that.

Of course. I would like to reduce my housing budget to zero. Similarly, it would be cool if I could run a business supplying people with neat software without spending money. And I do, in fact, do whatever I can to lower the cost of labor. Frequently, that labor is mine. Sometimes, that's someone else's. And yes, when I can reduce it, there's a profit margin difference. Over time, it goes away, somthing I've experienced multiple times.

What is your question again?

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbn-o]

Or so those who advertise heavily would like you to believe. I think that values are taught which means we can teach people to value different things, including software freedom. I'm not against providing software that is practical, inexpensive, fast, and as bug-free as possible, but I don't think these technical achievements should be the end of the consideration.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Lally Singh]

Sure there's been progress, that's why the IT industry's in a glut right now.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbolden]

Gluts are relative to demand. I was addressing why there is so little demand.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[ergo98]

What is your question again?

What's your point again?

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[rsheridan6]

Not really. A semi-savvy client will understand that they're getting the deal of the century because MS (or whichever company) wants to lock them in later. Freedom is a loser as a selling point because 99+% of people don't know what source code is, wouldn't know what to do with it, and just generally have no emotional attachment to source code or the freedom thereof. Freedom may be a good selling point when compared to proprietary software from a company that might disappear and leave you without support, but if you're competing with, say, MS, its only interest for most people is that it guarantees that this company won't someday lock you in and say "all your money are belong to us if you ever want to see your .docs and .mp3s again." But that goes back to price.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[jbn-o]

The lock-in with proprietary and/or patent-encumbered file formats you describe does not "go back to price", it goes to the heart of making one's computer do what one wants it to do--software freedom. There are plenty of organizations that try to compete with larger proprietors and they will try to lock you into their ways too.

Businesses dropping (what they call) "support" by going out of business is less likely than trying to get customers to buy into another planned obsolescence in which no customer can really support themselves. I'm reminded of the many proprietary "kits" NeXT distributed and dropped shortly thereafter, much to the ironic dismay of the proprietary software distributors who were trying to make that OS more attractive by getting customers with the same tactics. Again, we bump into the need for software freedom.

The challenge is education: it falls to the free software movement to teach people about software freedom so that they can value it and then demand it when they do business with software and hardware distributors. Eben Moglen made a point of this in his keynote speech at the third "Wizards of Open Source" conference in Berlin. He was speaking at a conference dedicated to "open source" but he was perfectly clear that what he was speaking about is freedom. You should download that speech from archive.org and hear it for yourself.

Stroke for RMS

[flosofl]

I know this is OT. But I thought of a way to give RMS a stroke (or a facial tic at the vary least):

Me: Boy I sure like my Linux system

RMS : That's GNU/Linux!

Me: Yep, brand-spanking new

RMS: No, no, no! That's GNU G-N-U. GNU/Linux..

Me: GNU/Linux? What's that?

RMS: GAH! It's what you have installed!!

Me: Oh, you mean Linux

RMS: GNU/Linux!!!

*** Repeat ad infinitum :)

Bonus pts if you actually say Linux OS by the Red Hat people :)

Merry Chr.. er .. Happy Holidays

Re:Stroke for RMS

[D. Book]

RMS : That's GNU/Linux!

Me: Yep, brand-spanking new

GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS speech on software freedom, you'll hear him explain how the name originated and a specific request that people not to call it the "new" operating system, as that may cause the type of confusion that you used in your joke. Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[northcat]

If I had mod points, I would mod parent offtopic.(Ironically some moron is going to mod this off topic).

Re:Stroke for RMS

[fuzzy12345]

So he thought through using a word that few know how to pronounce? Name any other words in the english language where the 'g' is pronounced in 'gn'? Aside from 'eggnog', I say there aren't any.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

YA, it is called Linux.........

Not perl/linux
Not python/linux
Not kde/linux
Not gnome/linux
JUST linux !!!

damn acid dropping hippie...get over it stallman
its LINUX

Re:Stroke for RMS

[44BSD]

You, sir, are an ignoramus. For another example, consider "gnostic".

Re:Stroke for RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

My dictionary says that the 'g' in "gnostic" is not pronounced...

Re: Stroke for RMS

[gidds]

Apparently, 'twas not always thus -- many moons ago, the word 'gnu' (meaning a type of antelope) used to be pronounced with a silent 'g'. I gather that The Gnu Song by Flanders and Swann a few decades back was one of the major factors in changing the pronunciation.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[fuzzy12345]

Not any more! But my dictionary says gnostic sounds like nostik and gnu like nOO - so is Stallman really blaming people for not knowing that they're supposed to mispronounce the word that appears next to the animal of the same name on the GNU website? What an idiot.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[wine]

Name any other words in the english language where the 'g' is pronounced in 'gn'?

ummm, gnome perhaps?

Re:Stroke for RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS

Oh, great. Pronunciation flames.

Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.

So, how did he get to be philosopher king of the FOSS movement? Winning all the pedantic pissing contests?

-Anonymous Phil

Re:Stroke for RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is

Thinking a little too highly of ourselves are we?

Re:Stroke for RMS

[ArturNT]

I've met with RMS(true story) and discussed it with him before. There are just two camps, the Linux and the GNU/Linux. Really you can call it whatever you want, but GNU IS and integral part of Linux, and calling it gnu/linux just awknoweldges all the hard work of the developers behind the GNU tools that make the operating system as a whole possible. I think it is just plain courtesy. This issue comes up any time RMS is mentioned.. let us have peace and not war and not mention it anymore. If you call it gnu/linux now, that is great.. if you don't then you will probably wont change, but that is great too. No need to fight over it :).

Re:Stroke for RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

No, gnome is pronounced nome. Unless you're talking about the software, which is the same sort of thing as GNU. It doesn't really count.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[kyrre]

RMS will also pronounce the / part. So it is GNU slash Linux. Thats Lih-nux not Lie-nux.

Re:Stroke for RMS

[sepluv]

I naturally pronounced it the same was a RMS when I first heard it because it was capitalised so was obviously an acronym, and acronyms are usually either spelled out or pronounced letter by letter phonetically (without silent letters).

Clearly saying "nu" would cause confusion so no one would call it that--thought they may spell it out (but nothing wrong with that).

Gimp on Windows is useful

[suso]

My wife actually is using Gimp under Windows now because she prefers its interface to Photoshop. ;-)

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[christian simpleman]

Does she have any sisters?

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats one person

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[northcat]

she prefers its interface to Photoshop

Everyone does. Except for some self-enlightened, 14 year old hypocrites on slashdot who cant code hello world, let alone a complex program like GIMP.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[pilkul]

Er, are you using the same port of Gimp that I am? On my Windows machine the Gimp has like 5 little separate windows, and whenever I maximize another program it covers all of them and I have to click 5 times to bring them all back to the top. Very annoying. And the program is generally inconsistent with the rest of Windows, with everything being done by context menu, etc. I'm not sure how anyone could prefer its interface in a Windows context...

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Mr. Slippery]

and whenever I maximize another program it covers all of them and I have to click 5 times to bring them all back to the top.

Why don't you put the GIMP on a separate workspace? (Or does Windows still lack that simple feature?)

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Curtman]

Except for some self-enlightened, 14 year old hypocrites on slashdot who cant code hello world, let alone a complex program like GIMP

And those that have never heard of virtual desktops maybe. Stay tuned though, Microsoft is scheduled to innovate that in its next release. ;)

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike many ppl think windows comes with a full API for virtual Workspaces, yet there is no default switching app coming with windows. All interfaces are already inside, nVidia nView e.g. implements such features via the windows api.

X didn't even support easy thing as hardware window transparency or shadows as of recently when it came with X.org 6.8 but yet isn't use by most major apps, even Windows ME could do such simple things.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[FooBarWidget]

"X didn't even support easy thing as hardware window transparency or shadows as of recently when it came with X.org 6.8 but yet isn't use by most major apps, even Windows ME could do such simple things."

So? X can do it now. Your point is moot. Time ain't gonna flow backwards, buddy.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[zecg]

So? X can do it now. Your point is moot. Time ain't gonna flow backwards, buddy.

Actually, man, it will. Starting April 13. 2029., all the way back to the first visit of the Dogon Tribe.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Billly Gates]

I am sorry.

Poor thing.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[FooBarWidget]

"Actually, man, it will. Starting April 13. 2029."

http://www.freedesktop.org/~keithp/screenshots/
You are either dumb or you are lying. Probably the latter.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was referring to the recent /. article on Asteroid 2004 MN4 ;).

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[zecg]

You are either dumb or you are lying. Probably the latter.

I was speaking about time going backwards, sheesh. It should have been obvious from, you know, grammar.

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[One Childish N00b]

Doesn't it say more about the GIMP's interface than Photoshop's that the discovery of a single user who prefers the former's interface warrants a +3, Interesting?

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[Mr. Slippery]

yet there is no default switching app coming with windows.

Is there one available somewhere?

X didn't even support easy thing as hardware window transparency or shadows as of recently when it came with X.org 6.8

Maybe. Never felt the lack of such eye candy myself, being a pretty wabi-sabi GUI kind of guy; I need window transparency like I need a third nipple. But I sure missed multiple workspaces when forced to work on a Windows or Mac box. (It's been ages since I used a Mac so I don't know if multiple workspaces are there under OS/X?)

Re:Gimp on Windows is useful

[lachlan76]

It has it in the nVidia drivers, if you use one of their cards.

Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview by Federico Biancuzzi
12/22/2004

Around 20 years ago a programmer at MIT quit his job to develop a complete and free Unix-style operating system--the GNU system. That programmer was Richard Stallman, also known as rms, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom and created the concept of free software. Software is considered free if users have the following four freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition.

Copyleft licenses protect these four freedoms. The most prominent license is the GNU General Public License, which allows the author to retain a copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.

In this period of threats to freedom, Federico Biancuzzi interviewed this freedom paladin.

FB: GNU/Linux (the complete OS!) is probably the most known free software project. What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community.

FB: Isn't there any free alternative under development?

RMS: There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

As part of the GNU Project, Tom Lord is developing a new free source control system called Arch, which we hope will outdo the proprietary ones.

But just because we are competing with proprietary software on issues of technical merit doesn't mean we think people should choose the program for source control based on technical qualities alone. That would mean assigning zero value to freedom itself. If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that's a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, j

Re:Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't reprint articles without permission.

There's contact information at the bottom of every page. Just ask.

Tides of change

[tedgyz]

When I first read RMS' comments 15 years ago, I thought he was a crackpot. I worked for a large computer vendor (Wang) and could not comprehend the concepts he espoused.

Now I have aged and benefitted first hand from the freedom of software. Now I comprehend what he is trying to say and I recognize the benefit of open source software.

With that said, he still come across as a crackpot who is so entrenched in his views he will not budge. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Without gcc there would be a lot less free software.

Re:Tides of change

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you enjoy working for wang?

Re:Tides of change

[falsified]

FB: What do you think about proprietary software? Does it have low quality? Is it unsecure? Does it restrict freedom too much? Is it unethical?

RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate.

Here's the problem. Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about. They want to use it. Stallman and others find it more fun to ignore that fact. If a person wants to control their computer, they can bang out code and get the results they want. The computer isn't some mystical realm in which we must adhere to philosophies and Lockeian ideals of natural rights because it's simply irrelevent. People freely choose what goes on their hard drive and it shouldn't be put upon programmers to freely release their code if they don't want to. Even entertaining the idea of forcing code to be opened is disgusting. Should we then ban secrets? Along with freedom of speech is the right to remain silent and the right to maintain your livelihood as long as it doesn't harm others. That right is stronger than the right to know about buffer overflows in your email program.

Re:Tides of change

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I have aged and benefitted first hand from the freedom of software. Now I comprehend what he is trying to say and I recognize the benefit of open source software.

Yes, but remember not all open source software is free as in freedom. It is one of RMS's main points which distinguishes GNU philosophy from other open source philosophies. Freedom is the number one priority, not innovation, security, or other priorities. And in this day in age with wacky patent laws, (and companies who think licences with end users are contracts) it is, to him and many who see likewise the main motivation that is driving their work.

Re:Tides of change

[Frizzle Fry]

From his comments, it was apparently a large wang.

Re:Tides of change

[mankey wanker]

You must have missed the point he made about freedom. Based on your comments, you value freedom not at all.

I don't want to go off-topic in this thread, but this is one of the things that I was going to say about the Opera v. Firebird portion of another thread today (I think others may have already made the point anyway). I value that Firebird is free. Opera is really great (although there are a few flaws I have found in it over time) but it is not free.

It really makes all the difference in the world. I can wait for Firebird to become as kick ass as Opera - it is very close already.

Frankly, there are very few instances where proprietary software beats free software, esp when it comes to desktop use. I am not saying none, I am saying few. But I also think there are many instances where free software beats proprietary software. And I think it's getting better for the free side of the equation all the time.

Re:Tides of change

[BobNET]

I value that Firebird is free. Opera is really great (although there are a few flaws I have found in it over time) but it is not free.

Sure it is, you just have to ignore the ads in the corner!

Re:Tides of change

[T-Ranger]

Now I comprehend what he is trying to say and I recognize the benefit of open source software.

While both those may be true, if the later is derived from the former, then the former is not true. RMS promotes Free Software, not Open Source Software.

Re:Tides of change

[Mr. Slippery]

A computer is a tool, its technical merits are of prime importance and the only one that really matters.

Let's say I have for you a wonderful writing tool, the best pen ever created. Anything you write with it will be beautiful and legible and the ink will never fade from paper (but instantly wash out of clothing) and it will cause no hand or wrist strain.

The only catch is that if you use it, you agree to let me have an unlimited licence to use whatever you write with it.

