Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words
soloport writes "C|Net has published an article, written by RMS, in which Stallman points out that Gates is merely calling the kettle communist. Toward the end of the article, Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words. Back in 1991, Bill said, in an internal memo: 'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.' Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."
Or it could be said that Bill just took his own advice. Depends on what he was looking to accomplish.
"Stop repeating everything I'm saying!"
"Stallman's a dork."
"Stallman's a... HEY!"
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
Idealism dies when you actually get put in the big chair.
How saddeningly true - the more patents there are, the less innovation, the less motivation for innovation. Ironically, I was going to use Microsoft as an example, before I realized it.
All your searching needs (and free money!) - 4Lancer.net
Gates is merely doing what's best for the stockholders. Oh wait. That's HIM.
If Apple (or Xerox) had patented the GUI, we would still be stuck with DOS!
So, if M$ patents everything it can get its hands on, what innovations would it stop?
...but first...
RTFA! I think he makes a valid, lucid point here and does a great job explained why software patents tend to be evil.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Now, will this story actually get read by Microsoft-hugging MIS types and pointy-haired bosses?
;) ) from a lentil bean.
The problem with Stallman is that, brilliant as he is, he only ever seems to garner attention from those who are already on his side. He preaches to the choir and only to the choir, which is kind of useless when 99% of the world wouldn't know a Linux (err, GNU/Linux
What would it take to get a story like this onto the desk of every Gates-worshipping, MSFT-stock-owning, spyware-infested-Windows-machine-running, Gartner-Group-report-reading, pointy-haired boss?
And... holy crap, Stallman trimmed his beard???
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
For those of us with a few years between school and the present, I'd ask you if you really wanted to be judged by what you think now, or what you thought then? Does it really matter that you're opinion of a decade ago doesn't gel with your opinion of today?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I thought the best line was: "Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense."
Of course, he's twisting the meaning of things as much as Gates has, but of course that's the point.
sigs are a waste of space
Technically, Mr. Gates is right. The whole Open Source idea is a communist idea, not in terms of Soviet Russia (where software owns you) but in terms of a community of workers all banding together to produce their own labor, instead of selling themselves to the capitalists.
Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about.
What the Open Source community has is what all communist countries thus far have lacked, which is the admission of only like-minded people. For a commune to work, the citizens must all have similar ideas with respect to how to interact with the outside world. In a nation, where all citizens just become communists, this simply isn't possible.
fsh
Can you site an instance where M$FT ever sued someone on patent grounds? Remember, we're talking patents, not copyrights or software piracy.
As far as I know, companies like M$FT take out patents to defend themselves, not to launch offensives against their competition.
He spelled it wrong. It meant to say calling the kettle GNU/communist.
It's not uncommon to see young companies have the same type of attitude but along the way, as they become big, their strategies have to change based on the experience they have gained.
RMS is the driving idiological force behind GNU. People don't live forever. One day, someone else is going to take over and how do we know that the same ideals will be followed. More than that, how do we know that Stallman won't just decide one day that he's tired of living and dieing for free software and will shave his beard, take a shower and go on a date that doesn't charge by the hour?
Microsoft was the underdog for a long time. They came in cheaper and good enough. GNU/Linux right now is coming in as the cheaper/good enough solution. While there are some people that use free software on principle, the people paying for free software are doing it because it makes sense in their business... When something else makes sense, the money will follow.
One day, something else will take that spot and you're going to see a lot of whining and tantrums most likely followed by agressive tactics. To be perfectly honest, you see that now with competing open source technologies.
So, instead of seeing how Bill Gates has changed... consider this a warning as how F/OSS might possibly change in the future.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Every important element of the modern GUI (windows, icons, menus, pointing device) was demonstrated by Doug Engelbart in 1968. His system even had something that looked a lot like a blog. The patents all would have expired long ago.
I knew how to rule the world in 1991 but unfortunately it changed. For the better.
Yeah, Linux happened and Stallman's free software vision took off.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Many of the news /. posts, are based on the work of RMS.
Many don't agree with him, i respect that. But even when you don't agree with many things he says, most of you are using an operating system that exists because of Richard's Work. You are also using thousands of lines of code that he wrote by himself. He has proved in the past to have been right, and the fact that he continued with his fight, even against what most others told him, has benefited the whole community.
So, don't agree with him if you don't want to, but at least hear what he has to say, you will learn a lot, and it's the least we can do to thank him for everything he has given us.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
So clearly the pot is a pinko commie. Probably a liberal too. Obviously not Revere Ware.
And the brethren went away edified.
The hammer calling the sickle communist.
FTFA: "If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git." - Linus Torvalds More people really need to take his advice...
"Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
I guess the big fear right now is that at some point Microsoft, when it feels sufficiently threatened, may start using its patents to beat down open source products. Whether that materializes or not, I dunno, but I simply don't have much faith in Microsoft's good intentions. I suppose some things, like Samba, may be at least partially protected because of IBM's claims on Lanserver, but who knows. Maybe they will try to beat Linux down by claiming that people who want to mount FAT or NTFS partitions have to pay a licensing fee.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is also part of communism where the group tries to centralize all of the means of production. In other words, all productive activity is to be controlled and organized from one place, and production for individual benefit becomes illegal.
