Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Richard Stallman
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has a fascinating and lengthy interview with Richard Stallman who founded the GNU Project in 1984, and the Free Software Foundation in 1985. He also originally authored a number of well known and highly used development tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU symbolic debugger (GDB) and GNU Emacs.
The interview covers a wide range of topics, from rms's early years, to his current role in the Free Software Foundation. He discusses the current state of GNU/Hurd, the problems with non-free software, and much more."
It's just a fact that people don't care about the ideological bents of folks like Stallan. Maybe he's ahead of his time or something, but right now, his ideas just aren't viable. People don't care about open source and the market will slowly squeeze it out because the loss of things like GNU/Linux distros and MythTV and whatnot just aren't important as far the market is concerned. Open source can't survive in this market because nobody of consequence really wants it to.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
This is a GNU/Interview. Get it right please!
n/t
Interesting syntax, isn't it?
Please insert my balls into your mouth.
Love Always,
News For Turds
-- You are such a fucking fag
Someone should teach the editors how to diagram a sentence.
That fat bastard slipped in the shower last week; the resulting humongous shockwave caused massive tsunami's which wiped out over 150,000 people!!
Arrest that man! (Not because of the tragic human carnage...but to prevent him from making us sane open source supporters from looking like a pack of crazy, unwashed hippies.)
Oops! Yes, I have to admit, I am lying. This post is a hoax. (Stallman would have had to have taken a shower to have actually slipped in it, therefore this hypothetical story is impossible.)
Please read for insight on why people like the FSF and OSI are bad for us:
Why Open Source Software is Bad for the Software Development Industry
Introduction
This paper will discuss Open Source Software (OSS) and its detrimental effect on the software industry. In particular, OSS devalues the software market and thus has a direct impact on the value of the individual software developer, the traditional software development vendor, and also reduces the innovation of the software development industry by limiting the amount of capital that can be spent on research and development.
Open Source Software
Open Source Software (OSS) is defined as a software product where access to the full source code is available to anyone, and includes the right to modify and redistribute the source code. OSS has had a long history in the software industry, however has been mostly limited to software to service the technical community. Recently, OSS has made inroads in the commercial, non-technical areas. Today, Open Source variants of common software packages such as word processors, web browsers, databases, and graphics toolsets are available from a variety of sources.
The Negative Impact of OSS
The impact of OSS is felt throughout the software development industry. Such software is widely distributed via the Internet and is usually made available for zero, or near zero, cost to the end user. The net result is a devaluation of software in financial terms and a loss of valuable revenue streams which drive research and development and innovation in the software development industry.
Many OSS packages are simply designed to be "drop-in" replacements of the corresponding closed source applications and simply copy the "look and feel" and the interface elements of the closed source equivalents. Although these replacement packages do not typically offer the feature set of their closed source counterparts, they usually are regarded as "good enough" by most end-users due to their low acquisition costs. This low (usually zero) cost simply drives down the market value of all applications in that class. This seems to be a good thing for the end user, as it reduces the near term capital outlay to acquire functional software packages, however it has a much more dire effect on the long-term viability of the software industry.
OSS alternatives usually appear after a successful commercial package appears on the market. These OSS copies will leverage the results of the large R&D investments made by the closed source vendors, and eliminates or severely reduces the need for the OSS producers to make similar investments in R&D. Even if the OSS copy does not provide the full functionality of the closed source offering, it will typically offer "good enough" value to the end user with low-end needs. This serves to eliminate any revenue potential for that segment of the market. You can see the effect of this most prominently in the web server area. Since there is at least one OSS web server package freely available, most users can choose to deploy an OSS variant of the software instead of choosing a closed source shrink-wrapped software package. This has served to eliminate many commercial closed source companies from the web server market. Those few that remain either have very deep funding from some other source, or serve very specialized segments of the market where an OSS alternative has not appeared yet. The long-term effect of this pressure on the low end of the market is to severely reduce the revenue necessary to produce new innovative products. Since these OSS offerings are also typically direct copies of the closed source product, no new innovation occurs and the segment will stagnate. This effect has already been seen in the database and web server areas where OSS has made significant inroads. In particular, the OSS "Apache" web server has captured majority share of both the low-end and high-end of the market segment. This has resulted in very little innovation
Cocoa Pebbles or Fruity Pebbles?
No time to post a comment on Slashdot. Need to go read a loooooooong interview. I'll be back in a couple of hours.
How to Download YouTube Videos
... and as usual the person who makes it his business to inform, impower, and proliferate benefitial technology will be ignored by the greedy, insane corporate monster and comments against him will be moded up by the PR sock-puppets who frequent Slashdot.
btw frell off sock-puppets. `(
"so I won't be so indespensible..."
"we [GNU] will support linux as long as it remains popular..."
Um, I'm sure even after Hurd is out and working GCC developers won't say "oh, mission accomplish, linux support removed".
I'm also sure most OSS developers aren't tied to the FSF. People may work on GCC but they don't work for FSF [at least in their minds].
That and many people develop OSS without a thought towards the FSF, GNU or the bloody GPL.
He thinks he is the saviour of free software? Sure he's started some wonderful projects that are VERY useful today [e.g. GCC and GDB] but he's not "irreplaceble". I mean look at GCC change logs. How many commits are due to RMS? He could [...] die tommorow and the world will keep spinning. OSS will keep being developed.
The guy is nothing but a hippie throwback trying to cling to his fame from the past. Get a hair cut you bum!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It's not an interview, it's a questionnaire. *yawn*
...here is a Gloklaw story about a patent (U.S. Patent number 6,836,883, titled "Method and system for compiling multiple languages", described as a method or "process involving the parsing and analyzing of more than one source language to produce a common language file that may then be read by the same or another front end system.") that was awarded to Microsoft. Says PJ, "The patent cites the Free Software Foundation's GCC in the prior art section." Microsoft's motivation for applying for this patent is: "The protection and licensing of intellectual property allows companies and individuals to obtain a return on investment, sustaining business and encouraging future rounds of research and investment in the IT industry."
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Sounds like "There is no God but Allah; Mohammed is His Prophet".
They should have asked him about his thoughts on the recent introduction of software patents in India.
Surely they mean SNOBOL.
yet another useless rms interview that nobody gives shit for except /. visitors....
In no particular order:
- RMS was useful at one time but he should now leave serious persons do the real work.
- RMS is too extreme
- RMS is a crackpot
- RMS is a communist
- RMS is a dirty hippy that smells bad
- GNU/Linux is childish/idotic/ego-driven
- The GPL is not free/ viral etc...
I just wish for once all the idiots who will inevitably spout their mouth would just shut up.
Richard Stallman has consistently proved he was a true visionnary. He forsaw the problems with software and copyright law 20 years ago and devised an extremely clever answer : the GPL.
Not only that but he gave us great software to work with. Some he wrote himself (GCC, GDB, Emacs), some he inspired others to write.
He warned us many times when few would listen. About the importance of protecting freedom. About the importance of tracking copyright ownership. About software patents. About the right to read. Every time he's been criticized, ridiculed or dismissed as a lunatic and every time he was right.
It is time to recognize Richard Stallman's place in history as a great modern philosopher.
So I, for one, would like to thank deeply RMS for dedicating his life to our freedom. For standing tall when no one else would.
Live long, RMS, and never give up.
I mean I love most of the gnu software I have running on my system and god bless any contributor to that effort but - woh! - he says some of the funniest things like:
The Workplace:
JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job. Would you participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you to?
I mean come on. Both free and non-free software has its place in the modern world and I need to take technology to a religious level like I need a hole in my head.
He is sooo wacky.
ACK
so what you're saying is, you expect me to support your ideological rant that people don't care....
mindrape
I can already see the way these posts are heading.
Talk about a bunch of ungrateful children...