Should you judge my pen by its technical merits only, or do you think some other consideratons should take precedence?

Re:Tides of change

[Curtman]

Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about.

So how many users care that they aren't allowed to just grab software from their favourite P2P application and use it whenever/however they choose? Should I be morally opposed to that behaviour any more than the proprietary crowd is about free software?

I'm fairly unopinionated when I see people running eMule, and stealing other peoples work. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, just that I don't really care. In fact I wish software houses would crack down on piracy like the MPAA/RIAA does, because that alone would push the value of open/free software higher.

Point is, just because I don't take a stand on some issue doesn't mean it isn't important.

Re:Tides of change

[Mr. Slippery]

Even entertaining the idea of forcing code to be opened is disgusting. Should we then ban secrets?

I think his comparision to food labeling is spot on. Maybe mandatory source disclosure could help improve the shockingly poor quality of software, in the same way the Pure Food and Drug Act helped make the nation's food supply safer. (Which is not to say the Pure Food and Drug Act was an ideal law...it helped lay the foundations of drug prohibition.)

It is entirely appropriate to ban certain secrets in commercial products. If the candy you're selling is extra-sweet because it contains lead, yes, you should be banned from keeping that a secret.

(Yes, some of the more radical libertarian capitalists beleive that there should be no mandatory food ingredient labeling, that it should be left to the market. The problem is that full knowledge is a necessary precondition for markets to function effectively.)

Re:Tides of change

[swillden]

Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about.

So what?

Not many people really care about freedom of speech, either, because they never actually say anything that would be restricted. It's a small minority who really exercise their free speech rights, just as it's a small minority of computer users who exercise the rights given them by Free Software (even among users of Free Software!). That doesn't make either sort of freedom any less important. Both freedoms provide large benefits to the whole society even when exercised by only a small segment.

Re:Tides of change

[rmiller55]

I've long thought that Richard Stallman, like a lot of left-wing/liberal people and ideas, makes a good garnish. We'd be in a world of hurt if the world ran according to Stallman's philosophies, but his ideas are strong enough and his position firm enough to provide a good temperance against the conservative/corporate mainstream that is going the other way.

Re:Tides of change

[tomstdenis]

Part of the big reason for the GPL isn't so little timmy can hack his kernel [though he can] it's so that big corp USA (tm) can't take the code and lock you into it [e.g. vendor specific changes].

Which is EXACTLY what happened to UNIX. You had solaris, Xenix, Irix, etc... all of which were similar but different at the same time. They were also all closed source and really played with the underlying hardware.

Part of the catch to the GPL is the popularity. The more popular [say] Linux becomes the more free it becomes. That's because it will be more prevalent and you will be less likely to be locked into a particular vendors OS.

So while the GPL made little sense in the 80s and early 90s it makes perfectly good sense now.

Tom

Re:Tides of change

[Peter La Casse]

Here's the problem. Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about. They want to use it. Stallman and others find it more fun to ignore that fact.

Perhaps they ignore it because it isn't really a problem. There's nothing wrong with some people not caring, or with Stallman and others not caring that those people don't care.

Re:Tides of change

[mankey wanker]

Free to use perhaps. Not free to be further developed or tinkered with. And that's what free means in the context of a discussion about RMS.

Re:Tides of change

[TheRaven64]

Opera's lack of freedom cost them my custom. When I used Windows, Opera was my browser of choice. When I moved to FreeBSD, they were dragging their heals over the FreeBSD release (it was still 6.x, and so I had to run the Linux version of 7.x in compatibility mode). If I had had the source code to the Linux version of 7.x, I would happily have put in the time required to port it to FreeBSD. When I moved to the Mac, they still hadn't got around to releasing 7.x (they only managed a few weeks ago, in fact). At the time, I would have been perfectly happy to have compiled it myself and run it in X11. I would also have been willing to put in some time porting the UI to use native rendering paths. Instead, I started using Safari, and haven't looked back. When GCC 4 is released, including support for Objective-C++, and WebKit can finally be compiled on non-Apple platforms, I will almost certainly put some time into developing a GNUstep web browser (unless someone else gets there first).

Code freedom is not just an interesting philosophical point, it is a real advantage.

Re:Tides of change

[jbolden]

People freely choose what goes on their hard drive and it shouldn't be put upon programmers to freely release their code if they don't want to. Even entertaining the idea of forcing code to be opened is disgusting.

And when has RMS ever advocating forcing the release of code? What he advocates is that people who want to keep their code secret should not be part of a society of people who cooperate with one another on writing code.

Re:Tides of change

[mpcooke3]

Here's the problem. Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about.

It's true that most people don't care about these rights or maybe even consider them 'rights' at all.

Yet, by insisting that people should demand these rights he may have triggered a movement that will both revolution and improve the way we develop software for generations to come.

That is why some people consider him a genius.

Personally I agree with him on the issue of free software but admit he is capable of talking waft - the wheel group in Unix being a specific example.

Re:Tides of change

[floe]

Exactly! It's a pity i don't have mod points...

Re:Tides of change

[dspeyer]

Here's the problem. Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about.

They will once their computer betrays them enough.

We're just beginning to see the possibilities of malware. Even the most tech-illiterate are unhappy about programs sneaking onto their computers to spy on them, disrupt their work and forward spam. Most likely, future malware will commit credit card fraud and participate in DDOS attacks while framing the original victim. People will care.

To a limited extent, restricting your software to reputable sources can help, but not enough. Cisco once admitted to including backdoors in enterprise-targetted products (they apologized and called it an accident). Microsoft is known to manipulate compatibility against consumers best interests in order to crush their rivals. This is subtler, but it may get worse.

RMS isn't totally out of touch on this; he's just a little ahead of his time.

Re:Tides of change

[Mr. Jaggers]

If you are still calling it FireBird, than perhaps it is already "as kick ass as Opera", since it has been called FireFox for almost a year now, and has reached version 1.0... it has more user-installable community-created extensions than Opera (and some of them are useful too! Like adblock, bugmenot, the gooogle toolbar, and the web development toolbar...).

The project has garnered a lot of attention, reached a major-version-numbered release, and has certainly risen from the ashes, as it's original Pheonix name would have suggested... perhaps its worth another look.

I mean, hell... it fucking free, after all!! Both the RMS way, and the ESR kind of way...

Re:Tides of change

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about.

No, but they do care about the implications of just one organisation having a monopoly on a piece of software. Things like it being buggy because only people inside the organisation can fix things.

Since the audience RMS is speaking to probably understand the implications (he's written/spoken about them many times before), it obviously makes more sense to talk about the fundamental issue than to treat them like babies and explain every little thing.

People freely choose what goes on their hard drive and it shouldn't be put upon programmers to freely release their code if they don't want to.

He said that it's unethical, not that everybody should be forced to do what he wants. There are plenty of nasty things that people do that aren't illegal and shouldn't be illegal.

Even entertaining the idea of forcing code to be opened is disgusting.

Demonising RMS for a point of view he doesn't hold is stupid enough, but posting it to Slashdot where a lot of people understand the issues is simply trolling.

Re:Tides of change

[sepluv]

Actually, as has been said before, internal documents at Microsoft reveal that they try to encourage unlawful copying of their software by private individuals as part of their business strategy (to lock-in the government and corporate markets).

Re:Tides of change

[sepluv]

Actually a lot of people, if they think about it, care about the freedom of controlling their computer (even if they employ others to fix things).

No one wants to not be in control of their computer. Users do want to be able to customsie their computer to do what they want and at least be able to get someone else to fix problems (at competitive prices). Users don't want their computer having spyware or viruses or being cracked or reporting their activities or sensitive data back to Microsoft or deleting content that Microsoft considers inappropriate or locking them out of reading their own documents. Users want to know what programs their machine is running or what it is downloading. All of these are arguments for using free software.

A computer is a tool. Why would anyone have a tool which they could not control, which has a mind of its own?

Ingredients?

[Icarus1919]

FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?

RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.

Of course, some software companies would object to this, just as some food companies resisted the requirement to publish the ingredients and nutritional information. The question should not be up to them.

I don't think it's the same at all. Publishing ingredients in food is a lot different from publishing source code. Publishing the sourcecode is like sending someone the blueprint schematics of your new machine, practically inviting them to make their own; whereas the ingredients label doesn't list in what quantities the ingredients were mixed in at, or what time, etc. I know Stallman simply made a poor analogy, but I think he truly believes it.

Re:Ingredients?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ingredients:

Assignments - 30%
If statements - 30%
For statements - 20%
While statements - 5%
Dodgy pointer accesses - trace

Re:Ingredients?

[belmolis]

Agreed. A closer analogy to publishing food ingredients is probably publishing APIs and interface specifications.

Re:Ingredients?

[Taladar]

He is correct however in one aspect. The question wether they should ship all programs with code shouldn't be up to the vendors.

Re:Ingredients?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a rather good analogy for what he's trying to tell people. He's using the food ingredients example so that everyone can understand basically what he means.. I don't think you should be proud of being able to find a flaw in his statement by deliberatele mis-interpretation.

In case you really don't understand his analogy;

-> Not knowing the ingredients in food could be harmful

-> Not knowing what procedures are in software could be harmful

I call that a *good* analogy. He's talking about stuff like hidden spyware or backdoors.. which is also harmful.

Re:Ingredients?

[caino59]

Its their code. Whether the end user gets to see it or not is up to the creator. If you don't like the fact you can't see the code behind the app, you have a choice whether to use that sotware or not.

If you don't have a choice - I think seeing the code is of little concern.

However, I do think it would be a good idea, although it would never happen, for companies to do peer review on each other's software. You know, like you did with papers in English class.

Re:Ingredients?

[Kadmium]

1. Pre-heat a for-loop to 180 degrees
2. Mix together 3 integers, stirring constantly...

Re:Ingredients?

[roman_mir]

Not exactly. Even with the ingredients listed it is still not easy to guess the exact recipe and the preparation methods, so the food company doesn't really lose its 'copyright' when it prints ingredients. With software I imagine ingredients would be packages, libraries used to 'prepare' the code. But of-course just like during preparation of food the ingredients change, and where there was no hydrogenated oil in ingredients it can become part of food after preparation (boiling oil would do that,) so are the software APIs and side-effects (installs files, opens ports, whatever.)

Re:Ingredients?

[jonbryce]

Warning: Made in a production environment where nuts are present.

Re:Ingredients?

[Bob_Robertson]

Luckily, we still have the option not to buy products that do not give us the attributes we want.

I really like the project to produce an entirely open-source accelerated video card. If ATI and NVidia see their cards being passed over for this upstart "open" card, they will open their APIs in an instant to try to get the customers back.

It really surprises me that hardware vendors don't open their APIs, because for them software is a cost. If they can have developers refine the software (and support it!) for nothing, it's a win-win for them!

Bob-

Re:Ingredients?

[Lachek]

As the big software companies races to collect the full set of software patents, software may actually be quantified to such a degree that an ingredient list may be feasible. I can see the label on a box of Windows XP in my mind's eye:

Contains:
Method for visual representation of files as common house-hold items
Method for executing commands by an external rodent-like device
Method for not really deleting files, even though you said so, just in case you change your mind
...
Method for integrating superfluous applications into the inner workings of the OS to increase complexity
Method for integrating superfluous applications into the inner workings of the OS to lock out competitors
Method for integrating superfluous applications into the inner workings of the OS to ensure a benficial user experience for virus writers
[this section would just go on and on]
...
Method for increasing hardware spending
Method for ensuring future upgrades
Method for continuous application failures
Method for invoking a graphical blue robed wizard for no apparent reason
Method for invoking a blue screen showing arbitrary numbers for no apparent reason
...

Contains 250% of recommended daily frustration.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Should not be used by people with heart conditions or IQ's about 80. May be hazardous to your health, as well as the health of others. Only for rectal use.

Re:Ingredients?

[node 3]

As with *EVERY* analogy, there's some way in which it is different. (otherwise it wouldn't be much of an analogy, "a box of chocolates is like a box of chocolates," duh)

But the part of the analogy which *is* valid is the "consumer protection" aspect. If you had the source code to IE, you could patch it weeks before Microsoft fixes it, or if you aren't allowed to patch it, you can at least not use IE (same with food, you can not eat food that you're allergic to, or you can at least know that the soup is 16 grams of fat per serving, and adjust your meal accordingly, what have you).

Which is to say, it would be a valid consumer protection measure. Even so, RMS said he does not currently advocate such a law, so he clearly sees the limitations (if it were really so compellingly similar, he'd at least officially suggest that such a law is necessary).

Re:Ingredients?

[T-Ranger]

Something far, far more scarry:

Warning: Made in a produiction enviroment where Visual Basic programmers are present!

Re:Ingredients?

[Curtman]

the food company doesn't really lose its 'copyright' when it prints ingredients

I don't know what gives you the idea that publishing source code ammounts to relinquishing your copyright, but it does not.

And what the GP was talking about was API's, as opposed to code.

To use GTK+ as an example, API's look like this
Whereas code looks like this.

Re:Ingredients?

[Curtman]

I think VIA is probably one of the more opensource friendly hardware manufacturers. You'll probably get very decent documentation for almost any of their chipsets here. What you get from there is a reference implimentation of a driver, and there is a link to where you get datasheets on there as well. I've still yet to hear back from ATI after requesting just the NDA, never mind the documentation. I wouldn't even waste my time inquiring about nVidia.

Re:Ingredients?

[gnu-generation-one]

"I don't think it's the same at all. Publishing ingredients in food is a lot different from publishing source code."

OK, it's probably more like being able to inspect the kitchens at a restaurant. Seeing the source-code gives you an idea of the quality of the software.

And as capitalists would tell us, that knowledge is absolutely required for a free market.

Re:Ingredients?