Now, does that sound more like what MS is trying to do, or what Open Source people are trying to do?
It sounds to me like that one place is Redmond, and that for free/open source software, there is no such place or controlling entity.
With free/open source, anyone who doesn't like a development group's decisions can fork the code and develop their own code base. So, your comparison is not a fair one.
Early history of CIFS
The relationship between Samba and Microsoft wasn't always so contentious. In 1996, when Microsoft was just introducing CIFS, it had to contend with competition such as the Sun-Novell alliance behind Sun's WebNFS software. Microsoft at that time pledged that it was "making sure that CIFS technology is open, published and widely available for all computer users," and it noted that Samba used CIFS.
Microsoft submitted the first version of CIFS to the Internet Engineering Task Force at the time, a first step in the standardization process. That process went nowhere, but a 1997 version of that submission is still available on the Internet. The submission made no mention of two related patents, which Microsoft received in 1993 and 1995. In addition, Microsoft shared information in a series of CIFS conferences that began in 1996.
The patents, however, rose to prominence this year.
In the technical document describing CIFS in Windows NT 4.0, Microsoft prohibits companies from using the information in software covered by the GPL, which includes Samba. Microsoft requires readers of the document who plan to implement its description to sign a license agreement that raises the specter of patent infringement.
Specifically, the agreement grants a company a royalty-free license to two Microsoft patents but prohibits the developer from using the CIFS information in software that would subject that company to "intellectual property rights-impairing licenses," including the GPL.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
"The transfomers are WAAAY better than G.I. Joe" - me
"Seriously, I didn't sleep with that woman. " - Governor Clinton
"Remember what I said about taxes.. uhm, psyche!" - George Bush 1
"Don't make me tell daddy" - George Bush 2
"I bet I could make money on this internet thing" - Steve Case
Ahhh.. good ole '91
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Doh
In lefty terms:
Capitalism=market based, means of production are owned by a few.
Mutualism=market based, means of production are owned by all.
Communism=non market based, means of production are owned by all.
Stalinism=non market based, means of production are owned by a few.
Obviously that's a very loose set of definitions, based around the Trot line, and changes depending on which lefty cult the person you're talking with belongs to.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
There's an entire thread devoted to discussion of how much Stallman needs to "get a haircut," since of course how you wear your hair is an indicator of the worth of your ideas.
Imagine if Einstein hadn't worn a crewcut his entire life. Where would we be then?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about."
Of course it is. Marx and Engels talked about man tools, and how, a man , in orther to be truly free, should have access to the tools he needs. If the tools he needs to work, are owned by the rich, they become their masters, and can have him dominated.
It's the same argument that Stallmans points out, about software, and, IMHO, it's a fundamental issue.
There is a serious misguided idea that most USA citizens have, which is that communism = URSS, and that's an utter bullshit. The URSS was a corrupt dictatorship fighting for world domination (And we had 2 corrupt dictatorships fighting for world domination in that years, now there is only one left). Communism is an economic and social system, that (just like Capitalism) can work ok if implemented by honest people, or be a terrible weapon if implemented by a corrupt government. This is true for both systems. The issue is in the society, not on the system.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. If Microsoft sells Windows CDs for $100 and I can figure out how to copy my CD that I bought from them and sell copies for $1, nobody should interfere with me.
So now companies come to government and say other people should give them money for something created without their further labor. Even worth, they want to tax an inventor who came up with their idea independenly. Any why? Because they "worked hard and they are good for the society"? Well cry me a river!
That's social protection, and companies don't really need it. If not for patents and copyrights, businesses will form consortium to joinly invent something they can all then manufacture. And in particular software companies will sell personalized support for their software. Like a poolman, there will be a computerman that comes to my house and teaches me how to use software for reasonable rate. There will be some shake up and loss of efficiency, and maybe Microsoft will have 5 billion in the bank instead of 40 billion. But it will not be all bad, and much of the money will be in the pockets of Microsoft customers who are now overcharged for whatever wealth Microsoft actually created.
We need social protection. We work for the good of the society and already don't get royalties, don't get paid again and again for the work we only did once. It's only fair we get some type of royalties first - like job security and the company that outsourced jobs paying for retraining costs for layed off workers. Then, once we are well protected, we'll think about shelling out a few bucks for their CDs that we can easily make ourselves.
By the way, I am not arguing for unlimited social protection or that capitalism doesn't have benefits. But patents and copyrights are definitely NOT capitalism.
...of the bill gates quote
The solution is patenting as much as we can.
In the article, RS is implying that Bill Gates once agreed with him on patents, and the quote he gives would make it seem so....however, if you include the bit that he "conveniently" left out, it reads quite the opposite, gates stance on patents has always been the same, and against RSs stance. Nice to know that Microsoft isn't the only one capable of FUD...well done RS.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
...