He is now and has been consistent in his views. He hasn't changed his message. The fact that his message is still relevant after 20 years should say something.
Richard Stallman, over the past 20 years, has done more than most of you put together will do in your entire lifetime and all you can do is complain and make fun of him for it.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
Nice Troll, there has been a serious lack of them since netcraft comfirmed the gnaa is dead
It's particularly interesting that he's radically libertarian about things like software, but disapproves of companies from different counties doing business unimpeded by governments.
The best thing developed countries can do for under-developed countries is trade with them. Protectionism only prolongs the poverty.
"Free Software" vs. "Open Source":
"...for our readers that may therefore be confused themselves, can you explain the differences, and why it is important to get it right?"
Richard Stallman: "...In the free software movement, our goal is to be free to share and cooperate. We say that non-free software is antisocial because it tramples the users' freedom, and we develop free software to escape from that..."
I found this to be the vaguest answer possible to the question. As someone who is not on the front lines of "Open Source vs Free Software", his response does nothing to clarify his position and only adds to the confusion for me. Are we talking licenses? How is non-free software anti-social? Does it not play well with others? Does it run with scissors? Sit in a dark room listening to emo music all day?
After reading the entire interview, I'm sort of sick of seeing him respond with the word "freedom" without really clarifying.
shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
If they were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
This gets to a fundamental problem with the incentives created by taxing things other than asset value:
Possession is rewarded over creation.
Think about it: Once you possess something, you basically have no tax burden. You enjoy the benefits of young men dutifully going out to die in wars, the entire legal edifice describing and protecting your rights and without you having to pay a cent. You can just soak the public for these benefits.
Taxing everything but possession (income, capital gains, sales, value added, etc) is just a way to tax the creative process.
Naturally, creators who are trying to get a leg up on the situation end up selling their creations cheap to those whose possession is subsidized by the tax payments of the creators.
Well, there is one exception to this rule of no taxation of possession -- and that is the patent maintanence fee. Patents are the only assets that the government taxes. This is an incredibly regressive tax hitting hardest those who are earliest to support the realization of a new technology's value -- forcing them to sell their rights ("assign") cheap to someone who has been sitting around enjying the government's protection.
It all adds up to a very nasty way of sucking capital out of the hands of creators and giving over to the hands of possessors.
So the creators, unable to change the tax laws to tax assets rather than creative processes (becuse they can't buy the Ways and Means Committee) become socialists.
This is directly related to the issue of outsourcing since if programmers who had created the value of the information industry had been allowed to retain the value they created, they wouldn't need jobs. The corporations would be paying them royalties or be paying companies owned by the programmers for the rights to their software instead of just throwing creators out on the street after extracting their youth and creativity.
A system that would work would elimnate all existing taxes (although not necessarily tariffs) and just tax net assets at a rate equal to the interest rate on the national debt -- exempting from taxation the same assets that are exempted by personal bankruptcy protection: home and tools of the trade.
Seastead this.
JA: In talking about GNU Linux...
Richard Stallman: I prefer to pronounce it GNU-slash-Linux, or GNU-plus-Linux. The reason is that when you say GNU-Linux it is very much prone to suggest a misleading interpretation. After all, we have GNU Emacs which is the version of Emacs which was developed for GNU. If you say "GNU Linux", people will think it means a version of Linux that was developed for GNU. Which is not the fact.
JA: You're trying to point out instead that it's a combination of the two.
Richard Stallman: Exactly. It's GNU plus Linux together.
JA: Which makes up the GNU+Linux operating system that everyone uses.
Richard Stallman: Exactly.
Cue the GNU/assinine comments...
In no GNU/particular order:
- GNU/RMS was useful at one time but he should now leave GNU/serious GNU/persons do the real GNU/work.
- GNU/RMS is too extreme
- GNU/RMS is a crackpot
- GNU/RMS is a GNU/communist
- GNU/RMS is a dirty hippy that smells bad
- GNU/GNU/Linux is childish/idotic/ego-driven
- The GNU/GPL is not GNU/free / GNU/viral etc...
That was always the biggest complaint I heard about RMS: his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux.
What editorial duties do they really follow through on? They pick flamebait/controversial article submitted by readers and post them regardless of duplicity or typographical error, and then go collect their OSTG paychecks.
Malda and company should stick to coding the backend and hire actual content editors to post the stories to the front page. Think of how much the quality of Slashdot would shoot up, particularly in the accuracy department. Right now, the readers of Slashdot are doing all the work.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I am a goat fucker!" -Richard Stallman, 1994
A bit of MIT/LCS lore here.
RMS used to live on the 7th floor of LCS. That's where he used to have his office before he resigned in protest over the commercialization of something or another. But they let him keep his office, and he lives there, because he refuses to have an apartment. (Given the rent rates in Cambridge, the assholeness of most landlords, I don't blame him. Rather than live in my office, I chose to move to Texas, and the change in rent rates and lack of state income tax resulted in an immediate %25 pay raise. RMS doesn't have that option because we have the death penalty for people like him down here.)
Anyway, RMS has or had a number or geek chick groupies. I wouldn't call any of the ones I've seen "hot", really -- well except for this one little psycho jewish undergrad from NYC. He would sleep with them on the sofa in his office. That's why he got kicked out off floor 7, and down to the 3 floor, is that the cleaning staff complained about pulling used condoms out from behind the sofas. No joke. You can use this information for trolling if you wish, but it's all true.
RMS has a phobia of water that prevents him from showering. This is part of this post I know from first hand experience, because I myself have observed him taking a sponge bath in the 3d floor mens room in LCS. Apparently once he had a girlfriend who he was totally in love with, and she convinced him to take one shower a week. It was a traumatic experience for him each time.
RMS also has a phobia of spider plants. When RMS starts bothering a grad student and going to his office and talking to him constantly and getting him to spend all his time writing free software, the grad student will complain to someone on the floor, and they'll let them in on the secrete -- get a spider plant in your office. The next time RMS drops by, his eyes will bulge a little and he'll say " Umm. . . I wanted to talk to you about hacking some elisp code . . . why don't you stop by my office sometime ?" and make a hasty exit.
One of his more nasty habits is picking huge flakes of dandruff out of his hair while talking to you. At least he doesn't eat them, like some people I know.
Now, I know everyone loves to make fun of RMS, and I'm feeding that a bit here, so I'd just like to say that I think he really is a genius, on the order of Socrates (another filthy slob who couldn't keep a normal living arrangement, and lived in a barrel) or Ghandi or Ezekiel. Everything he has ever said to me, while sounding naive and idealistic and stupid at the time, turned out to later be correct.
The only thing I fear in his philosophy is his interest in reducing population growth. Everyone else I know of who was obsessed with that "problem" turned out to have facist or totolitarian tendencies, and I think that the problem will solve itself as more and more of the world moves into a middle class type existence.
But on everything else, bitter experiences have taught me he is right. I will not use any non-GPLd or lGPLd software, and I look forward to being able to buy only "open" hardware. I would like to see software patents completely eliminated, and with the development of digitial communication, I see no reason why shouldn't simply repeal all of Title 17 and do away with all copyrights. They just aren't needed. I expect to spend much of my life being paid to write software, and I just don't see copyrights has helping me in anyway.
RMS calling something anti-social, now there's an interesting tidbit...
We began this interview via email, but later had to finish by telephone after Richard Stallman fell and broke his arm.
I wish him a speedy recovery.
Amongst the flames & trolls there were some detailed & reasonably thoughtful responses (including from someone who's got as 'Foe' - hi spectecjr:) - & the only argument I heard that stood up as not obvious Straw men, irrelevant, or based on a misunderstanding, was that some developers do not consider the four freedoms described by the GNU philosophy page to be fundamental freedoms.