[roman_mir]

Oh, thanks, without you I wouldn't have a slightest idea what an API is or what source looks like.

---

Concerning the copyright loss, I just worded it badly. Obviously you don't lose copyright by publishing your source, what I meant to say was trade secret.

Re:Ingredients?

[Curtman]

Oh, thanks

You're welcome.

Re:Ingredients?

[nacturation]

Even more to the point, it was made by the nuts.

Definately makes switching easier

[usalug.org]

Having people use Mozilla, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and other applications prior to switching/trying Linux has halped me convert more than a few to a more stable OS. Being able to do the basics and be comfortable doing those things, (surfing the net/email/irc) makes for a much happier and productive Linux newbie.

software wants to be free

[trybywrench]

The mindset that porting open source software to proprietary operating systems is Bad(tm) is rediculous.You can't give something wings then chain it to the nest.

Re:software wants to be free

[shuad]

Good job on the Eminem quote in your sig.

Re:software wants to be free

[RdsArts]

So you agree with rms then. Quoteth rms from the article:

Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.

I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

RMS is one of the strongest people I have heard of. He stands firm, not even allowing an allusion to get past his quest for accuracy. When he corrected the interviewer, who said "free" but meant "gratis", I smiled and thought, "Way to go, Richard. Never let people get complacent."

That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre. I don't like being told that I may not release my own work as I see fit. At the same time he is welcome to not use it as he sees fit.

Bob-

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if a commercial software product is
killed off (like the company goes belly-up),
wouldn't it be better for (their) consumers
if the source code had been held in escrow,
and released as GPL a year after it's untimely
death. (Providing that the relatively new
USPTO "bizzaro-world" software patent crapola
eventually goes away? Has the USPTO never ever
heard of "prior art" in software design?)

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Hatta]

That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre. I don't like being told that I may not release my own work as I see fit. At the same time he is welcome to not use it as he sees fit.

And I don't like being told that I may not use software as I see fit. Including making modifications and releasing them. It is simply not your right to take away those of others.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[node 3]

That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre.

I believe he'd disagree with him as well...

What I mean is, he's never said (to my knowledge) that all software must be free software.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. But RMS has to be consistent and rigid in his views.
Its like a tug-o-war with all the OSS/FS people on one side and huge commercial interests on the other. RMS is our anchor man. If he began to compromise the entire bell curve would shift and we would all find ourselves on the fringe.
OSS is a mainstream concept largely because the far fringes are occupied by FS. If we could create an equaly sized movement for the total abolishion of copyright, FS might be seen as the sane compromise and OSS would be the default.

Well, maybe not, but you see what Im getting at. We have the RMS to thank for much of the progress of OSS ideology, even if its not the same as his.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

If you don't want to abide the wishes of a software writer, don't use their work.

I don't let you walk your dog on my front lawn, either.

Bob-

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

He has, actually. Sorry to ask you to take my word for it, but I don't have the citation.

Do note, however, that he considers a law requiring all software to be "libre" to be the same thing as product labeling, a law with tremendous public support. It's difficult to find anyone who will argue that the law is an infringement on the rights of the producer to label their product as they see fit.

Keep in mind that RMS is not a "libertarian", he fully believes in the use of government force for things he likes, which is why he does not reject such a law. He only says he's not calling for one now.

The scene in the movie _Revolution OS_ where Torvalds and the Linux show organizers present RMS with a large donation to the Free Software Foundation is very, very illuminating.

Bob-

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[node 3]

What you are stating indicates that he *wants* all software to be free software, and that he won't do anything to *support* proprietary software. That's a far cry from him stating that "all software must be libre".

The way I see it, is he believes proprietary software to be morally bad, and that he wants people to choose the morally good mechanism of free software. But I've never heard him say that you should not have the right to choose non-free software, and I believe the reason you don't have a citation is that there isn't one.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[GoCoGi]

If I use your front lawn, you may not be able to use it properly anymore or it will most likely be damaged or whatever. Since it is yours, you can keep me from using it. This analogy doesn't hold for software, because when I take a copy of your software no harm is done to you whatever I do with it / to it. You still have your original copy which will stay intact.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[ShieldW0lf]

You have the freedom to write it, not write it, release it, not release it. No compulsion involved.

I have the freedom to take what I have and make more of them in the privacy of my home. No compulsion involved.

I have the freedom to take what i learn and use what i know to make whatever i want. No compulsion involved.

I have the freedom to give away what i've made to my mom or sell it or do whatever with it. No compulsion involved.

Now you say you have the right to forbid me duplicating what you have made. Making this happen means the government must enforce the rule you set out.

The government takes away my rights to give you what you percieve as your rights, when they weren't yours until the government agreed to enforce them, so they're not really "rights" at all, but more "enforced entitlements".

Making something and selling it to someone else doesn't automatically give you any rights to what they then proceed do after the trade is done. The only reason you have those entitlements is because the government will back them up with the use of force if necessary, and the only reason you think you have an inherent right to those entitlements is because you've always seen it done that way.

Clear as mud and articulate as a rib I know, but you get my point. If you want to argue the merits of the rules, fine. But they are based on power and enforcement, not your personal rights and freedoms. You only confuse an intelligent discourse on their merits when you try to pretend otherwise.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[drinkypoo]

The fact remains that unless he has an enforced monopoly of some sort you are free to use another product or write one of your own. You are not entitled to the work of another. One conflicting viewpoint states that we all depend on one another, and none of what we do is our work alone, but unless the creators of the work that came before you specified that you must Free any derivative works, you are simply utilizing their work in the manner which they permit.

If you want software to be Free, write Free software - use the GPL. As the saying goes, let peace begin with me.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[zsau]

I don't like being told I'm not allowed to do what I want, so murder should stop being unethical.

(Exaggeration; same general idea. Not intending to equate propriatery software and the death of a person.)

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[nacturation]

And I don't like being told that I may not use software as I see fit. [...] It is simply not your right to take away those of others.

Well, it never was your right to use that software as you pleased anyway, so how can someone take something away which you never had? Proprietary software typically comes with a license agreement. Whether or not such agreements are enforceable is a matter for the courts but, assuming that they are, in using the software you are using it under the terms and conditions which they grant you. Without that granting, you don't have any right to use their property.

Can I use your financial information (bank account numbers, passwords, etc.) in any way I see fit? No? Didn't think so, because you haven't granted me the right.

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

Node 3, were that the end of it I would have no argument with him at all. He is perfectly at liberty to "urge" people all he wants.

Hopefully, if I do find where he stated that people should not be allowed to publish software without releasing the source code too, this will not have scrolled off and I'll be able to provide the citation.

To state my personal opinion on the matter, I believe people have the right to do with what they own whatever they want to do with it, subject to attribution. That means you don't take my work as your own, give credit where credit is due. Take my words and call them your own, it's fraud. Same with words that happen to be in computer language.

It also means that if you buy a program in binary form, and choose to reverse-engineer it, that's fine too.

Bob-

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Eythian]

What (ISTM) that he is saying, and I agree with him, is that we should do what is best for society (a.k.a. "users"), over what is best for the single developer. It potentially benefits many people a lot for software to be free (free in this comment is as in freedom), compared to benefitting one person (maybe a lot also). Therefore, the net benefit to society is greater. By writing non-free software, you are causing less gain (and possibly even detriment) to society. (There are also ethical issues related to this)

In typical swings-and-roundabouts form, it also serves to benefit you too. You (I expect) use more software than you develop. By it being free, you benefit (directly, because you can modify it, or indirectly, because someone modified it, made it better, and passed it on to you). So the more free software there is, the more everyone benefits. Assuming you don't put a zero value on freedom (it seems to me that if you put a zero value on freedom, it becomes Open Source Software, which has benefits of it's own, but they aren't the ones RMS cares about specifically)

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

Now you say you have the right to forbid me duplicating what you have made.

No, I did not say that.

I object to a positive obligation that I provide source code if I do not wish to. To require me to act under under threat is no different than any other extortion.

You may do with what you buy what you wish to do. If you take my work and represent it as your own, that's fraud.

government takes away my rights to give you what you percieve as your rights,...

What you missed is that I object to government creating a positive obligation in the first place. I am not demanding "copyright", I am objecting to force.

Maybe, just maybe, you and I don't disagree at all. Semantics sucks.

Bob-

Re:I admire RMS for his consistency.

[Bob_Robertson]

I never said I disagree with open source, public domain, copyleft, or any other aspect of this except one.

I even agree with you that having open source code is beneficial for everyone.

I object to compulsion. If someone wants to release closed code, go for it.

The difference here is between "should" and "must".

Bob-

The Hurd runs, but not reliably.

[IO ERROR]

RMS: The Hurd runs, but not reliably. The developers are working on it slowly now, although one is arranging to get funds to work on it a substantial fraction of his time. The developers have concluded that Mach is unreliable as a microkernel and that they need to transplant the Hurd to L4 instead. But this requires substantial rewrites.

I was going to make a comment on the Hurd, but rms beat me to it.

Re:The Hurd runs, but not reliably.

[Anonymous Coward]

mach is unreliable ? Isn't that what darwin is built on ? whats the difference between the mach kernel that darwin uses and the mach kernel hurd runs on ? Also haven't they been developing hurd for like 20 years now ? so there gonna substantially rewrite something that wasn't even finished to begin with ?

Re:The Hurd runs, but not reliably.

[arose]

They don't need to rush Linux is here and very good. The Hurd developers can play around.

RMS knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again RMS echos true wisdom. Flexibility and Interoperability are features users enjoy and do more good for society overall.

I like freedom...

[agraupe]

but I find RMS a bit militantly Free. I mean, I don't like the idea of having to use binary drives (for nvidia graphics cards, for example), but I would still prefer to have binary drivers than no 3d support at all. I think RMS should take the stance "I support only Free software, but users should have the choice". The fact is that some companies will never open up their driver source code, so users shouldn't be punished for it.

Re:I like freedom...

[Taladar]

That is your opinion. You can't say, RMS should have this opinion. That is something you can not change.

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is your opinion. It is my opinion that RMS should have this opinion and that this is something I can change. You should change your opinion. Fucking fucker.

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people just won't respect his opinion. He's been fighting for our freedom on the software front for over 20 years.. but I feel he is not respected at all. It's ashame if you ask me.

Re:I like freedom...

[m50d]

He can try and persuade him though, if he thinks that that is a better position. If people's opinions were unchangeable, what would be the point of debates?

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that some companies will never open up their driver source code, so users shouldn't be punished for it.

The fact of the matter is that users are being punished continually for accepting close source code. There are lots of instances from spyware incorporated into BIOS code to Microsoft monitoring of the simplest things like opening help files to proprietary spyware removal programs that actually ADD spyware to your system.

Corporate behavior has shown time and again that corporations cannot be trusted to provide closed source solutions without abusing the privilige of keeping their code private.

Re:I like freedom...

[agraupe]

I respect him, and he has done great things for Free Software, but the truth is that if people can't use their video card or wifi ethernet with linux or any other Free operating system, they just won't use it at all. I think it is more important that people accept *some* free software, than having to accept all or nothing.

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think RMS should take the stance "I support only Free software, but users should have the choice".

Since RMS believes that non-free software is bad for our society, you are asserting that RMS should say he supports your choice to harm society.

What you are really saying is that you disagree with his premise (that non-free software is harmful).

The fact is that some companies will never open up their driver source code, so users shouldn't be punished for it.

The idea is not to punish users, but to punish the companies which sell hardware that can be used only by employing non-free software.

Re:I like freedom...

[Reality Master 101]

Why should I respect someone whose views are flat-out wrong?

Re:I like freedom...

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

RMS (and Theo, and others) have gotten companies to change their policies, by being militantly free. SCSI and Ethernet docs are being published, specificly because Theo hounded the companies, and got them to open up the docs. I applaud their efforts, and support them the best I can.

The users choice includes not purchasing hardware that requires unfree drivers.

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone with your nickname, your views are certainly rather odd.

Re:I like freedom...

[node 3]

I think RMS should take the stance "I support only Free software, but users should have the choice".

That *is* his stance.

Re:I like freedom...

[Bob_Robertson]

Why should I respect someone whose views are flat-out wrong?

Because respect has nothing to do with agreement.

Contempt for your enemy, arrogance in thinking that because you think they are wrong means that they will lose, has lost far more battles than any other single factor. "But, they're only slaves..." says the defeated Roman commander after losing to Spartacus.

Watch a real hunter some time. See how deeply they respect their prey. Recall from the move "Patton", the line, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!"

You can consider him wrong, I'm sure he considers you wrong. Don't let your arrogance blind you to his integrity.

Bob-

Re:I like freedom...

[gnomead]

I think this is one of the ways that RMS might have lost his way over the years. Free means free. If I want to run binary only drivers in my OS, I should have that right. As time goes by, he seems to start defining "freedom" as everyone doing what I want instead of doing what they want.

Re:I like freedom...

[Reality Master 101]

Because respect has nothing to do with agreement.

What? So, if someone believes that the earth goes around the sun, I'm supposed to give that person's beliefs the same respect that I might give someone with a nobel prize in physics?

Your example of Rommel is not reasonable. Rommel had a track record. RMS has a good track record of software development, but a terrible track record with his politics. All progress in Open Source has come despite his beliefs, not because of them.

You can consider him wrong, I'm sure he considers you wrong. Don't let your arrogance blind you to his integrity.

There are lots of people who have "integrity" that are wrong. It doesn't make them less wrong.

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS has a good track record of software development, but a terrible track record with his politics.

RMS has a far better track record with his politics than you do with your politics.

Show us how many people are writing software under your banner, and if it's more than the combination of FSF/GNU works and all other GPL'd works - and perhaps you might have the credibility to question his positions. But you don't, so in reality you're just a mindless twit who is jealous of his success.