The best counter-argument to that that I can think of is that it is only a matter of degree; the freedom to study, redistribute (etc) software is less important than the freedom not to be beaten to death by government clowns, say, but that does not mean that the software freedoms are not, in themselves, important.
I have a bad feeling I'm getting into areas dealt with my philosophy-101; can anyone else (a) advance sensible reasons why intelligent, informed people might produce non-Free s/w, and (b) refutations of those reasons.
Please, no confusion with 'Open source' development advantages or disadvantages - I'm specifically interested in the purely MORAL arguments made by RMS.
Arguments such as 'my family has to eat', 'how would programs like Photoshop be developed if it was Free?', "I am free to distribute software I write under any license I like", etc etc, are missing the point. I'd hate to find myself deciding that the reason is that proprietary developers consciously dismiss the moral / ethical issues as uninteresting or irrelevant. I know there are a lot of people here working on proprietary as well as Free s/w and you can't all be trolls :)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
You think of RMS as a hippie. One could disagree, about that, but one shouldn't forget hippies are people too. Friendly, freedom loving people with no intent to hurt anyone.
I really don't see any reason for you to spit dirt at RMS.
As I wrote in the comment to another KernelTrap story, using the term "GNU/Linux" (referring to the GCC and glibc essential role in the system) is totally misleading.
Both GCC and glibc are in the current state despite the RMS and FSF efforts. For GCC, remember the situation from the 2.8 times, when an independent team (egcs) had to fork GCC, because the FSF-managed development of GCC was dead. In the same way remember years of work that H.J.Lu invested in Linux libc, because GNU libc was unmaintained and unusable. And of course the work of Ulrich Drepper, who took GNU libc2 and developed it into a form usable in Linux-based system. Ulrich considers none of his work on glibc to be a part of a GNU project (details here, see the bottom part of the text). And it looks like even the present situation in the GCC development is the same (anonymous comment at KernelTrap).
So I can say run GCC/glibc/perl/X.org/TeX/etc/Linux system, but it has nothing special to do with GNU and FSF, and I just prefer the short name "Linux" (named after a single biggest, always-running, and essential component of the system).
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
He really comes across as duplicitous when he says over and over how he is "fighting for freedom" and then says the following:
... I do not think it means what you think it means.
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
JA: Such as?
Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.
So if one freely decides to write a program and not divulge the code, then that person is antisocial? Hey - I don't accuse Colonel Sanders of being antisocial just because he keeps his 11 secret herbs and spices a "secret". And I don't accuse Bill Gates of being antisocial because he refuses to divulge the code to Microsoft Bob. He may be a numbnut, but whom am I to accuse someone of being "antisocial".
This word "freedom"
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
Is of course the GNU/Darwin. Somehow it is what GNU always wanted to have - a GNU running on a microkernel (at least sort of). (I admit, I don't know what licence applies to Darwin).
You can defy gravity... for a short time
In nomine Stallman, et Emacs, et FSF sancti. Amen.
If your interest is more on creative media and copyright then we hosted a talk with Richard Stallman, the gist of which is here:m an0504.htm
http://www.plugincinema.com/plugin/articles/stall
My Personal Blog on Games and Technology and More
"But I think it will work for typing. (Later: it works fine for typing, but it tingles all the time.)" WHAT ? I thought that GNU/Coders (or GNU+Coders) had the one-hand-typing technique (pr0n nights???) Yogi you lied to me !!!
Perhaps because he continually insists on the term GNU/Linux. This challenges the Linux zealots world view that Linux is the be all and end all. Mr. Stallman's view points out that Linux needs a lot of help from GNU, FSF, ISC, BSD, MIT, IBM, ASF, Moz, etc., to be a useful system.
Zealots, of any stripe, hate it when you disagree with them, and tend to be more vocal that your average fan or user. And when you make a point they can't debate....
I think Stallman is a bit eccentric about his ideas about freedom. I would venture to guess that he's wired a bit funny. His ideologies are are not practical nor are they rooted in reality. My freedom is not in jeopardy because I elected to use MacOS X on an Apple G5 (my wallet was but not not my freedom). Stallman presumes that his intelligence and knowledge give him the right to not respect the boundaries of others. When someone tells him that he can't have his way with their software (or if it isn't written by his own minions or philosophies), he cries foul and plays the freedom card. This isn't an ideology, this is arrogance and extreme anti-social behavior. This sort of behavior is very consistent with a high-functioning autism known as "Asperger's Syndrome."
Draw your own conclusions...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
That is one paranoid son of a bitch.
I'm not particular knowledgeable about RMS' views nor do I support them. I just hope he still doesn't look like that picture. The crazed psycho killer look is so dated.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Interesting how one must choose to license their program under the GNU GPL and one must choose to distribute GPL-covered programs, yet "the GPL forces [RMS']" view of free software on others.
There's no force involved. If you don't like the GPL, don't choose to distribute programs licensed under it. There are entire free software operating systems written by people who are working hard to rewrite GPL-covered programs because they don't like the strong copyleft implemented in the GPL.
Quite to the contrary of what you're saying, the reason the BSD licenses qualify as free software licenses is because they grant the licensee the freedoms free software talks about.
Digital Citizen
fwiw, your 4 examples are really just 2 examples (IBM twice, and Sun twice).
In any case, do you really think that IBM and Sun care about Open Source? They only care insomuch as it's part of their strategey to deflate Microsoft and perhaps then be in a better position to compete with them in other markets.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Yet, strangely, he doesn't feel compelled to get political about everything and the kitchen sync, he doesn't drag the community in pointless debates, he doesn't alienate commercial partners, and he also doesn't imply he knows what's best for everybody.
Yes, I am very grateful for the software he wrote. Yes, what I've done so far in my life is like a firefly to the sun, compared to what he did. But that doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to a critical opinion, especially towards his "political" enterprises.
P.S. one should be careful about labeling someone "communist" - after all, communism killed an estimated number of 100 million people (more than fascism, albeit over a longer period of time)
The Raven
Freedom is the most important aspect of these projects. While good things should follow, having the freedom to fork, as GCC and glibc and others have done when the originators stagnated is what I would interpret as RMS/FSF's most important contribution.
If they recognize the changes as good and accept them back into their code base, that is their right, and that is how free software projects work.
Richard Stallman never said he personally wrote the code all by himself, any more than the creators of a Redhat, Mandrake, Debian distribution who slap their names on the collection do, even though the RMS/FSF contribution to the code and project that created them was in my view clearly superior to that of Redhat, for example, even if I think his personal judgement on EMacs UI and many other things does not produce a product I want to use. The key is I can fix it or choose to substitute something else.
His desire to attach the GNU name is, again, the desire to teach about the free software nature of some basic building blocks there, which he consideres the most significant aspect of the software. What other name would convey the spirit of freedom like GNU? Others contributions, while valuable, are technical except for their choice to follow the GNU lead and code under the banner and license of free software.
the dude could use a good dose of George Will.
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if you called it an onion you'd get cooks very confused.
I think RMS really missed the question here. In most cases it is not that you could quit one job and find another that allowed you to use Free Software. Entire fields of work cannot be completed without proprietary software. It's all fine that he can find himself another programming job that only involves Free Software, but most people have no desire to be programmers.
Well, this is linked to from the project front page, plus there's the MAINTAINERS file in the top of the source tree (although that lists the active maintainers and their responsibilities, not everybody-at-any-time-ever). Yah, Mark's one of them.
GCC isn't like the Linux kernel, where the development teams are formed around cults of personalities, and /.ers eagerly congregate to hear the heated flame wars between their favorites. :-) The GCC people are way milder, way less vitriolic, and as a result, don't make the tabloid news.