"All progress in Open Source has come despite his beliefs, not because of them."

Nonsense. Linux won over BSD primarily because of the GPL - There is no way IBM, Oracle and the rest of the industry would be supporting Redhat if one day Redhat could flip-flop and say "ooh, and future improvements are mine" like Sun did to their BSD long ago.

You sound really silly claiming that you know better than RMS, when he has the proven track record and you have absolutely nothing to defend your silly ranting.

Re:I like freedom...

[Bob_Robertson]

...I'm supposed to give that person's beliefs the same respect...

I do wish you would read what I wrote. I said disagreement has thing to do with respect for the INDIVIDUAL.

No matter how "wrong" someone may be, they deserve respect for who they are.

Someone can also be "correct" in their beliefs and a complete reprobate.

There are lots of people who have "integrity" that are wrong. It doesn't make them less wrong.

So you either respect people who are "correct" on some subject in your opinion, regardless of their integrity, or you're contradicting yourself. If simply being considered "wrong" about something meant you were contemptable, does his considering you wrong mean you're contemptable? Are you ready to accept the logical extention of your own theory?

Bob-

Re:I like freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

but I would still prefer to have binary drivers than no 3d support at all

let's make an analogy to Vichy-era France, where the Germans were in charge (until the Allies invaded and cleared them out).

Some people were thinking "I'd rather be alive and keep my head down, live in a kind-of-peace even though these Germans are killing Jews" etc. etc.

Other people felt that was an unacceptable tradeoff, and chose to fight.

Re:I like freedom...

[agraupe]

Because Free software is like war... Okay, you people take it way too fucking far. To compare Free vs. Proprietary software to World War II is offensive. In one, we're dealing with people's lives and war crimes, in the other we're dealing with what people have on their computers. To compare the two is assinine.

Re:I like freedom...

[rsheridan6]

>The users choice includes not purchasing hardware that requires unfree drivers.

Sometimes that's easier said than done. When I was shopping for an 802.11g PCI card a few months ago, I found that there were no guarantees as to what piece of hardware you're getting when you buy a particular brand. There were lots of stories on forums about how the ACME foo G card works with the free bar driver, but then it would turn out that that only applied to the ACME cards made before July 2, and the later ones have the broadcom chipset with the evil proprietary (and buggy) drivers. And stuff like that. Even people who had done their homework got burned with hardware requiring unfree drivers.

As for myself, I wussed out and bought an ethernet bridge that doesn't require any drivers.

What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Singwolf]

...just what he has explained one thousand times in everyone of his conferences.

Quoting and interview by Federico Biancuzzi:

FB: Today Linux is just a kernel, so you still have direct control over other parts of the OS. That's why the name GNU/Linux for the complete OS.

RMS: That isn't what the name GNU/Linux means; it has nothing to do with that. The name GNU/Linux means that the system started out as GNU, with Linux added.

Nowadays, the system includes thousands of packages developed by thousands of developers, but at the base it is still GNU with Linux added.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he's still just as immature and puerile as he's always been.

I don't see GNU with HURD added happening any time soon, do you?

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so what you're trying to say is that you are a humorless dildo just like him?

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Singwolf]

I don't, and RMS doesn't too. So what? You have Linux as a free kernel. What's the point? Do you plan to run an OS with just the kernel, and without applications? Duh.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love "with Linux added" bit like it was just the cherry on top.

The truth is Linux is the engine, that drives everything else. GNU is just the tools. If anything it should have been Linux/GNU, but than Stallman wouldn't get his glory.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[MythMoth]

I think it's a shame that RMS insists on pushing this point, because it makes him look pretty stupid. Language is essentially democratic, insisting that it's being used "wrong" looks and sounds like pedantry.

And nobody likes a pedant.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[ion]

GNU is "just" the tools that was, and still is used to develop and build the linux kernel, as well as all? other open source programs. Does other Free (as in speech and beer) C/C++ compilers than GCC exist?

Further more, GNU made GPL which is the license that Linux and alot of other open source programs use.

GNU was probably also the first to formalize a movement, a vision, the tools and the license. Atleast i have not heard of anyone before GNU. Sure software was shared before that, but did they have a common vision? Did they make a license for everyone to use?

RMS is a visionary man, that apparently sees the big picture long before the rest of us. (see the right to read). He made GNU, and Linux build ontop of the work that GNU did.

It is true that Linux got all the press lately, but GNU still deserves recognition. Besides Linux really is a better name than GNU - people dont like 3LA's.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[GoofyBoy]

In Canada, we have two official languages, English and French.

The good part of this is that its an active sign of respect for others background and culture. Language is an important of a person's identity.

The bad part is that there are insane laws that nitpick on what a person can and cannot do, in the name of protecting the French language. An example of thi is fineing a business if the French part of the signs is not so much larger than the English. It got to the point where common sense and respect for another got forgotten. The whole issue started to be about the motivation and maturity of the people involved.

This is the same with the term "GNU/Linux". People over look your message and just see how immature you are at nitpicking.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Frizzle Fry]

What's the point? Do you plan to run an OS with just the kernel, and without applications?

The point is that naming the whole environment after all of the applications is ridiculuous. Otherwise it would be GNU/X Window/Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment/Opera/XMMS/.../Linu x. Doesn't that seem a bit absurd? And everyone running different software would have to use a different name? It's just not a reasonable way of constructing the name. Yes, we get that there is GNU software involved. But this isn't "the GNU system plus the Linux kernel", this is the Linux kernel plus a million other things. Trying to put them all in the name is just silly.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Mr. Slippery]

Language is essentially democratic

Except when it comes to trademarks and commerical use of names.

Call that Canon copier a "Xerox machine" and the fine folks at both Canon and Xerox will insist you get it right. No different here - though "GNU" isn't, IIRC, a trademark, "Linux" is.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[tchuladdiass]

Actually, I take a slightly different view of why RMS is "wrong", and one that he would probably agree with.
When you refer to GNU, the image brought up is that of a complete system run by free software, and encourages the use of free software on top of that system. Whereas Linux carries the connotation of having a free toolchest to act as a base, that anyone can use however they see fit. Kind of like having a bunch of free land available, but people can build private houses on that land.
This kind of carries out to what we see, for example Debian GNU/Linux usually isn't used to run proprietary Oracle, but Redhat Enterprise Linux is.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Theatetus]

Otherwise it would be GNU/X Window/Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment

Well, I don't know about that. The "GNU" in GNU/Linux refers to glibc and gcc. That's a lot more central than a windowing system or web browser. I mean, glibc is what gives you functions like printf() and write() that every other application uses. I think "GNU/Linux" as a term makes sense because no matter what kind of application you are developing, you need to know if you have the GNU userland or not; that isn't true for the other categories of software you mentioned.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Frizzle Fry]

Hey, I once had that same sig.

Anyone, the "GNU" is not supposed to refer primarily to glibc/ gcc. It's supposed to refer to the GNU implementation of the standard unix tools, like grep and ls and more and so forth. If we take X and everything graphical out of the model and just imagine a console-based system, then the real bare bones of it would be the kernel, a shell (probably from gnu) and the basic utilities (probably from gnu). With just a kernel, this system would be useless. Of course, you probably want applications too, but in terms of the bare essentials of a usable system, you need linux and the gnu stuff. Which is why it is the "gnu/linux" system. Which made some sense. RMS explains this in the film Revolution OS so if you watch that, you'll see that I'm not just making this up.

But my point was that today, stuff like KDE and X are core to most people's experience of using Linux and most people would consider those pretty essential, so by his reasoning, those people should put those in the name too, but then the whole thing spirals out of control. (I admit that my inclusion of things like XMMS was gratuitous).

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[ytrewq_dednah_tfel]

What RMS _really_ means with GNU/Linux is ....

**** RMS/Linux ***

Note that the GNU icon looks amazingly like RMS himself. Spooky.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[ytrewq_dednah_tfel]

What RMS __really__ means with GNU/Linux is .... **** RMS/Linux **** That GNU icon looks amazingly like RMS himself. Spooky.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[T-Ranger]

To clarify, only in Quebec does this sign law exist.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[drinkypoo]

I figure the GNU refers to the entire suite of libraries and executables that make the system Unixlike (GNU's Not Unix) just as the FreeBSD subsystem makes MacOS X Unixlike. It's not the kernel that does that, but it's not the tools alone, either. It is also the libraries, chiefly the C library.

In other words, Linux with glibc and GNU userland is GNU/Linux, though I refuse to call it that in conversation. Using uclibc and busybox produces something else. Combinations thereof? That's up in the air, I guess.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[MythMoth]

(me): Language is essentially democratic

Except when it comes to trademarks and commerical use of names.

On the contrary. The democratic process is one of the ways you can lose a trademark. See: Genericized Trademarks

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[andreyw]

It wasn't funny the first time you posted it... why would you think it would be the second time you mentioned it?

First mentioning: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133880&c id=11177628

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jbolden]

French Canadians pretty much all speak English well.
English Canadians outside Quebec learn French in school and don't in general speak it very well.

Canadians agreed to a fully bilingual country where everyone speaks both languages. The English aren't keeping their end of the deal, hence the need for laws.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jbolden]

The point about the GNU stuff is that it filled in the holes that everyone else left behind. That is the GNU group took what was a collection of free software (editors, typesetters, X,/ Windowsmanagers, kernels) and wrote enough pieces to create a system. The idea of a full fledged Unix like operating system made out of free software was RMS's. Linus when he wrote his kernel saw it as a part of the GNU system to holdover people until Hurd came out.

GNU/Linux doies not mean Linux kernel plus GNU software it means the GNU system running with the Linux kernel.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Reteo Varala]

You kidding? Xerox's primary benefit is the fact that their company name is used as synonymous for "copy." Brand recognition is never a bad thing.

As for RMS, I can understand his mentality, but let's face it; he needs to realize that freedom works both ways; he can shout "GNU/Linux" at the top of his lungs... but if I want to call it "Linux" for simplicity's sake, I have every freedom to do so, and there's nothing he can do about it without making himself out to be a hypocrite.

Freedom was never an easy business. And while he's got the cajones to stick with his crusade, he's not got the skill to sell his point of view, and that is why "Open Source" is all the rage, while "Free Software" is still out on the edge of peoples' radar.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[dbIII]

but at the base it is still GNU with Linux added.

In the begining there was RMS with a text editor, which he wrote macros for. Other people came along, liked those macros and wrote a program that behaved the same way - which is why he says he "invented" emacs instead of wrote it.

While he may have some claim to emacs despite it being developed by others for its entire life, the whole liGnuX and later gnu/linux thing was just a plain, admitted and unashamed grab for publicity for what RMS saw as the greater good. Whether it was or wasn't is up to peoples interpretations - but really it's just academic politics poking its head into the open source world. Redhat get to name their distro, as do the Debian team, Klaus Knopper and dozens of individual groups - but RMS has to do more than shout at people - you only get to name your own project not someone elses in most cases.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will kick your ass, brat, with any GNU/*BSD.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jschottm]

When I visited the Canadian Rockies, one thing that I noticed was that all of the informational displays in the parks were bi-lingual. On average, they were about the same size as what I'm used to in .us, meaning that they also contained about half as much information.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[arose]

he's not got the skill to sell his point of view

Maybe he's just good at selling to another audience?

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Reteo Varala]

The real skill of sales is to convince those who do not have your point of view to adopt your point of view, and perhaps expend your resources toward following that point of view. That's why skilled salespeople are so highly sought after, no matter WHAT the type of product or industry.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Mr. Slippery]

You kidding? Xerox's primary benefit is the fact that their company name is used as synonymous for "copy." Brand recognition is never a bad thing.

Xerox very much wants you to respect their trademark, even running an ad in Writer's Digest to encourage TM-correctness among writers.

but if I want to call it "Linux" for simplicity's sake, I have every freedom to do so, and there's nothing he can do about it without making himself out to be a hypocrite.

There's lots he can do; he can correct you, he can write letters, etcetera, none of which impinge on your freedom.

The FSF explictly aknowledges your right to be wrong :-) on the issue:

Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that those values of freedom brought the system into existence.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[siriuskao]

Canadians agreed to a fully bilingual country where everyone speaks both languages.
Where does the law say that?
French skill is nice to have but not required AFAIK.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jbolden]

The law doesn't say that. It can't say that, hence the need for the specific information the law does say. The agreement is at the societal level not the legal level. In every way the law can support such a thing it does, the Official Languages Act of 1969 for example.

A quote from the status on bilingualism from 2000 which I think shows the point: Bilingualism means to have the ability to use two languages, to speak them, understand them and write them. In Canada, and in Quebec, it means particularly to know English and French. Thus, if one is asked: "Are you bilingual?", one answers yes only if one speaks English and French. Currently, the Canadian census considers ability to hold a conversation in the other official language as proof of bilingualism. While many Canadians are not bilingual, few would deny that bilingualism, along with multiculturalism, is fundamental to Canada. At the level of principle, it is so universally supported in Canada as to constitute an element of the ethic of Canadianism.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody likes a pedant.

Everyone loves pedants... but only the ones that they agree with.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

Actually both are registered trademarks, but they are freely licensed trademarks AFAIK.

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

I think, with hindsight, what made him look silly was calling it "GNU/Linux" (instead of just "GNU")--the butt of many a joke.

Why the compromise, which no one is seriously going to use in everyday conversation? If he was going to give into Linus he should have gone the whole hog, or better still stuck to his guns.

I call it "GNU" when I'm talking about the OS as a whole and "Linux" when I'm talking about the kernel. There is a confusion with using "Linux" for both which this solves (as well as acknowledging the much larger role of the FSF than Linus and making links to freedom).