The inflammatory statements made on LKML concern stuff like DRM and proprietary drivers and things about which more Linux users actually care (or even understand). Inflammatory statements on the GCC list are of the kind which only arouse the ire of other compiler geeks. We can almost get into fistfights at the annual summit over whether a combined CSE and DCE pass should be done even when optimization is off ("the Laffer curve argues for-" "bah, users shouldn't notice!"), but nobody on /. will care. *grin*
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
How ironic that you celebrate the practical outcome of software freedom RMS started talking about and working for 20 years ago, yet you refuse to cite the name which is most associated with software freedom.
I remain unconvinced and I'll continue to choose to give GNU a share of the credit when I talk about the GNU OS and the Linux kernel.
Digital Citizen
>JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
>Richard Stallman: I would quit that job. Would you participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you to?
So RMS uses only open source bios, open source CPU microcode , open source firmware in his computer hardware...
The creators of Unix started the user written software movement, not RMS.
Stallman constantly talks about the freedom of users. What about the freedom of programmers? By this I mean the freedom to decide whether to publish your source or not, to charge money for your work or not. That concept never enters his lexicon. Yes, he has made huge contributions to computing over the years. No, he is not always right.
Earlier revisions of the APSL were non-free, but Apple changed it to make version 2.0 of the APSL a free software license. The APSLv2.0 is now a GPL-incompatible free software license.
Digital Citizen
charging money for software to cover costs and run a business. Everyone is free to buy it or not. I worked for 12 years on a software package that assists and optimizes the manufacture of printed circuit boards. It has become very difficult to produce PCBs without this type of software. It would never have been developed as free software. Custom "one-off" solutions would force hardware manufacturers out of their expertise. Without charging for software I'm guessing there would be alot fewer choice we'd be able to make.
Summary of this entire thread: The Richard Stallman "I Love Me" Thread.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I wouldn't be willing to have Windows on my computer, and you shouldn't have it on yours ...
So I'm not free to use Windows? How does that fit in?
God bless you, Toph.
I only hope that he doesn't have to survive a lifetime of negative remarks and bad publicity; he deserves to lay on his deathbed knowing that he truly made a difference on global society.
Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Company"
Stallman considers himself indispensible; Linus makes jokes aout stepping in front of a bus.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
I do not deny big RMS and FSF contributions to GCC, glibc, and of course the GPL. Yes, they get (part of) the ball rolling. But this does not justify their requests to use the term "GNU/Linux". DEC's (and X Consortium) contribution was of the same magnitude, because without the good graphical interface Linux (and any of *BSDs) would be nowhere near the current state. Yet they do not demand the term "xc/Linux" should be used.
If they recognize the changes as good and accept them back into their code base, that is their right, and that is how free software projects work.
In fact this is precisely the way Open source projects work. I.e. judging the code by its quality instead of some "political" reasons.
Do not get me wrong - I consider freedoms I have from using (and writing) the GPL-licensed code to be very valuable. Let me repeat that: I agree that without RMS (and FSF) we would be nowhere near the current state. But this is about as true for RMS/FSF/GNU as is for Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox et al./Linux, Jim Gettys et al./DEC/X Consortium, */Apache project, and many others (Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie did not contribute much of the code for my system, but they created an excellent API and design; the same for Internet protocol authors, and so on). But nobody except RMS does request that I use the term their project name/Linux. And, unfortunately, the present FSF efforts with respect to GCC and glibc looks less than nice to me.
Currently I can switch the kernel I use for something else (*BSD, may be even HURD) the same way as I can switch my glibc (to dietlibc, for example), and GCC (to Intel CC or lcc). I use Linux, GCC, glibc, Perl, xorg/X11, etc., because they best fit my needs. GNU project is nothing special in this.
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
Yeah. That's the point of freedom. You don't get to make decisions for somebody else.
I only can give my utmost respect to Richard Stallman. He is a true visionar and good person. We should all support him!
How on earth could a credible threat be made against a free software developer? Details, please. If he was receiving benefits or consideration from the FSF or the FSF was offering something, then it is appropriate that FSF has some say in what he does. Otherwise, as I told Darl McBride to his face, what part of the GPL don't you get? How does it make it possible to threaten someone and force them to work in a direction they do not believe to be of value?
Please do provide specific examples of where RMS is "trying to legislate" what some call "Linux", and be sure to point out how RMS is not merely requesting something which people are free to dismiss or reject.
That's not true. One does not need to give up getting credit for one's work when one writes or distributes free software. In fact, the most widely used free software license (the GNU GPL) requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice.
I fail to see where RMS has "been eclipsed" because I don't see anyone involved with the open source movement championing software freedom squarely and without reservation. The people I see talking about software freedom in this way all come from the FSF--Eben Moglen and Brad Kuhn, to name a couple people I've heard speak on the subject recently.
Finally, you and the grandparent post got the name wrong--the name of the movement RMS started is not "open source". It's called the free software movement. It seems fair to call the movement by the name the founder of the movement gave it, no?
Digital Citizen
This thread won't be of much help to you because it chiefly concerns the free software movement, not the open source movement. There is a difference. If you're interested to learn more about the free software movement, you should consult the philosophy directory on gnu.org as the interview pointed to.
Digital Citizen
Technically games are also software, and require programmers to program them. By his philosophy, all games should be free? How will we get good games then, if we don't pay a whole bunch of people to make them? Surely people are not able to make Halo 2 in their spare time.
I think the problem is that RMS is of the opinion that anyone who isn't sitting on the farmost left tip of the line doesn't count and is morally repugnant. Most people even on slashdot will share a mix of some open source and some free software views, and I think that's important. You've got to be flexible and work with other people who may have different views in life. Personally I'm about 25% along from the left- I'm sad when a BSD-licensed program is taken, a little extra is added, and a proprietry software product produced (e.g. Posidon UML editor). On the other hand, I couldn't say hand-on-heart that I'd still be interested if my Linux computer didn't work very well.
... I thought that man was already dead.
If there's one thing I wish for RMS, it would be that he and his team finally wrap up and release the Hurd kernel. Maybe then he'll finally bugger off and leave Linux alone.
"You did WHAT to WHO for BEER MONEY?!? Jeez, man - you don't even like beer..."
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 for this.
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 for this.
(all from the FSF)
Possessions/assets are taxed, in various ways:
Most obviously, real estate tax is assessed on the value of the real estate. This is a direct tax on assets. Real estate makes up a very large proportion of the nation's net worth, so this is not an insignificant asset tax.
Less obviously, inflation provides a built-in tax on assets. In particular, if you earn, say, 4% in a bank account, the govt taxes you on that 4%, even tho inflation might be 3%. The tax on the 3% which is inflation is, in effect, an asset tax. If you keep your money under your matress, to avoid paying tax, then inflation itself eats your money away.
I have never met him personally, but I prefer to regard him as a person who has an extensive record of creating useful tools for the benefit of everybody in the community, and as such, someone who is perfectly entitled to suggest principles along which the software development community should run.
I find it somewhat tiring to read continual criticisms of his standpoint from those who have contributed nothing whatsoever.
When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
If you have the time of inclination, check out the novel Confederacy of Dunces.
either that, or you have major retardation issues. see a doctor, then please tear up your republican voter registration card.
You need permission from RMS not to feel guilty?
That is downright scary. You would make an excellent addition to a flock of mindless sheep.
I wonder if all of you people who love the fact that he "stands up" for his principles, feel that same level of respect when Jerry Falwell and others stand up so hard for their principles.
It seems around here that the value of defending one's beliefs directly correspond to agreeing with them.
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job.
So in other words, anyone who is required to use Windows at their work should quit their job. Wow. So basically, he just suggested that somewhere around 80% of the US workforce hand in their resignations. I can't understand why anyone would think this guy is insane.
Basically, this guys is telling the same stuff over and over for 15 years... :
And everybody is listenning him as if he was some kind of messiah.......
so save our time and please make a RMS interview generator whith some parametrable element
1 gnu linux (I can't believe can programmer he doesn't get the fact that gnu linux spell like NEW Linux and every one I know who heard that has always answered : what ? there's a new linux ?, forget it Richard, that's not gonna happenned, ever)
2 the hurd : can someone shout me a bullet in the head ? (it's not usable, it's slow as hell and the 2 guys who are working on it have just finished their their computer degree so they have to understand the whole gnu compilation chain and it's really hard, believe me)
3) can a world survive in a only free software world ?
yes, just make your code unreadable and release it when it's obsolete while letting all its data copyrighted (as ID software do)
pfffffffff, I'm fedding up my self with all those rms talk
Zehavoc
The "free" argument needs some clarification. I think it's too easy to read these sorts of interviews and come away thinking that "free" means:
1)Source Code
2)The right to do ANYTHING you want with said code
I get the feeling that it's more that the code should be provided, and you can do whatever you like with said code on your own machine, but the original author has the right to limit other rights like distribution or sale. I say this because it simply makes sense to me. To say that if you're going to write a program that is meant to be distributed, you should be required to provide all code and give up all rights of ownership over said code seems to discourage serious development of anything overly complex in anything close to a timely fashion.
Freedom is all well and good, but who would have preferred we never had proprietary software to begin with? How far behind current standards would we be if companies like Apple and Microsoft had not pushed the GUI as they did? Where would modern word processing be if it weren't for WordPerfect and Office? Most free software out there now is working to emulate non-free equivalents. Does the FS/OS community have the vision to pioneer technology instead of immitate?
It's too easy to say "Apple bad! Microsoft immoral! They no give code free!" Dislike the giants all you want, but they accomplished in a few years what has taken us geeks decades to do in our free communities.
There is a place for Free as well as Non-Free software. To say one is inherently superior to another is simply ridiculous. To say one is immoral by it's nature makes you sound like a self-important maniac.
Since when should geniuses only work on that area in which they express their genius abilities? Also, RMS is upfront about what free software won't do. After explaining the way in which businesses turn the Phillipine 2-year exemption from labor into a perpetual exemption by closing up shop and establishing a new business every 2 years, RMS is asked: (emphasis mine)
It sounds to me like he realizes the limitations of free software and is quick to answer as such. If you listen to his speeches, you'll also hear him respond that if he knew a way to help get corporate money out of political campaigns, he would work on that and nothing would make him more proud. This too is not a problem free software can solve alone, perhaps playing a minor role in making such a thing happen, but it is critical that we work on this when we consider the amount of power that comes with campaign donations and how much more money multinational corporations have to put into campaigns than most ordinary people.
Digital Citizen
I do not deny big RMS and FSF contributions to GCC, glibc, and of course the GPL. Yes, they get (part of) the ball rolling. But this does not justify their requests to use the term "GNU/Linux". DEC's (and X Consortium) contribution was of the same magnitude, because without the good graphical interface Linux (and any of *BSDs) would be nowhere near the current state. Yet they do not demand the term "xc/Linux" should be used.
But I would still be happily using the free software I have, and who knows what technical advancements would have replaced them. I used and valued DEC software long before there was a GUI, and the GUI isn't the indispensible piece for me that you seem to think it is, even assuming nothing else would have taken it's place. Believe me, DEC's GUIs were never worth writing home about. I do not run a GUI on my most important systems today, which is freedom that free software gives me with no contribution from DEC. DEC wrote all kinds of wonderful compilers as well as operating systems but were never philanthropic enough to allow me to use them freely. The UI was not much of an intentional contribution which you would understand if you ever licensed software from them, including their DEC adaptations of the UI.
DEC's contribution was at most a technical contribution to a narrow part of the system. I do not find this comparable to the FSF contribution.
Linus already gets all the credit, some of which he deserves for the kernel. Alan Cox contributes under his Linux kernel banner. Linus does not seem to value freedom and GPL (based upon past actions) to the extent it is merited. And what does the Apache Foundation have to do at all with Linux distributions or free software?
While the Linux kernel may be substitutable, I have never found the GPL, GNU utilities and other things as substitutable.
Linus seems to believe that the technology is more important than the freedom (as he has clearly expressed WRT bitkeeper and on many other occasions), which is part of why they tend to undervalue the GNU contribution. I suspect Linus is coming to value it a bit more with the SCO nonsense.
That is why I respect the idea that being forced to use non-free software where reasonable alternatives exist could easily be reason enough to change jobs.
...I'm almost with him until somewhere in the late middle of the interview he goes off into raving luniticism...
He has good ideas, but he fends them and speaks of them like a Muslim arguing with a Catholic about the nature of GOD.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
and declare this discussion terminated. Read about Godwin's law here.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I haven't seen that many acronyms since I worked for the DOD.
I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary. As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.
Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?
If you're writing GPLed software you are "working for Apple for free" too. Last time I checked Samba was GPLed, and so was GCC, and dozens of other programs included in OSX.
Let's be honest - no matter what the license - OSS is free slave labour for the corporations.
Interesting enough, every developed country used protectionism as a mean in its development. In fact, most critics of China's current monetary policy (ie fixing the price of its currency) blame it as a form of protectionism. And you can see China's growth.s /Chang1.h tm
http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/text
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/chang/
It's a shame that Stallman seems to be mostly interested in bashing the Open Source movement.
1. Open Source is more like Microsoft than GNU:
"The open source movement promotes what they consider a technically superior development model that usually gives technically superior results. The values they cite are the same ones Microsoft appeals to: narrowly practical values."
2. Linus Torvalds is a corrupting influence:
"People know that Linus Torvalds wrote his program Linux to have fun. And people know that Linus Torvalds did not say that it's wrong to stop users for sharing and changing the software they use. If they think that our system was started by him and primarily owes existence to him, they will tend to follow his philosophy, and that weakens our community."
The problem is that BusyBox is mostly GNU; if you don't believe me, download its source and check the copyrights; large parts of it are copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, because it was built from cut-down versions of GNU tools.
I did not mean to suggest that business should be completely unimpeded by governments, if that's what you took it as. I have no objection to reasonable laws regarding such things. I meant that impediments to international trade should be removed.
He is making valid points. Stop abusing your mod point.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So if one freely decides to write a program and not divulge the code, then that person is antisocial? Hey - I don't accuse Colonel Sanders of being antisocial just because he keeps his 11 secret herbs and spices a "secret". And I don't accuse Bill Gates of being antisocial because he refuses to divulge the code to Microsoft Bob. He may be a numbnut, but whom am I to accuse someone of being "antisocial".
When Stallman says "social", he is going to the root of the term - talking about society.
How is it NOT harmful to society to have any one thing controlled by one person alone? How is it not harmful to have myriads of documents that are in a format no-one but Microsoft can REALLY read. How is it not harmful to have many video files that one company can control weither you see or not? How is it not harmful that you have an OS that millions of people use every day and yet are not able to modify in such a way that it is secure or built to thier satisfaction?
So anti-social, in terms of being bad for society - yes Bill Gates is Anti-Social. Just as are car companies that try to make sure you cannot repair or modify a car away from a dealer.
If you like, think of this in terms of dependancy. You are reliant on Microsoft for care and feeding of your OS, if Microsoft every went south or in a direction you did not like you are reliant on thier good graces to get a job done you could do before. But a healthier mode of existance is a compartmentalized one, an encapsulation if you will of the tools that you use that isolates your dependance from the tool makers. A socket wrench I bought 20 years ago still works to turn a bolt, but really no software I BOUGHT twenty years ago is still viable - the only software I used fifteen years ago or so that I still use today is Free Software. There is a message in that truth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
can I mod my toaster any way I wan't? Then my toaster is free. But not open-source, since I wouldn't know how to get the blueprint for the metal, the electronics etc.
So almost anything I buy is free, but not OS and not gratis.