"GNU" sounds nicer and is shorter than "Linux". But both are a lot shorter than "GNU slash Linux".

Of course, GNU was the original name after all and non-Linux-based GNU systems are very similar to Linux-based ones from the point of view of the end user (and in philosophy).

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

This brevity thing seems like an argument the other way to me as `GNU' is shorter and sweeter than `Linux'. The majority of the software in your average distro carries the GNU label, all the non-kernel core components are by the FSF and GNU was the original name for the OS (or family of distros) before Linus came along (and non-Linux-based GNU systems work much the same as Linux ones).

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

Actually the GNU project did not fill in the holes that others left out; it was the original idea to create a free operating system. The FSF produced all the basic parts of GNU which needed to exist before the kernel could be written. The FSF kept changing the design of their own kernel for various reasons (technical and copyright) and in the end Linus made a working kernel with GNU before the FSF (althought their Hurd kernel is now relatively stable--I used it the other day).

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jbolden]

I think that is way too strong and more than even RMS claimed in the debates on this issue a decade ago. The list of current software under the GPL not withstanding (remember you can take any X or BSD licensed code and relicense under GPL).

RMS agreed that things like: X, many of the shells, terminal applications, TeX.... were not GNU's. What he claimed (and rightly so) was that the GNU project was filling in all the gaps for a free system. The other projects while free themselves were mostly friendly to either being part of commercial systems or being part of a free system. In the mid 90's the average distributions had about 20% of its code being GPL/FSF, (by contrast the kernel ran about 3%). Interestingly the percentage of GPLed licensed stuff has increased while the percentage of stuff whose copyright is held by the FSF has decreased (KDE being a great example).

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

You are failing to address my point that GNU came long before Linux, KDE, &c

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[jbolden]

Well yeah obviously. When they started the Linux kernel saw itself as part of the GNU project and KDE saw itself as a GUI for Linux. But GNU did not come before: X, TeX, the open source shells, free fortran.
Just like today most of the famous GNU proejcts started outside the FSF and got picked up after there was work on them.

X is a great example.

1) It started before the FSF
2) Work has continued on it all during the life of the GNU project
3) It has never seen itself as part of the GNU project and has explicitly worked with commercial OSes
4) Many of the people in the X project are hostile to the GPL and the goals of the GNU project
5) The FSF sees it as part of the GNU project and has never developed another windowing system

Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is...

[sepluv]

Yes, I take your point; it is a little unfair on X11, TeX, &c even though they are higher-level than the FSF's offerings.

They do not, however, not claim to be an OS and have never proposed themselves as the name for an OS (like GNU and Linux) (and, of course, they are common on non-FOSS OSs).

Tilting at windmills

[christian simpleman]

In the grand equation, our champions must, by definition, be absurd. Over time, this is the only possible way to nudge the median. RMS catches a lot of flack for his "purist" views, but stop and think how our shared mindspace would look without his a-priori input. If all people are endowed with an inalienable right to benefit from, and particapate in, our shared human technology, then the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We have been choked, screwed, and robbed by a greedy marketing monster, and are sorely in need of champions. "If no one tilts at windmills, the damn things will take over the world!"- christian simpleman

RMS: Props to OpenBSD! (I paraphrase...)

[44BSD]

FB: What is your opinion on the fact that Linux (the kernel!) supports binary drivers without too many problems? I'll make an example: the OpenBSD project didn't support Atheros wireless chips because they require a binary HAL provided with an incompatible license for their goals and policy. They act consistently. Do you think that Linux (the kernel!) should try a similar rigorous approach?

RMS: Yes! And so should the developers of GNU/Linux distributions. This is very important.

Re:RMS: Props to OpenBSD! (I paraphrase...)

[m50d]

The kernel people take the position that they won't do anything extra to support binary stuff, but they won't make it deliberately difficult either. To my mind that's a pretty consistent policy. It's what RMS originally did with glibc after all.

POSIX ME HARDER

[Laxitive]

Quote:

Some GNU utilities such as df and du do not follow the POSIX spec unless you set the environment variable POSIXLY_CORRECT. Normally GNU df and du print disk space figures in units of k. POSIX says to print disk space figures in units of 512 bytes. If you set POSIXLY_CORRECT, GNU df and du do that. (My original plan was to name it POSIX_ME_HARDER.) I would guess that very very few users set POSIXLY_CORRECT.

Good to see RMS has a sense of humour. I got a nice chuckle out of that comment :)

-Laxitive

Open software on a closed kernel

[Paiway]

A few years ago, before i started using Linux seriously, I started building an almost free/open Windows XP system. Here's the basic breakdown of the so-called free system:
Shell: http://www.bb4win.org/
Burning prog: http://www.burnatonce.com/
DC client: http://gempond.com/odc/
Graphics: http://gempond.com/odc/
IM: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/
Browser:
Mail: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
Office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
et cetera...
But then it dawned on me: All these programs are avaliable under GNU/Linux.

That day was the day that i switched to Debian. I haven't looked back.

Re:Open software on a closed kernel

[Paiway]

Damn, i hate managing links in HTML. Correction:
Browser: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
Graphics: http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/

Re:Open software on a closed kernel

[drinkypoo]

If that was everything I wanted to run, life would be good. However, I also want to play mechwarrior and crimson skies, nfsu2, blah blah blah. WineX is trying not to be proprietary but it's not really Free anyway, so I might as well run XP with Cygwin so I know my games will work. When even Microsoft is making games for Linux, or someone else owns the battletech license (hyahahahaha) then I'll quit windows.

Re:Open software on a closed kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

WineX is trying not to be proprietary but it's not really Free anyway, so I might as well run XP with Cygwin

Not at all. Just as RMS accepts the idea of Free software on a proprietary platform as a tool for moving to a Free platform, I think it's also reasonable to run proprietary tools on a Free platform *if doing so gets you off of a proprietary platform*. (That said, I don't use proprietary software, and haven't since I switched away from windows.)

Re:Open software on a closed kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

I, too, realized when the vast majority of the software I was downloading for my Win XP box was just to make my experience more linux-y (Services for Unix, Firefox, GnuPG, etc. etc.) that it was time to switch permanently.

The only reservation I had was hardware detection and configuration - thankfully, Ubuntu solved that.

O/T

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous. Not rediculous.

Why do so many people spell this word incorrectly?

Search for rediculous using Google. See how few results there are. See the 'Did you mean: ridiculous' notice. Follow the correctly spelled link. Wow! Over five million more results with the correct spelling! It is Christmas! Santa and Jesus are real!

GNU tools on non-free kernels

[bheading]

There is nothing surprising in reading that RMS supports the use of GNU tools on non-free kernels. Outside of the kernel, much of the original tools were developed on platforms such as Solaris. This was pretty necessary at the time because Linux wasn't yet mature and the Hurd was, well, pretty much where the Hurd is now.

If RMS criticized this idea he'd be a hypocrite.

Re:GNU tools on non-free kernels

[Anonymous Coward]

In principle, that's correct. Except that Solaris wasn't around back then. They may have used something like SUNOS or more likely one of the older unixes (i.e. basic AT&T System V Release whichever).

Anyway, it isn't really hypocrisy, since they always had the view that once a free kernel was available, they'd switch over and never go back. Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and then, afterward, do the exact opposite.

Re:GNU tools on non-free kernels

[bheading]

It's not a question though, of "once a free kernel is available". It's a question of "once a free kernel is available and good enough. In terms of GNU history, a little time had to pass before this was true. Meantime, SunOS/Solaris and other alternatives had to fill that gap.

All kidding aside

[pherris]

An explaination in RMS' own words.

Re:All kidding aside

[Anonymous Coward]

An explaination in RMS' own words.


It really is a pity that such a bright and important guy got so hung up on an name that he is repeatedly willing to look like an idiot about it.

OK, sure. I get it. A kernel is not an operating system. Fine. but then neither is ls or pwd or even bash. These are applications and utilities, not an operating system. (or at least they weren't an operating system until RMS decided he controlled the english language and was free to modify it as he pleased.)

If you want an OS, I suggest you try RedHat, SuSE, Gentoo or something like that. These OS's all share the Linux kernel and the GNU applications as their basis.

Like I said, RMS is really smarter than this, but his ego seems to have overruled his brain on this one. Pathetic.

Re:All kidding aside

[TheRaven64]

While I hate, on principle, to agree with anything RMS says, the whole Linux thing really irritates me. People say Linux when they mean one of 4 things:

1. A UNIX-like system, including *BSD and commercial UNIXes.
2. A Free Software / Open Source platform, including *BSD and non-POSIX systems.
3. An operating environment[1] using Linux as the kernel
4. Anything relating to Free /Open Source Software (e.g. `Open Office is a Linux Office Suite' - ignoring the fact that it runs perfectly happily on several platforms including Windows).

I would be far more inclined to refer to the system as a GNU system than a Linux system, since far more of the software is GNU than is Linux. In my case, the kernel is far more likely to be a BSD-derivative, or something totally obscure, but even then it is highly unlikely that I won't be using at least some GNU software (GCC, for example).

[1] Not to be confused with an operating system, which is a term which no longer has any semantic meaning and can be used to describe a microkernel with no high-level services (e.g. L4), a complete operating environment (e.g. Windows) or anything in between.

True

[HangingChad]

Many users really do follow this path.

That is so true. Seen it happen over and over again. Use Firefox and Thunderbird to move them into OSS tools for the internet. Then introduce OpenOffice and pretty soon the underlying OS is immaterial.

It's odd that it seems to take time to sink in that part of the value in OSS is that it comes bundled with all those goodies and there's no need to buy anything else. For instance (these are retail prices):

• XP Pro $120.00
• Office XP Pro $320.00
• Norton Antivirus $39.95
• McAfee antispyware $24.95

OEM pricing may vary as will the prices to big buyers. But even counting that where's the value? You still have to spend an insane amount of time keeping everything updated to combat the threat of the day and even that won't stop all the crap. It's insane. Get off Windows.

Re:True

[DogDude]

You still have to spend an insane amount of time keeping everything updated to combat the threat of the day and even that won't stop all the crap. It's insane. Get off Windows.

As opposed to the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Linux trying to get it to work properly? Or what about the tens thousands needed to pay programmers to develop Linux based apps that simply don't exist yet?

Your assumption that every (or even most) computer users simply email, surf the web, and print up pretty documents is wrong at best. Linux is not even remotely a possiblity for me and my business because we use apps that are not available (or even good counterparts) for Linux.

Re:True

[McDutchie]

As opposed to the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Linux trying to get it to work properly?

Which is different exactly how from the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Windows trying to get it to work properly?

Re:True

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different, because once you've learned Linux it generally works right. With Windows, the "journey" is where the "fun" is, and you really have no final destination. You'll be dicking around for life.

Now that is insane. To pay for the privilege is both insane and stupid.

Re:True

[DogDude]

Which is different exactly how from the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Windows trying to get it to work properly?

Ummm.... no. I install Windows. Everything works. I install Linux, and half of the very, very generic hardware we have doesn't work, and you have to start looking through fucking newgroup messages to find the answers. I haven't had to do that with Windows since NT 3.51.

Re:True

[arose]

Have you changed any hardware since then? :-P

Re:True

[Anonymous Coward]

I install Linux, and half of the very, very generic hardware we have doesn't work, and you have to start looking through fucking newgroup messages to find the answers. I haven't had to do that with Windows since NT 3.51.

Perhaps you are using a distro produced at the same time as NT 3.51 ...

Re:True

[lachlan76]

What distro did you use? Linux supports almost everything from my experience.

Have you Hurd?

[fuzzy12345]

Yep, it's great that RMS sez we can port GNU stuff to the operating systems we have now, rather than having to wait until GNU Hurd thunders into view. Or does it only run on the Itanium?

Re:Have you Hurd?

[drinkypoo]

Last I looked the hurd had a flat address space into which storage devices were mapped so you could only have 2GB volumes on 32 bit architectures. Dunno if hurd is on itanic or not, though. I installed it on an athlon once, saw that I could do a directory listing, and logged out - pretty much what I did with plan 9.

Libre on non-free environments

[merc]

I work in a large corporate environment that uses VMS, Tru64, AIX, HP/UX and large scale IBM mainframe systems such as MVS. The corporate policy is basically that open source is strictly forbidden, but only as far as being installed as a system tool--only "supported" products can be installed.

However there isn't a policy regarding what tool sets individual shell users can install. It's interesting to browse various /home directories on the largest of the UNIX servers and see 500 people with their own individual copies of emacs, vim, bash, etc.

The point is, at least with mainstream IT people most already see and understand the value and quality of open source or free software.

Re:Libre on non-free environments

[Anonymous Coward]

In a corporate envrionment, what on earth would users have a need for emacs/vim. And what are you doing looking over user directories?

Re:Libre on non-free environments

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you keep all those different versions patched?

Re:Libre on non-free environments

[Fred Foobar]

Perhaps to edit text files? Just a guess.

Re:Libre on non-free environments

[hughk]

Strange, VMS came from Digital and they had a large library of free software from their user group, DECUS. The rule is most places was that as long as someone would take ownership of the code in-house and ensured that it worked with new releases then no problems to use it in production.

I agree

[northcat]

I'll have to agree with RMS on this one.

Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[mankey wanker]

I love RMS!!!

Do pay attention. Across the span of years assholes like Gates, Jobs, and Ellison will be mere blips on the radar of history. RMS will be considered one of the cornerstones of computer technology.

Far from being a crackpot, RMS stands for exactly what is needed in terms of free software. The steadfast nature of his resolve is with a view to all possible attacks from within and without the free software movement.