First, there is the good old "free as in freedom (libre)" vs. "free as in beer". I think most slashdotters get that distinction.
Here's the thing, though. There can't be unlimited freedom (libre). If I were free to do anything I feel like, that impinges on your freedoms. My desired right to punch you in the face impinges on your right to personal security. These freedoms cannot coexist.
Upshot: which freedoms do you fight for, which do you value? Which has priority, which is right? Should people and/or corporations be free to earn an exclusive revenue stream from a creative or useful work that fits in the "IP" category? Or should there be, rather, unrestricted freedom to copy said works? Should a corporation/person be free to distribute a program as binary only, or must the public be free to view the source code?
I'm not trying to be redundant (as this may seem obvious to some), and I'm not trying to get everyone to repeat themselves in reply to my post. I'm just stating what I see to be an underlying theme in the discussion, which I think sometimes gets murky when people on multiple sides of the issue all argue for "freedom".
Stallman: "It's the GNU operating system, and the Hurd is its kernel."
Instantly reminded me of "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet"
also
Stallman: "When people forget that, they start drifting toward the practical but superficial values shared by the open source movement and Microsoft: the idea that the only thing that matters about your software is whether it gets your jobs done and what it costs." Sweet.
Stallman: "We will keep supporting Linux-based versions of the GNU system for as long as they remain popular."
At the end of all time, the galaxies will rush towars each other and all matter and energy will end up compressed into a gravitational singularity...thus the universe will disappear and nothing at all will remain...nothing, except the Free Software Foundation, of course, who will be there, invulnerable, immune to everything, waiting for the next big bang...
Richard Stallman: Any development of non-free software is harmful and unfortunate - that's the most ridiculous statement out of the entire interview. I so don't care if an application that came with my web-camera is free or not, it's not even funny. I don't care about the source to that app and I don't care about my ability to change it and redistribute it, in fact I don't want to do any of those things. Leave my non-free software alone it's not going to go away anyway.
...You know, it's no coincidence that we're having all this outsourcing. That was carefully planned. International treaties were designed to make this happen so that people's wages would be reduced. - That's also quite questionable. I don't think the corporations do anything just to annoy their employees, but they do follow a simple pattern of trying to minimize the cost.
Richard Stallman: It is better to develop no software than to develop non-free software. - a load of BS. Who in hell would have created computers in the first place, if it wasn't for IBM and their non-free software and non-free computers used for war? It's better to develop something than to develop nothing. The users themselves are not interested in development, they are interested in the results of their use of the applications. I am so not interested in developing most of the software I use, but this software does serve its purpose and I am glad I can buy it. If I had to wait for everything to be free, I would have been dead before seeing most free software equivalents of the apps that I use daily.
So if you find yourself in that situation, please don't follow that path. Please don't write the non-free program--please do something else instead. We can wait till someone else has the chance to develop a free program to do the same job. - Maybe RMS can wait for whatever free software, I can't. Sure, if it exists now, that's great, but it's not the case. Why shouldn't I use nonfree tax-return software? I will use it and recommend it too.
- I have two words for RMS in this case: Fuck You, RMS. I will write all the non-free software I wish and no-one is going to stop me. I also wrote my first software on paper because I did not have a computer, you are not the only one. You are not to dictate what kind of software I will develop. Why the hell is it about software anyway? How many non-free (sort of like closed source, electronics for example) things you buy, what should everyone stop working on proprietary systems and all of a sudden release everything for 'Free'? Not while I am around that won't happen. But I am antisocial like that.
Richard Stallman:
Richard Stallman: FTAA. The World Trade Organization. NAFTA. These treaties are designed to reduce wages by making it easy for a company to say to various countries, "which of you will let us pay people the least? That's were we're headed." And if any country starts having a somewhat increased standard of living, companies say "oh, this is a bad labor climate here. You're not making a good climate for business. All the business is going to go away. You better make sure that people get paid less. You're following a foolish policy arranging for workers of your country to be paid more. You've got to make sure that your workers are the lowest paid anywhere in the world, then we'll come back. Otherwise we're all going to run away and punish you." - This is just paranoia, the guy truly believes in the 'evil intent' of corporations and individuals. That is not impossible of course (with me in charge, for example, everything is always an evil intent,) but I don't believe all companies care enough about such a long term prospect as inflated wages in their specific country. RMS always looks too far into the future and he believes others do too, but people are mostly not philosophers, they are just realists.
Businesses very often do it, they move operations out of a country to punish that country. And I've recently come
You can't handle the truth.
was not even asked.
Richard, have you showered anytime in the past 20 years since you founded GNU?
bash: rtfm: command not found
I just don't get why the only ethical way for me to sell or buy software is to accompany it with an unrestricted source code license. It's like saying that the only ethical way to sell milk is in 8-ounce glasses. Surely the details of the transaction should be left to the transacting parties.
Of course I'd RATHER have the source code, just like I'd RATHER have unlimited ocean cruises and Swedish masseuses.
Any intentional invocation of Godwin's law is ineffectual!
Humorless sig goes here.
R. Stallman gets enough money and fame, alright. What about the thousands of the silent hard-working geeks toiling away for nothing? Toiling away for the "businessmen" network more easily, and "yuppies" make more money, and "party animals" to have a better sex life? The geeks gave it all away, and got nothing back. When I try to buy an apartment, nobody cares how much software I gave away. When I buy a car, nobody cares how much software I gave away. This "freedom" stuff has been going on for a while, and everyone benefitted, except for us. Take a look at The Rat and the Butterfly.
Yes, but OTOH, if Apple wants to improve that software, then they are working for me for free also. Just see what's happening with KHTML/Safari.
It's not slavery if you get to keep (and share) the fruits of your labor.
I believe that one of the reasons that Open Source is winning the terminology war with FSF is because it actually supports more freedom, while pointing out the real benefits of this model.
The reasons for the exemption are manifold and really very obvious:
Do you get it?
Seastead this.
Recall the asset tax exemption which has a very clear purpose and justification:
The vast majority of residential and small busienss real estate would become totally untaxed directly or indirectly. The middle class would be dramatically expanded by such a reformed tax system.The reasons for the exemption are manifold and really very obvious:
Do you get it?
Seastead this.
Recall the asset tax exemption which has a very clear purpose and justification:
The vast majority of residential and small business real estate would become totally untaxed directly or indirectly. The middle class would be dramatically expanded by such a reformed tax system. Such bankruptcy protection is routinely extended to retirement plans. The basic principle would probably be that a set dollar amount, say $100k, would be untaxed. If you wanted to live somewhere cheap and save up nearly $100k, you could do so without experiencing any taxes whatsoever. You'd never even have to file.The reasons for the exemption are manifold and really very obvious:
Do you get it?
Seastead this.
nt
Don't they both seem about 20 years away and always about 20 years away......
Fusion power - Generating enormus amounts of cheap power that will change the world. Just have to figure out how to make it work.
HURD - The operating system that will do all kinds of cool things and make it trivial to add things. Just have to rewrite it again.
Businesses very often do it, they move operations out of a country to punish that country. And I've recently come to the conclusion that frictionless international trade is inherently a harmful thing, because it makes it too easy for companies to move from one country to another. We have to make that difficult enough that each company can be stuck in some country that can regulate it.
Businesses move to punish countries? what a moron. businesses only do what they do to make more money. If they can make more money by moving to a place where the resources they need are cheaper then they will. The same way you will goto the store that sells the product you want at the lowest price. If you want to blame someone for the way economics works, blame yourself. Or go buy a more expensive product from a company that upholds your ideals.
He wants to restrict the rights of businesses but open up all source code as free for everyone? Does he think that businesses are these "things" that just exist magically and money just pours in? If you restrict businesses to the point that he wants, they wont be profitable, they will no longer exist. This guy is such a moron!!
Dunno -- seems to me Stallman has had a much longer time to look for a "replacement", which would again be folk with the same je ne sais quois. Torvalds has, from the start, claimed he is not irreplaceable. So what's behind that? I think S sees himself as a spiritual leader. T sees himself as a good project manager.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
These ideas will end up just like communism, just give it a decade.
Projects start up fast, but in the end they become ugly, inferior, unfriendly and rely on commercial solutions to keep them (and eat them) alive. Soon, commercial software will be vastly superior than its communist alternative which will no doubt share the same fate as Soviet Union and decompose itself.
It is only a passing observation but it seems that the rhetoric (obsessive usage of the word "freedom") is strikingly like the current US white house. I am not trolling here, I am only observing how an effective speaker like Stallman has to adapt to the climate in order to "sell" his ideas.
Had Linus stuck with the "no commercial use" NCU licence v0.01-0.12, he would have scared off RedHat, IBM and before that programmers who could justify using/developing Linux for their employers projects. Had he adopted a BSD licence he would have little to distinguish Linux, and FreeBSD would have dominated (BSD had a _huge_ headstart_.
I believe that many kernel developers were attracted specifically by the GPL, knowing that their work wouldn't be swallowed up by Apple. They didn't want to be food, and the GPL gives that protection.
Prayer: "./make all - I hope this works"
Charity: Give back to open source as you see fit.
Hajj: Just where *should* I go, except Redmond?
Observing Ramadan: From looking at some developers, getting them to not eat from sunrise to sunset for a month could be problematic.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Look up the phrase "sunk cost" and be enlightened. Regardless of the state of gcc before or after, Redhat was forced to commit the time to meet their own needs. That they chose to release those improvements to the world allowed other groups to avoid incurring the same cost. Ideally, if every group addressed the problem this way, the overall efficiency would increase and the aggregated sunk costs of all parties would be lowered.
-Hope
Please, get it completely right,
it's a GNU/Interview with GNU/Richard GNU/Stallman,
nothing else nothing more.
When was the last time you took a shower/bath?
I think delivering source is only fair. They paid for it. It would only become unfree if the client couldn't make changes or redistribute it.
they don't insist that we say TEE SEE PEE SLASH EYE PEE
People on fixed incomes, e.g., pensioners, are especially affected. After they have retired into homes with increasing property values, what is to keep them from losing them?
It seems to me that an *all* free software world would kind of hinder progress or at least prevent competition based on software (maybe that's the whole idea!).
Let's say company A is using a "free" CAD program to design ultra light chairs (the only CAD available since, in a perfect free world, all non-free softwares have disappeared) and thinks of a new way to improve it to attain a production increase and gain an advantage over its competition, company B (Note that the modification could just be fixing a complex and obscure bug).
Imagine that company A doesn't have the expertise to implement the software modification so it pays a freelance developer to modify the software under GPL (*).
Now, what would prevent the developer from freely distributing the modification he was paid to make (since the original software was under GPL)... which would eventually end up in the hands of company B.
So the situation is that company B is getting the improvement for free but company A had to pay for it.
Company A would have been better off not modifying the software in the first place.
With this scenario there isn't much drive for investment in software improvement and creativity.
What's wrong with this scenario? I'm sure I must be missing something within GPL.
I also know RMS considers custom sofware as different from non-free software but I fail to see the difference. Aren't all the users of any software customers? If not, how do you make the difference - are users of an internet browser customers? Users of a spreadsheet program? Users of a mathematical suite? Wouldn't all free software eventually become custom software?
(*) I also assume most professional softwares can't be realistically created and delivered for free - development of product is long, difficult and never over (maintenance).
Barry, is that you?
Yes, DEC's contribution is probably smaller. But: GNU project is far away from providing a complete system (no web browser, ssh server, init, windowing interface, RDBMS, desktop [yes, GNOME is far from a complete desktop]). So I do not buy an argument that GNU project provides complete system. This project provided a significant part of the system I use (and the licenses for even bigger part of my system), but I think it is still not enough to name the whole thing (including X11-licensed x.org, dual-licensed Perl, MPL-licensed Gecko, etc) GNU/Linux.
As for the second sentence I have quoted, I agree that GPL is very important contribution of FSF and is not substituable (except the dangerous "or (at your option) any later version" clause, which I deleted from GPL text for every software I wrote). However, I think all of the other GNU work is substituable - just look at *BSD - the only part of the GNU project they use is GCC compiler. And even that can be replaced (but GCC is still superior, which is the reason they use it, not because of its license). And as I said before, the credits for the current state of GCC does not go to FSF, but to the egcs team.
Back to the "GNU/Linux" debate: I used to live in a communist regime (which is hopefully gone forever now). Because of that I surely value every single freedom I have (including the freedom of using, modifying and distributing the GPL-licensed software). I just hope the freedom of naming the system I use as I want and the freedom of choosing the license of my code as I want are among those freedoms. I got very nervous when somebody tries to order me what names should I use or generally how should I speak/what should I think.
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
This post is really a plea for people to be a bit nicer to and about RMS. Take my word for it, in time he will come to be considered as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the Stallman photo in the interview strikingly similar to one Ron Jeremy?
Nicer to RMS?
RMS is not a "nice guy"?
Why should anyone be "nice" to someone that is incapable of being "nice" himsef?
RMS created this atmosphere of anger with his own mouth, now he has to live with it. Now he SHOULD live with it!
I totally agree with RMS about free software, but when it comes to the issue of economic freedom we split paths.
When I go into a store and buy something, noone takes a gun to my head and forces me to buy it, and noone takes a gun to theirs and forces them to sell it. We are engaging in a free activity.
Now maybe I can't get a better deal - that might be an argument for more economic freedoms that lead to more market activity, but that is not a reason to try and controll the prices people sell things at or where they get them from.
When I get a job, noone takes a gun to my employers head and forces him to hire me, and noone takes a gun to mine and forces me to work for them. It is a voluntary agreement, and an act of freedom.
Now maybe I can't do any better - that might be an argument for more freedoms and thus more opportunities, but not to make him hire people or coerce him to pay my salary even if it is deemed not be worth it for him any more.
The same is true when I hire someone from another country, or someone from another country hires me. Of if I buy and sell goods from another land.
RMS can clearly understand information freedoms, I wish he would understand economic freedoms too.
We began this interview via email, but later had to finish by telephone after Richard Stallman fell and broke his arm.
See - real programmers don't drink coffee. Real programmers drink beer! Lots of beer!
> Short version: GNU needed some heavy lifting.
> Some enlightened members of corporate America
> stepped up to the plate.
It's pretty obvious that you weren't there. I was.
EGCS wasn't a corporate efort, it wasn't philosophical, it wasn't political, it wasn't Red Hat (well, Cygnus). It was just the response of the community of GCC contributors, when RMS/FSF decided to stop accepting many of their contributions. (For political reasons, natch.)
So the contributors collectively forked the !@#$ thing. Cygnus hosted the EGCS repository. The community voted with its feet: they began sending their contributions to the EGCS repository instead of to GCC. Eventually RMS caved in and let EGCS have the name "GCC". Unfortunately, his price for that was that he got on the GCC Steering Committee, and he has used that seat ever since to impede technical progress (for political reasons).
Speaking as one of the contributors, it's a pity he caved. We were doing better without him.
I suspect that as technology becomes more advanced, what with robotics, AI and nanotechnology, then there will have to be some major reassessments of how to have a fair and productive economy.
It's time for people to start questioning the 'free market' ideologues, and assess how much this ideology actually contributes to the well-being of society and how much is actually just clever propaganda for maintaining the status of the wealthy.
mhack
Building a better ribosome since 1997
You're engaged in an activity which is governed by an enormous number of laws and regulations.