The things that RMS says are sort of like the Bill of Rights. People try to mess with it, to rewrite it, to mess with it in a thousand ways - and RMS has always been right on the first try.

It's a pity that more do not see that plainly. In my view, RMS sees things with startling clarity. He already sees what you have not even begun to anticipate.

I apologize for being cryptic, but it's one of those things that you either "get" or you just don't.

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[Anonymous Coward]

One day I hope my accomplishments to be worthy of a mini-bio that includes a sentence that begins, "Far from being a crackpot," ... Ha!

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[Burning1]

Thank you for the commentary, RMS. ; )

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[Tim C]

Across the span of years assholes like Gates, Jobs, and Ellison

You lost me right there. You may not agree with the way in which they conduct business or develop software, but there is absolutely no need for such petty name calling. All it does is detract from your argument and make you appear immature.

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[mankey wanker]

Yeah, I wish I could be contrite about calling a bunch of thieves assholes but I guess I just can't feel that way about it. Thieves that would like to deny you the same chances they had when starting out, BTW.

One man's IP is another man's piracy...

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[mr.mighty]

Well, I think he's a bit of an extremist. Of course, you need someone like that to start the revolution.

Later on, it's better to have more flexible people running things (I'm thinking Torvalds, here, for instance), but it's always useful to have someone acting as a conscience, urging everyone to do better.

Re:Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[sepluv]

Well, I think he's a bit of an extremist. Of course, you need someone like that to start the revolution.

I have news for you buddy: we still are fighting the revolution and will be for a long time to come.

In fact now is probably the most dangerous time for free software as Microsoft, The SCO Group, et al are on the attack, and software patents, "trusted" computing, &c loom large.

Linus is a nice guy but when did you last see him really doing something to help the movement get past these distructive forces...

Not surprising

[jdavidb]

As I said the other day, Stallman himself is the perfect example of using free software on proprietary OS'es. That's how the GNU project started, and today they still make reasonable efforts to keep their software portable.

A lot of people dismiss and mock RMS, but he already asked and answered a lot of these questions himself many years ago. Maybe it would help some people to periodically read through some of his writings. (I know reading things you don't agree with or like is unpopular with many around here.) RMS has made intelligent decisions on a lot of these issues.

Another thing that comes up all the time around here is selling free software, which seems to confuse a lot of people but was handled by RMS a long time ago, too.

Contrary theories, little evidence presented.

[jbn-o]

While I can understand that logic, I can also understand the contrary logic of "doing nothing is easier than doing something" where users merely become more used to running non-free software because their computer came with non-free software and their friends are running non-free software, so they stick with what they "know". If more free software is better than less free software, then running The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, or Firefox on Microsoft Windows would be better than exclusively using their proprietary counterparts, but the question is whether users actually move to freedom.

So, I'll believe that users actually move to freedom because of free software on non-free OSes when I see random phone poll survey data that confirms this. So far, all I read are theories about how users would behave.

Therefore I will have to ask some of my survey-conducting friends how I would go about doing this in a way that would produce reliable data on which to build an informed opinion. Perhaps there has already been a study of this.

Re:Contrary theories, little evidence presented.

[jbolden]

There is little evidence that people choose platforms in any meaningful numbers directly. I'm not sure what a phone survey coud ever show.

Re:Psychology of RMS: not just another advocate

[xtermin8]

For someone to start a movement against such well-funded interests, takes a militant attitude and at least a bit of arrogance. Google Stallman's personal experiences with Symbolics Inc.: Stallman gave up a lot of money to champion his "free software" ideals, and he takes his crusade very personally. Many people find him abrasive, but his pig-headedness is exactly what got "free" software to progress as far as it has.

Hmm.

[oGMo]

Many users really do follow this path.

I was slightly skeptical about this, until I realized that I actually followed this path, more or less. Back in the day when OS/2 was still around, I was using that over DOS/Win3.1, and eventually NT, as I couldn't afford a box that would run that, but it turned out for the better. I had tried Linux once, and found it too hard to get anything done with (remember this was like 92-93, and I had never used anything *nix before): it was interesting, but I wasn't familiar with any of the applications, so I couldn't do much.

Of course, if OS/2 is remembered for one thing, it's the overflowing of native applications, by which I mean there were few. So eventually, I started using "EMX" (iirc) ports of *nix applications: emacs, gcc, (La)TeX, bash, ghostscript. After awhile (and putting up with some deficiencies), I realized that I was no longer really using OS/2. I was trying to use Linux. So, I got that infomagic set of "modern" distros (like redhat 4, debian something ancient, slackware, and a copy of sunsite and tsx). I've never looked back.

It's been interesting over the years to see the application base grow by leaps and bounds; the open culture for Free Software is really what Linux has created, and what has in turn driven its success. OS/2 never had it. HURD was too idealist to gather momentum. The BSD's seem to have a different focus. All the other OS's drive a purely commercial culture: Windows, MacOS, PalmOS, Symbian, the commercial Unices, etc.

So perhaps... perhaps... if you transform the other OS's into a semblance of Linux (or other "Free" OS, I guess, but let's be realistic here), once people are familiar with the software, you can switch the OS and give them the full experience, and not only will they fall right in, they'll be happier, because everything works as it should.

This, I believe, is what Microsoft should truly fear.

Quote, don't FUD!

[xtermin8]

Even a quote taken out of context would be better than this flamebait. If he was talking about short-term technical merits versus long-term support and maintainence, what you say he said makes perfect sense. Maybe he is a Nikoli Tesla type of crazy, but he deserve some respect for laying himself on the line for his ideas.

RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[cpeikert]

From the interview:

FB: Would you sign and promote a petition or an initiative for free access to hardware specifications?

RMS: I'd endorse any sort of nonviolent democratic political activity to promote such a law.

Of course, such a law (like all laws) would have to be backed up by violence -- don't obey it, have your freedom or property taken away. I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the high road of "non-violence" while advocating exactly the opposite.

Except for this, I think his stances are in general very admirable.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Anonymous Coward]

We all forget this simple idea when making an appeal to 'Law'. One only needs to read Freuds exchanges with Einstein to grasp that Law and Violence are not diametric opposites rather the former is merely the consensual version of the latter.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Anonymous Coward]

You americans have such a strange, frothy way of regarding the government. Almost like the libburtareens had an actual effect on the way that the common man thinks, which kind of conflicts with common sense. Oh well.

In any case, were a government to enact a law stating that all software must be published and sold with source code from now on, it would most likely take the form of "either sell with source, or don't sell at all". No kind of "gun to the head" involved -- just play by the rules or not at all. You don't kick people in the nuts in civilized soccer either, do you?

It's a pretty common thing for this sort of law; most of the "must have warning if product may contain even faintest of traces of nuts" type laws work in the same way. Of course, people who'd think they aren't being treated fairly (i.e. who no longer get to do whatever the fuck they want, to the detriment of society or not) will rant and rave and make frothy press releases. That is only to be expected; I'd actually be worried if they didn't (since it would indicate a more subtle change in "the playing field").

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[jbn-o]

Why should we give anyone the power to deny others freedom? It's not as if we can have all possible freedoms, some of them conflict.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Yet it is generally accepted that the consensual, consistent version provides for more peace, prosperity and happiness than the arbitrary "don't like your neighbour's face? then shoot it the fuck off with your full auto assault rifle!" version.

Except by the so-called libertarians, who'll first extol the evils of government and in the next breath tell you how so-called "enlightened self-interest" will lead us all to a New Era ov thee Humanity! I can't begin to explain how much of a fucked up childhood belief in that sort of thing requires.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Bob_Robertson]

Agreed. I saw that too, but I'll let you get modded down for it. :^)

"Non-violet democratic political" is an oxymoron.

But do keep in mind that RMS is not a Libertarian. He believes in the use of force by the state, for things he agrees with.

Bob-

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[joebutton]

> I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the high > road of "non-violence" while advocating exactly the > opposite. Eh? He just decided not to say he'd endorse any and all violent activity to promote the adoption of a particular law. He didn't say he was absolutely against any kind of violence ever under any circumstances. How is this disingenuous?

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, such a law (like all laws) would have to be backed up by violence -- don't obey it, have your freedom or property taken away. I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the high road of "non-violence" while advocating exactly the opposite."

Having your freedom taken away or your property does not equate to violence. Violence is:

"Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence."

What you are talking about is anarchy where people can do whatever the hell they want under the guise of a non violvent society, which is in itself, violent.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[tehdaemon]

And what would happen if there were no gun? If I tried to sell the stuff without the source?

The answer is simple, with no enforcement, the law means nothing. It does not exist as a law at all, just a 'we think that this would be good' suggestion.

Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means

[phr1]

There's no need for violence and in fact such a law could work by withholding the willingness of the state to apply the violence that is (as you say) behind all laws.

For example, Congress could decide to refuse to enforce copyrights on programs distributed without source, could refuse to enforce confidentiality agreements for API's, etc. Then if Microsoft tries to bust you for pirating copies of MS Excel, the court throws the case out unless they've released the source. If you publish the specs to some piece of hardware that you've signed a nondisclosure agreement for, the court says "we don't recognize that kind of agreement, it's like a gambling debt, work it out for yourself". (Of course you'd still have an ethical dilemma on your hands in the second case). RMS has suggested something like this in discussions I've heard him speak in. He is quite clear, actually forcing anyone to reveal secrets would be tyrannical.

In both examples above, it's the person calling on the government to apply violence to enforce secrecy, who gets his/her request denied. It's not the threat of violence that enforces the law. It's the refusal to use violence unless the source and/or specs are released, that suddenly makes it in the requester's interest to release the source and/or specs.

emulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats RMS's oppinion on Wine/Qemu ?

Better?

[Bob_Robertson]

wouldn't it be better for (their) consumers
if...

Of course. It would also be better if everyone ate brown rice, drank water instead of sugar soda, drove electric cars, and turned off their water heater when they went on vacation.

But I'm not going to put a gun to their head (which is all that government is) to make them do it.

Bob-

Re:Ingredients? Engineering Bridges and blueprint

[xtermin8]

"Publishing ingredients in food is a lot different from publishing source code." Agreed, but you're analogy is no better. For bridges and buildings, the blueprints must be published and become public record so they can be reviewed by town/city engineers and others responsible for saftey. I think RMS's problem was the lack of good examples for transparency in American public life. Does "Truly beleives it" mean that the question of consumer protection should not be up to software developers? Should complete secrecy replace legitimate enforcement of copywrite (or copyleft) What are you saying?

Try using hardware for which free drivers work.

[jbn-o]

I think that's a false dichotomy--use binary drivers or have no 3D support at all. I have 3D and free software drivers because I choose video cards for which the 3D support works. Maybe it's not as technically sophisticated as your binary drivers, but I play 3D games and use 3D charting programs that depend on OpenGL just fine with my Radeon cards (9200se, 9000, and friends of mine use more advanced cards) all with X.org.

As for what video card makers will do, power concedes nothing without a demand. When users are willing to buy what they're selling without freedom, there is no reason for them to consider changing their ways.

sound familliar to anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

- Overuse of the word "freedom"
- Overuse of vague rhetoric, which annoyingly dodges specific questions

RMS should run for President!

Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[turnstyle]

It's one thing to support the notion of GPL, but to suggest that all proprietary software is unethical, well that's just obnoxious.

So now coders hired to do proprietary work are unethical too?

He cites ingredients on food packaging -- but he knows perfectly well that a mere list of ingredients cannot be used to duplicate the food. It's misleading.

And now he's also open to the idea that the government should force all software makers to publish their source code? That's creepy.

Also, he should just acknowledge that "free as in speech" software almost always winds up as "free as in beer" too. It's kind of dishonest to pretend otherwise.

It's pretty informative to read RMS in his own words.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman doesn't recognize the disconnect between his own personal situation and the majority of software engineers in the world. He has always received enough money from grants to get by giving away his software, and he will continue to do so for the forseeable future. He has been able to turn his standing into personal capital, not recognizing that the average schmoe coder his little chance to do the same.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

BS, before he received the grant he worked as a consultant 1/4 of each year, but only if the result was free software... He also does not waste money.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[gnu-generation-one]

"but to suggest that all proprietary software is unethical, well that's just obnoxious."

Uh, that's the whole point of Free Software. You think it's somehow more ethical to sell someone software they can't use properly, or to lock them into updates and support, or to damage their business when they find the application they depend on is now unsupported, or just to put them through activation sequences, time-bombed software, spyware, proprietary formats, software audits or even harassing lawsuits just because you feel like being annoying to your customers.

Giving people freedom to use their software. Now that's ethical.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

He does not waste money 'cause he does not need to... Last year he gave a speech on Brazilian's capital, Brasília, and when he was there he stayed at the most luxurious hotel at town. Who paid for this? The organizers of the event where he spoke. I'm ok with that, but, lets face it, it's much more easy to "fight for freedom" when you have no children to feed and you can travel the world, sleep at expensive hotels, eat at fancy restaurants, and this is all paid by someone else.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the average coder schoe would love to work for a 1/4 of the year picking and choosing the jobs he does while spending the other 3/4 of a year doing his own stuff. The grandparent AC must be thanking you for proving his point.

And you're right. He also does not waste money. On soap.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is no average coder, so that point is moot. Why the ad-hominem?

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't allways like that, certainly not at the time RMS started to work on GNU Emacs (he supported himself by selling tapes with GNU Emacs for $150 IIRC).

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[zsau]

Not all beerfree software is speechfree, though, so he still needs to maintain the distinction...

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[jbolden]

but to suggest that all proprietary software is unethical, well that's just obnoxious.