These say the shop can't refuse to serve you simply because you're better able to produce melanin than the next guy or wear a kippah, but it may be required to refuse service for some or all items if you've not yet been out of the womb for 570 megaseconds or have obviously already imbibed an elephant sufficiency of the product in question.
More laws say you're not allowed to sell "whipped cream" when it's really sweetened whipped raw pork fat plus additives, or include botulin with the burgers.
Laws that prevent the shop from opening on a Sunday or running continuous footage of cum-dripping anal assaults on twelve-year-olds through the waiting-room television in order to attract custom.
The stuff you buy was manufactured and/or imported, then transported and wholesaled under the aegis of another tonne of laws. It's not free, it's not anything like it. Ditto for the circumstances of employment you posit.
As it happens, I also disagree with much of RMS's economics as well as some of his personal philosophy (but do agree with a lot of what he says). OTOH, what you're spouting here is dangerous starry-eyed nonsense, and you don't appear to recognise it for the blind idealism that it is.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This has been said before, and not by me:
GPL gives freedom (to control the relicensing of his code) to the developer by placing limits (only to GPL projects) on the distribution of the code.
BSD gives freedom (of distribution) to the code, by placing limits (on control of relicensing) on the developer.
You could go even further in either direction of the spectrum.In the BSD direction you will hit the public domain licenses (complete freedom of code distribution, complete lack of developer relicensing control), and in the GPL direction you will hit proprietary licenses (complete lack of code distribution freedom, complete control by the developer).
So it depends on what "freedom" you're talking about - not "speech" vs "beer", but producer vs product. To have one neccesarily requires the sacrifice of the other, and there are many places on the spectrum to choose from. If your concern is with the freedom of your code to spread and be used anywhere, BSD is more free than GPL, and public domain is the most free. If your concern is with your freedom to control the use of your code, then GPL is more free than BSD, and proprietary licences afford you the most freedoms.
The choice is yours.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Entire paragraph is missing, and it seems that one of my stronger-worded replies belongs to the previous paragraph.
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job. - I have two words for RMS in this case: Fuck You, RMS. I will write all the non-free software I wish and no-one is going to stop me. I also wrote my first software on paper because I did not have a computer, you are not the only one. You are not to dictate what kind of software I will develop. Why the hell is it about software anyway? How many non-free (sort of like closed source, electronics for example) things you buy, what should everyone stop working on proprietary systems and all of a sudden release everything for 'Free'? Not while I am around that won't happen. But I am antisocial like that.
You can't handle the truth.
You're probably are aware of this, but for the benefit of the general readership... I once read an article that had the following quote from Bill Gates. I found it compelling enough to copy and paste to a quotes.txt file. It illustrates that there are some very good reasons why these things go under-inforced. It's very planned (Dons tinfoil hat):
"As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."-- Bill Gates on software piracy in Asia
If anyone out there can provide the link to the original article, I'd be very appreciative!
---
That would be a shame, but the overwhelming picture I got was of someone interested in promoting software freedom.
Your characterizations are a little over the top. Prominent members of the Open Source Movement would have no argument with RMS' statements, but would object to being called "like Microsoft" or "corrupting". Open Source does appeal to "practical" people who don't mind using non-free software when it gets a job done. That's something that RMS thinks is a mistake and that is a real difference of opinion that's worth pointing out. Linux Torvalds consistently describes himself as an "engineer" more concerned with getting things done than freedom. RMS is right to say he dissagrees with that and tell you why.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's IMHO why RMS condemns publicly distributed non-free software, while custom software that is never distributed to outsiders is okay to him. In the latter case, it might be better in some cases for the user to share the code with the world, but then it is the user's choice not to share it, and he would have made that choice no matter what. In the former case the license basically forced people not to share, unless they are willing to break the law, so it changes people's behavior for the worse, since in some cases it is very beneficial to share, but general disrespect of the law is undesirable for the society.
I own a refrigerator. That one thing is controlled by one person alone. Me. I guess that makes me anti-social. I guess I'm harming society. Oh well.
That's odd, when I look at my fridge I find I can order parts myself, or hire any number of people to repair it.
If you have bought a fridge that only you can repair, then I guess you're just a blithering idiot since the rest of us manage just fine. But then I guess you proved that already by missing my point. Oh Well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'll have you know that with those long black hair, those soft dark eyes, that bushy moustache, and the gorgeous beard (no wonder he's a freedom fighter!), some of us are quite ready and willing, eager infact, to please :)
WOW!!! I for one am all hot and wet just thinking about getting fucked by him!
Bring on the RMS Porn I say!
Abuzar
Yes, exactly, and well said. If I wasn't an AC, I'd mod you up :-).
Where would we be without the GPL?
Where would we be without the FSF?
Heck, where would we be without GCC?
The fact that FOSS even *exists* is because of RMS.
If FOSS is bad for the industry, how about patents on software algorithms/ideas? If Microsoft gets enough patents, they can require software companies to pay a license for their patents which will only increase the cost of software and limit software development since some companies can't afford or won't pay licenses. Capitialism works best with competition but closed source using patents/copyrights to protect their code will retard new software ideas. I view FOSS as a way to get good software to people that can't afford the closed source versions or as an alternative to piracy. Software industry will never be significantly hurt by FOSS since most people are dependant on Windows/Office/anti-virus/spyware removers. FOSS may indead help rejunivate software companies by coming up with ideas for programs people may need like an Apache/MySQL receipe datbase design or a calender to track mentration cycles. Commercial software tends to suck. Do tech support and commercial software flaws are rampent.
The big difference I see is since I'm advocating fixing the tax rate to the interest rate on national debt, and Islam prohibits usury, fixing the rate would be somewhat problematic.
However I don't think Zakat Al Mal the primary source of revenue for Islamic states, is it?
Seastead this.
No, thank you.
Stallman needs to update and refresh his soap box material. His arguments boil down into petty semantics, which make him look like a doofus.
There I was of course thinking of Gates - the reality of many larger companies is that the direction of a product is indeed at the whim of company leadership - technology companies are prone to this being one man (Ellison, Gates, Jobs, etc.)
Thus buying into products from these comapnies is indeed putting yourself at the mercy of the direction you choose to go. Buying Word is no different.
Even knowing this I choose to use Apple products for home computing, but in taht case I like the trend he has shown and wish to support it. At least there the tendancy is for open formats.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The Workplace:
JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job."
Then so shall I. I'll lose all my worldly posessions, not to mention my wife, but I'll be FREE!!
Hold on a second. My wife. Hey, I really will be free. This guy's on to something.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
My theory is that subconsciously people feel uncomfortable around RMS because they recognize the debt they (we) owe to him.
Nice theory, but not the case.
I personally abhor people who go around saying that I'm antisocial, or evil, and who condemn me without knowing the first thing about me.
That's why I hate the guy - because he started it.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The same people would probably look at people that eat meat, and be baffled as to why otherwise nice and kind people take to eating meat, and at the same time, not give any (what they consider) sensible justification for their act.
This is not meant as a flame, but people have varying definitions of morality, and even if you don't agree with them, you should at least acknowledge them. To you and RMS, working on proprietary software is amoral. To some vegetarians, eating meat is amoral. To Muslims, drinking alcohol is amoral.
Every statement you have been made could have been made by any of those groups, wondering why people write proprietary software/eat meat/drink alchohol, and do not follow the teachings or RMS/the vegans/Mohammed. (I am assuming that you do not happen to be a Muslim vegetarian free software advocate at the same time)
He came up with a similar phrase to differentiate GNU/Linux when he was doing his Saint IGNUcius (a saint in the "Church of Emacs") skit. As it says on the site:
(Notably it's just a joke he does for a laugh, he's not *quite* that mad ;))
I would like to personally thank you for taking yourself out of the competition for all the interesting jobs out there. We need more people like you.