You are begging the question. Prove he's wrong don't just assert it.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is: it's easy to say that coders that work to proprietary software companys are all "unethical" and to make a statement about how wrong are their priorities on life when your lifestyle demands that you take care only of yourself. The argument is not about the merits of FOSS, but about imposing your vision above other instead of sharing it. When RMS says that you have to put all behind and stand for Free Software and that you are a malicious coward if you don't, he's hiting at my freedom to choose how I live my life. That freedom is much more important to me than the freedom to see the code I run.

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[KLizard]

Hmmm... Ok. But, at the end of the interview RMS says that open standards (not to confuse with open source) are just an end-user issue and that if he (the end-user)really needs something to be standard then the same end-user can modify the product as he sees fit.
You see, free software that doesn't follow standards can give you a lock-in degree even higher than some proprietary software. Can you move your database from MySQL to PostgreSQL more easilly than from MS SQL Server to Oracle?
RMS says that the end-user can modify the software so it conforms to some standard, but the average joe and even the average software house usually don't have the knowledge to do that. Ok, you can hire someone to the task (if you have the money), but a fork on a project to satisfy only one user means that the same user will have to mantain the fork as long as the software exists, checking and hacking new versions of the project that came from the main (cvs) tree.
So, it's really ok when RMS says that Free Software don't need to follow open standards?

Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon.

[grilo]

So, it's really ok when RMS says that Free Software don't need to follow open standards?

Standards are important for the end user, and that's it --- don't misinterpret the man's words. If not for us, why would the developer care about them?

So, it's not really wether Free Software does, or does not, follow standards. It's wether there's any point in software following standards.

Re: I also admire RMS for his consistency.

[Alwin Henseler]

That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre. I don't like being told that I may not release my own work as I see fit. At the same time he is welcome to not use it as he sees fit.

I can't speak for RMS, but maybe you can read his view as: "all drinking water in this world should be clean and safe for consumption". That would be the optimal situation. At the same time you realize, it will never happen (at least not any time soon), and you can't force the rest of the world to make it so.

Maybe RMS would like most if there was simply no need for free software to require GPL style license, just to keep it free.

But I think it ultimately boils down to how people regard works that can be mass reproduced with near-zero effort (music, software, pictures, designs, etc). For clarity: I'm not talking about requiring everyone to share music, idea's etc., I'm just talking about work that for some reason or another was released to the public. Some people will view such work as 'ideas, floating freely through space, free for everyone to grab from the airwaves', and other people will say 'my personal property, get your dirty hands off it'. I believe that is a fundamental divide, that may shift, but will never go away. As long as you have that divide, there will be copyrights, patents, and GPL style licenses to counter their effect.

Rumor mill

[sleepingsquirrel]

The developers are working on it slowly now, although one is arranging to get funds to work on it a substantial fraction of his time.

Interesting. Which developer is hoping to get funding? Is it one of the current Hurd contributors like Marcus Brinkmann, Neal Walfield, Ognyan Kulev or Michael Banck? What would they want to work on? The port to L4? Who's sponsoring him? Is it the g10code people? They've collected donations for Hurd development in the past. How close is this to happening? I haven't seen anything on the hurd mailing lists (although I unsubscribed a year ago when they became 95+% spam).

Please include you rampant unsubstantiated speculations below.

Re:Flamebait

[xtermin8]

How is this informative? "That's what India is for?" You seem to think that exploiting foreign workers is a better alternative to "free" software. Microsoft gave away Internet Exploder and continues to give away "free-as-in-beer" software. So how can F/OSS offer mplayer, xine, firefox and not be better than free MS alternatives?

freedom versus innovation

[xpyr]

Well according to stallman, even if a program is completely useful to you but is proprietary, he won't use it. If the equivalent program of it is free, but is so buggy/useless to you, he'll still advocate to use it simply because it is free.

In other words, to him it doesn't matter how useful a program is, if it's not free, he won't use it. The big example is using a proprietary program to control the source code of the linux kernel because according to Linus it allows him to be more productive and get things done faster. But because it's not free, stallman says he disagrees with Linus's judgement on using that proprietary program. He doesn't take into consideration the fact that with Linus making this decision, it causes the free alternatives to source control something to live up to. Basically saying, if you want to be used for your features instead of being that you're just free, this is the features you want to have and the ease of use that you want to have.

There will always be free and proprietary software. Some free software advocates like Stallman simply will say use this and this program because it is free. That doesn't really cause something to be popular among end users. Features and ease of use do that. Look how long it took to build a free web browser (mozilla and firefox) before end users would accept and use them. It was never because they were free, it was because they were useful to use over the proprietary alternatives and more secure, plus they were free.

Free and usefulness go hand in hand I think. Once open source authors realize that, like the Mozilla and Firefox developer teams realized, then we'll get good products like Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird. I think the future looks bright. Arrogance in the end never wins however.

Re:freedom versus innovation

[njcoder]

"Well according to stallman, even if a program is completely useful to you but is proprietary, he won't use it."

Well he should hope that he dosen't ever get really really sick. Because the software that runs all those devices surely isn't free. Some are even very expensive commercial packages that run on windows even.

Somehow I don't picture him stopping the emt's and requiring them to take apart and explain how the defibrilator was put together when they're running towards him with it.

Freedom?

[DeBeuk]

"Don't call it Linux, call it GNU/Linux!"
"Don't pronounce GNU as new!"

How about letting people make up their own mind about how they want to call it? And while I'm at it, when is The Hurd going to be finished?

Re:Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we all call you Asswipe, Asswipe?

Re:Flamebait

[ergo98]

Nice strawman. Amazing how I said nothing about Microsoft, yet there it appears.

'Free speech' - wrong analogy

[BigPoppaT]

I respect rms, and believe that he has done some very important things for the software world (creating the GPL is at the top of a long list). But his ideals are only slightly about 'freedom' and his constant questioning of everyone else's ethics is tiring. He cares about the freedom of the consumer, but not the producer - he wants to force producers of software to play by his rules. The Open Source movement, for all that rms flames their ethics, is actually much more concerned with freedom - they try to support the freedom of software consumers, but recognize that software producers should be able to do what they want with their creations, including keeping the source to themselves (dumb as that may be technically). Personally, I prefer Open Source for technological reasons, but at this point there are things that I cannot do with it (pro-quality music apps are lacking at this point, for example). Would it really be more free for me to not use my computer for these things because GPL software isn't available yet? Some of you will now suggest that I write these programs myself - is it more free for me to spend time on that rather than just using programs that already exist? What the FSF people forget (and the OSI seems to remember) is that, for non-programmers, computers are tools, used to accomplish a job (other than programming). Comparisons to free speech vs. free beer miss the point. Does rms believe we should all have free hammers?

Re:'Free speech' - wrong analogy

[uncommonlygood]

He cares about the freedom of the consumer, but not the producer - he wants to force producers of software to play by his rules

That's like saying Moses only cared about the freedom of his people and not the freedom of the pharoahs to exploit them.

Well duh.

Someone is bound to point out that without the producers there would be none of the massive complex of propriety software that the world runs on. Well without slave labour there would be no pyramids either, wouldn't that be a pity.

Re:'Free speech' - wrong analogy

[tehdaemon]

Not gratis hammers, libre hammers. So I can hit any kind of nail I feel like, whether or not the manufacturer likes it. Or modify the hammer if it does not suit me. Yes, Stallman likes free hammers. it is just that (almost?) all hammers are free, so there is no need for a free hand-tools foundation just yet.

In the short term it is more free to use the non-free software. Especially where there is no free software that works. Unlike you however, rms actually thought about the future. In the long term, using the non-free software results in less freedom than not using anything at all. Pick your poison.

Re:'Free speech' - wrong analogy

[BigPoppaT]

Are you really comparing software producers to the pharoahs? Linus is a pharoah? The pharoahs were exploiting Moses' people by forcing them into a relationship (slavery) that was against their will. With software, I can choose to use it or not. If you deny this, and say, for example, that MS forces me into a relationship against my will, then the battle is already lost. The very fact that rms says that we can choose not to use proprietary software means that we are not forced to use it.

So, 'freedom' to rms does not mean that he is freeing me from an oppresive relationship. It means that he is imposing his own restrictions on the relationships that I can have with third parties. It means that he believes that he has the right to condemn the relationship between other parties (consumers and producers) even when that relationship is mutually satisfactory to them. Within the FOSS movement, the only ones trying to limit my freedom and choices are rms and his followers. OSI is trying to give me a better alternative.

To simplify massively there are three principle models for this relationship these days:

1) Microsoft's model - all the power is in the hands of the producer, and the consumer is powerless and ignored. Producers - free, consumers - not free.

2) rms' ideal 'ethical' model - all the power is in the hands of the consumer. The producer has no rights whatsoever once the fruit of his work is released - they are prohibited from any but the most basic relationship with their consumers. Producers - not free, consumers - free.

3) Open Source - it is almost always in the interest of both consumer and producer to work cooperatively. Both parties are free to choose what kind of relationship they are willing to have with each other. If a producer does not wish to make free software, they are not required to. If a consumer wishes to use proprietary software, they are free to do so. But it is almost always in both parties interest to use free models. Everybody - free.

If you think that maximizing freedom is the top ethical priority, which of these creates the greatest freedom? I vote for number three.

Re:'Free speech' - wrong analogy

[BigPoppaT]

Unlike you however, rms actually thought about the future.

Well, no, actually, just like me rms used proprietary software to do the things he needed to do when there wasn't any free software to do it. He used proprietary systems to begin developing GNU. Why is it okay for him to go proprietary, but unethical when I do it? For that matter, if I create music today using proprietary software, how is that ignoring the future? I should just wait and create computer-based music in the future once the FOSS tools catch up? I would prefer to use them, except, oops, they don't exist yet. So, if I follow you correctly, thinking about the future means not making music in the present. Yep, I'm going to continue ignoring the future (and looking for FOSS pro-quality music software in the meantime!).

you dis rms

[zogger]

say his views are flat out wrong, yet in your sig you push a lame targeted to 8 year olds fantasy *load*? Huh?

Well, to each their own, maybe Harry can wave his magic wand for you and create all the software you'll ever need! Hey, it might work! Just keep believing.

RMS? A pragmatist?

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

As I pick up my jaw after reading his more than reasonable approach to porting Free software to proprietary platforms, I wonder why he allows this freedom, (to use your desired platform) but argues against using a best of breed code management system for the same reason.

Richard, I think you are getting a little hypocrytical. Either give us your familiar "Freedom or Death" line or give me the freedom to choose a proprietary path if that is most expedient to me. I don't really give a rats... which way you go, but as the voice of freedom in software, stop being confusing.

And yes I did read the next paragraph where Mr Stallman says effectively that such ports are a means to an ends. If so, then why is Linus' use of bitkeeper (i think) so heineous. If the open solution was as good if not better, for the purpose, then Linus will switch. In the same way users switch any application that better meets their needs. I can't see the difference between using bitkeeper or using MS Windows or using Debian Woody or any fully GPLed OS. Most people will use what works for them. Having the source code is a bonus.

And on that note a big Merry Christmas to all programmers who release under GPL. Whether you celebrate it or not, may it be merry. I do enjoy using your software with the freedoms it gives me.

Re:RMS? A pragmatist?

[Peaker]

As I pick up my jaw after reading his more than reasonable approach to porting Free software to proprietary platforms, I wonder why he allows this freedom, (to use your desired platform) but argues against using a best of breed code management system for the same reason.

Same reason??

He argues porting Free Software is to Non-Free systems is good because it exposes users to Free Software increasing their freedom and the chance that they move to a Free System.

He argues using Non-Free Software to manage the Linux Kernel is bad because it sets a bad example for Free Software developers and because it takes away the freedom of the users of the Source Control software.

Either you haven't read the reasons at all, or you read them and still thought they were the same, in which case you are a complete retard and better stop reading RMS since you won't comprehend what he's saying anyway.

Open source on proprietary operating systems

[shuad]

A colleague and I were talking about this very topic just the other day. I was pointing out some of the very same points that I have read in this thread. It seems clear to me that if people are given the option of using open source (free) software that is comparable to non-free software they stand a better chance of adopting it. Adoption is the key to gaining market share for the still fledgling open source movement. When was the last time your mom or grandmother used an open source program? (and for all your freaks out there who have mom on her own linux box because you still live at home - you don't count.) Further, some of us are tied to using non-free operating systems. Show us what your free stuff can do, even though we are trapped here. --Shuad

The interviewer.

[northcat]

The interviewer obviously doesn't grasp RMS' ideas. It is apparant throughout the interview.

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

While reading this thread the message at the bottom (the random quote generated by slashdot at the end of each thread read:

"Isn't it conceivable to you that an intelligent person could harbor two opposing ideas in his mind? -- Adlai Stevenson, to reporters"

Re: nothing to see here

[xtermin8]

Microsoft, being on over 90% of desktops, is the obvious example, hardly an artificially constructed point. Not mentioning Microsoft would be like eating dinner while pretending not to notice an elephant in the dining room. How does one explain Open Source's success or even its continued existance in the face of free software from Redmond, or Apple, or Sun? Are you just speading FUD, or could you clarify your point?

Top ranked amateurs

[IncohereD]

it's much more easy to "fight for freedom" when you have no children to feed and you can travel the world, sleep at expensive hotels, eat at fancy restaurants, and this is all paid by someone else.

Do you also whine about how not everyone who can sing gets to make music videos? Or that not everyone who plays hockey gets to do it for a living? Or that not everyone who plays the stock market gets to be a broker?

The way things are going software development is soon going to be an 'amateur' thing, with only talented amateurs getting picked up by corporations/schools/etc (see OSDL, etc.). Sure lots of people will still need to code the tools they need as part of their jobs, but it will only be part of their job.

Actually, perhaps a better analogy is to mathematics. Lots of people need to do math to do their jobs, but very few of them get paid to be mathematicians. And yes, most of their work is 'open source', unless they're at the NSA.

Re:Top ranked amateurs

[jadavis]

Very interesting post. I never thought about it that way before.

There is a sense of irony..

[Anonymous Coward]

..in this reply, if you come from the UK:

RMS: Free software is controlled by the users. When you get a copy, you own it.

If you buy a house, you are free to change it. If you don't know how to change it yourself, you can hire a carpenter or a plumber to change it for you.

New legislation requires you to get building regulations approval to even install garden lights in your home:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3924082

And you can bet it's gonna cost a small fortune to get building inspectors to check your work.

And again, with formatting:

[joebutton]

> I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the
> high road of "non-violence" while advocating
> exactly the opposite.

Eh? He just decided not to say he'd endorse any and all violent activity to promote the adoption of a particular law. He didn't say he was absolutely against any kind of violence ever under any circumstances. How is this disingenuous?

How I joined the free world

[mdavids]

Back in '96 ("the year of the Intranet") I accidentally ended up getting paid to do web development work with Perl on Windows. I wasn't then, nor am I now, really a programmer (still less a hacker); I just happened to be a little better at abstract reasoning than anybody around me at the time.

I had never heard of the free software movement or the GPL, and the term "Open Source" hadn't even been coined. It's hard to imagine now how different the IT world was less than a decade ago. I chose Perl because it was free as in beer. At the time, it hadn't even occurred to me that you could apply the other meaning of the word "free" to software.

Then one day, while avoiding work, I was browsing through the documentation for Perl, and came across the following:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

At the time I was a union delegate in a big multinational company, so I knew in intimate detail the awful nature of the institution. I hated my job, didn't know anybody who didn't hate theirs, and despaired of ever finding a vocation that I wasn't ashamed of.

Reading the GPL, and then going to the GNU website and devouring everything there was a life-changing experience. RMS demonstrated that it was possible to make a living without compromising on ethics, and for the first time in my life I felt that there was a place for me in the world, if not as a genious hacker, then at least by applying the same moral principles to whatever field I had an aptitude for.

I stopped using proprietary software myself. Over time, I stopped installing proprietary software for my friends, and now I run a business supporting free software.

It all started with running a free program on a non-free operating system. If the free world had enforced strict border controls, on the dubious logic that more people would migrate if they weren't allowed to visit, I wouldn't be a part of it now, and my life would be a lot poorer for it.

At this time of the year it is worth stopping to remember this crazy guy with long hair and wild ideas about helping your neighbour, and how he changed the world.

Thanks RMS!

free software won't bite them

[Dragon Rojo]

No, but RMS will.

Lousy questions

[wayne606]

Why do all the RMS interviews (seems like one every week is posted to slashdot) have only questions like "Do you think Linus is bad for disagreeing with you in some way?" - why not ask him (and other smart technical people) questions like "What are you working on now or wish you had time to work on?" or "Where do you see the software industry going in the next 10 years?" or "What should people work on who want to make a difference?"

And this whole question of whether free software is good or not is such a waste of time. When somebody invented automatic door openers did people say "think of all the doormen who will be out of a job"? No, they said "isn't it great that these people are now free to find better jobs that contribute more to society". That's what I would say about people who used to spend all their time reinventing the wheel because all the previously invented wheels were proprietary. If Linux succeeds (i.e. is better than Windows and people switch) then the programmers at Microsoft will get to work on new and different things that haven't been done before (and maybe make money on them for the few years before the open source alternatives catch up).

Proprietary software

[nacturation]

FB: What do you think about the fact that Linux (the kernel!) uses a proprietary program to manage its source code?

RMS: It is unfortunate when anyone uses proprietary software. Using it publicly for the development of a prominent free software package is particularly unfortunate, because it sets a bad example for the community. [...] There are already free programs that do the same basic job. Linus Torvalds feels they are not convenient enough, and he values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom. I think that is leading the community in the wrong direction.

So does RMS use a free processor on a free motherboard with free RAM? No? Can we follow the same logic and conclude that RMS values convenience more than he values standing firm for freedom?

I assume the answer is likely that RMS classifies hardware differently than software. That he considers the ability to change and improve hardware to meet your own needs as unimportant.

Re:Proprietary software

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS isnt a hardware guy, he doesnt fab hardware. He makes software. He made a bunch of software, with ideals other people like. They also made free software, so he uses that. Remeber cost != free

Sorry, I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an analogy of intent, not form. The food labelling and dating is to inform the consumer of potential hazards. Nothing short of a full code disclosure would allow for the user/systems owner to inspect what his own system is about to execute.

This would definitely stop back doors, expose bad programming practices and sloppiness, which in the long term would be good for the quality of software as a product.

There is, of course, the flaw in the analogy that people lives and health are on the line when it comes to food.

an impressive interview

[Anonymous Coward]

In past interviews Stallman has pointed out the number of lines of code contributed by the GNU project exceeding that of the kernel, etc. This seems to be a weak argument because kernel programming is typically much more complex than coding either shell utilities such as ls and grep, or C run time library code.

In this interview Stallman produces a better argument: the GNU prefix stands for "freedom", so its use emphasizes what he considers the most important advantage or attribute of GNU/Linux over competing systems.

I could be imagining things, but Stallman seems more logically focused and less prone to pettiness, personal rivalries, and wishful thinking (with regards to Hurd) in this interview than in others from him I've read. Of course, he is still open to the criticism that his "freedom" means whatever he says it means, especially since he has to devote several minutes at the beginning of each lecture explaining the concept to newcomers. But at least he's been consistent, making only tactical changes in his stance (such as the LGPL, encouraging free software on Windows).

One issue the interviewer missed is the area of "software as service". Companies such as Google, Amazon, and eBay are becoming increasingly important, and although they all use free or open source operating systems, their application code is closed and proprietary. I know that Stallman has addressed this in the past, but it's worth continuing discussion because this may become the most important delivery model for business-oriented software in the future.

Re:an impressive interview

[sepluv]

Acknowledging that "software as service" can be just like using the software on your own machine in certain circumstances will be the main difference between version 3 and version 2 of the GNU GPL. RMS should be producing a draft of verson 3 sometime soon (in next year or so).

We're talking about software, not murder.

[Bob_Robertson]

We're talking about software, not murder. If I choose to write a piece of code and sell it or give it away, that is my choice.

Compel me to provide the source code, now it is no longer my choice.

Can you grasp the difference?

Re:We're talking about software, not murder.

[arose]

But you would expect goverment to protect your copyright? How is a law that requires reslease of source code with binaries fundamentaly different from a law that requires not to copy something that can be copied at no cost?

Re:We're talking about software, not murder.

[zsau]

I never denied you the ability to sell your code or give it away. Neither does RMS. In fact, he very frequently points out that you're most welcome to. If that's what you're talking about, I fully agree, and apologise for the confusion. You should be able to sell it or give it away free, so long as I can do whatever I want with it once I get it.

As for the second one, I maintain that there is a similarity between compelling you to provide the source and denying you the opportunity to kill someone. Both involve limiting your freedom for the greater good. One of the things about living in a society is that we have to make sacrifices.

Incidentally, I notice your sig talks of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. IIRC, LvM is a Libertarian. As such I have no expectations of being able to sway your (misguided, IMHO) opinion.

Re:We're talking about software, not murder.

[Bob_Robertson]

But you would expect goverment to protect your copyright?

No.

I believe in the prosecution of force and fraud. Claiming that my work is your own is fraud, even if no force is used at all.

Unfortunately, copyright is enumerated in the US Constitution, so we're stuck with it. I consider it another example of the vast expansion of power that was embedded in the Constitution that protected and created vested interest groups antithetical to actual Liberty.

Bob-

Re:We're talking about software, not murder.

[Bob_Robertson]

I appologise for the confusion.

Compelling me to provide source code is a positive obligation, exactly like taxation and the military draft. It requires me to do something I might not otherwise do. I am punished for *not* doing something.

Preventing murder (which doesn't work, one can only be prosecuted after the fact) is a negative obligation. It requires that I have deliberately acted upon someone against their will. I must have initiated force in order for it to be "murder" at all.

Were I to deny someone the source code after making them believe that it would be supplied, that would be fraud. There is neither force nor fraud in my releasing binary-only programs.

I'm quite pleased to see that you know who Mises was. It's amazing how many people believe the political spectrum is merely argument over how to split the loot (which is no argument at all).

Bob-

Why is this hard to grasp?

[Bob_Robertson]

Let's say I write a story. You buy a copy of the story, tear off the covers, put your name on it and sell it as your own.

You have taken a copy and done what you want with it. I still have my original, it is intact and I still have perfect use of it.

Would you consider this perfectly fine? Is it perfectly fine as long as you only tear out and re-use one or two chapters?

Hopefully, this will more clearly point out what I was trying to say.

Bob-

Ya know...

[Reteo Varala]

I really don't agree with the whole "If it's not free, it shouldn't be used, period" mentality he has going on.

I don't agree with it, and here's why:

When I am using a computer, I use it. I am not a programmer, and I lack the resources to hire someone else to do my programming for me.

I have a specific set of needs that must be acknowledged. I want X, Y, Z, and the rights to do this, that, and the other thing. I must be able to do A, and it should behave like B.

Now, the above list is what I use to decide what I am going to use. Now, I have a choice of Applications 1, 2, and 3.

1 is completely Free Software. It has X in spades, manages to include Y, and while lacking a direct Z, you can use P and Q in such a way as to emulate Z. I can easily do this, that, the other thing, and a few things besides. So far so good. But I can't do A... Uh oh... I'm up against a need that is not being met. I might email someone some kind of question about A, but I'm up against a time limit, and I don't have any to waste waiting for a response. So, 1 is out.

2 is Open Source. Now, I can easily and quickly do A, and it is a perfect match where B is concerned. Once again, X and Y are there. Yet there's still no Z, and this time, there's no P nor Q to simulate Z. Damn! I don't have everything I need, and this doesn't interoperate with 1, so I can't just use them together.

*sigh* I guess I still have no choice but to use the Proprietary 3 program, since it does have everything I want, but I'll just have to part with the money first. And wait for 1 or 2 to come up to speed... only to find myself more and more dependent as I go.

---

In the above example, you just witnessed my thought process regarding three programs. This is where the whole "must not use non-free software" argument breaks down; people have needs that must be filled; they have tasks and projects to complete, and they are not going to settle if something that fits their needs is out there. If they have to spend the money, so be it, they find value in that proposition if their money buys them the solution to their full problem.

This is what the free market is all about, guys. You choose what fills your needs. If freedom is truly your goal, than Free Software is your niche. If you have a need that isn't filled by FS or OSS, then you will take the proprietary solution (whether honestly, or through... less-reputable means).

RMS, if you want people to subscribe to your freedom, you'd better think a little harder about how you sell freedom to them. By saying that people need to deal with the loss in functionality in order to be free is saying they need to be caged by your freedom. You are basically giving one freedom to them, and taking another away, and then arrogantly saying they don't need that other freedom, because it's not a fundamental one.

That is why GNU is losing mindshare to Open Source.

No gnu prefix is no news - excuse is irrelevent

[dbIII]

since far more of the software is GNU than is Linux

And far more again is the reference X code from the Open Group which made its way into XFree86 and X.org, which is why the original suggestion of RMS once he noticed linux was LiGnuX. This was generally laughed at - so he tried again a couple of years later and plenty of newbies embraced the gnu/linux tag.

It was a fairly sudden change from hostility (no linux specific options in gcc - it doesn't help the hurd!) to a claim of partial ownership, to an implied claim of total ownership. Linus kept out of the whole thing as irrelevent the second time around.

It's all politics, it doesn't matter - just like the senseless licence wars didn't matter - it was the content of the licence that mattered, not whether the licence was GPL or anything else.

The good thing with RMS is he persisted with the GPL and improved it and kept the clauses that gave him greif during the emacs split, because they are still good ideas. I see his attitude as similar to Micheal Moore - he has a good message to get across and a little exageration can't hurt can it? Personally I don't like that sort of ugly[Insert nationality here] way of being loud and obnoxious - but they do tend to get heard wherever they are, and we all have them.

We don't need a cult of personality in the open source world, listen to his ideas, take the ones you like and be free to question his actions and those ideas you find incorrect (most of you probably logged onto slashdot with a password, so you disagree with the ideas of RMS that we should all be using blank passwords). I personally think he doesn't have enough justification for the gnu prefix on linux, so I will continue to ignore it.

RMS is unreasonable ... but that's not BAD....

[Gopal.V]

RMS is unreasonable - which means he cannot be REASONED with - which is not essentially bad.
To quote Bernard Shaw :

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

People hate change, RMS wants change , and therefore .....

Re:Proprietary Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume the answer is likely that RMS classifies hardware differently than software. That he considers the ability to change and improve hardware to meet your own needs as unimportant.

Software has typically zero incremental cost. That is, every additional copy costs next to nothing.

Hardware does not have this property. Furthermore, tweaking silicon is not something anyone can do. Also, RMS clearly states that providing public APIs to access and use the hardware is desirable. So, on these points, your argument is wrong.

Re:Proprietary Hardware

[nacturation]

Software has typically zero incremental cost. That is, every additional copy costs next to nothing.

So does a schematic of a Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon. The electronic file's incremental cost is practically zero as well.

Furthermore, tweaking silicon is not something anyone can do.

Neither can anyone tweak software.

Also, RMS clearly states that providing public APIs to access and use the hardware is desirable. So, on these points, your argument is wrong.

Sure, it's desireable. Just like having source code is desireable.

Re:Flamebait

[sepluv]

Actually FYI India is probably were the greatest innovation is happening ATM in the software (esp. free software) industry.