I don't know about you, but by reading this, Bill's intentions become clear from the start. Isn't he instructing his staff to patent as much as they can? Funny how RMS would hide this essential piece of the quote in [...]
You're just going to have to trust me. And stop masturbating so much, it makes me sad.
I've tended to consider it ironic on the few occasions when Gates and RMS have indirectly traded barbs...Namely because the two men actually have far more in common IMHO than I suspect either of them would be comfortable to admit. I'm reminded here of a scene from Spiderman when the Green Goblin tells Spidey, "You and I are not so different."
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Maybe. But if you read the interview where he called us all modern day communists, he explicitly mentions the patent system. I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret it the way RMS did. Bill Gates was kind of vague and ambigous, but that's what happens when you use confusing expressions like IP.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold obviously saw the intellectual property light: patent it no matter what and you'll own the toll-booth. Stallman's perspective is probably too little, too late and Gates' head has probably been here for years.
Myhrvold started a company five years ago (Intellectual Ventures) that is focused on a strategy to "create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products.">
How is he doing this? As it says in the article, "To generate patentable ideas, Intellectual Ventures hired a dozen top scientists as part-time consultants to participate in several all-day gabfests each month, which the company calls "invention sessions." Lawyers transcribe the discussions, which can range from biotech to nanotech to solid-state physics, and follow up on the most promising ideas with patent applications." He's obviously the most visible person involved in this activity. Pretty soon (if not already) *any* idea you have had better be fully patent-researched before you embark on a new adventure.
IMHO, this activity by people like Myhrvold (and the bleak state of the US Patent Office) is what is going to seriously hamper open source innovation and people taking risks to start up companies.
It's amazing that labelling someone a communist is still considered an effective strategy. Patents are scary not just because developers can be sued for writing software, but because distributors can be sued and so can end users. If software patent enforcement becomes common place the few developers who try to continue developing software will be forced underground. That is, they'll put their software in the public domain and disavow all responsibility for it. But that won't be enough because distributors will have to be underground too, else they can be sued, and end users will have to keep their illicit software quiet also. The end result will be so horrifying that perhaps even normal people will notice it. By then the software industry will be long dead though.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wait, lemme get this straight.. When people are the underdog, they support measures to even the playing field, and when they're dominating, they support measures to keep themselves on top?
Holy sh*t, people are only out for themselves? When did that start?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
When Microsoft was tiny, patents were bad for them; now they find them useful, simple as that.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Very few patent disputes with big companies ever become lawsuits, and it takes a while for lawsuits over patents to be filed (in fact, it can be in the interest of companies to wait a while). Microsoft has only started getting on the patent bandwagon fairly recently and they have already been throwing their weight around with patent-related threats.
Furthermore, the notion of "defensive patents" is nonsense. In order to defend an idea against a patent claim, all you need to do is publish it (you still need the lawyers to actually win in court, but you need those also if you have a patent).
The term "defensive patent" is really a euphemism for becoming a member of a patent cartel: the "giants" that Gates talks about, companies like IBM, Apple, Xerox, etc., have amassed huge patent portfolios that they are cross licensing. As a result, they can operate almost completely free of worries over patent infringement, while small companies that don't have cross licensing agreements are at constant risk of being put out of business by any member of that club. Well, Gates's solution to the problem has been to become a member of the cartel.
So, what "fundamental economics principles" are you citing? Your developmental cost ("opportunity cost", cost of living, etc.) is part of "sunk cost." (And I believe one of the fundamental econmic principle was this: "Sunk costs are sunk", and another one "Sunk costs are really sunk".) I was referring to "marginal cost", which has to do producing an additional unit---i.e. copies---and it may be considered a "fundamental principle" (I'm not sure if it is, IANAE), but it is clear that "price of a good should exceed its marginal cost." Softwares (and intellectual property in general) are unique in that the marginal cost is phenomenally low---whether that justifies a phenomenally low price is arguable, but it is arguably the strongest blow against $200 softwares (which is one of the consequences of proprietary softwares).
Now, with this understanding, does my point about RMS (and probably OSS) not breaking any "fundamental economic principles" get across to you? Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.
PS. BTW, you are forgetting that the corporations' support of software patents (which RMS is opposing) are nullifying the very force of licenses that you are so fond of. Would you like an "artistic patent" so that no artist/writer may "steal" an idea from another?
Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers ... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is...
I dont think bill needs to learn much from RMS.
By this yardstick, Bill has nothing to learn from Mahatma Ghandi either... not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.
But a conservative is not a Republican (at least not the Engish kind). Stallman could actually be considered a traditional conservative in Burke's definition -- preserving the institutions of the country (i.e. freely available softwre -- the commons), while raising the condition of the people (users of the common software).
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
Hate to screw up a good rant, but software is, by definition, a public good.
A public good is non-excludable, and non-rivalrous in consumption. That is, like a streetlight, you can't keep people from benefitting by it (non-excludable), and you don't lose any of your benefits when others benefit by it (non-rivalrous). Schooling is not a public good, since it is easily excludable: just close the door of the school room.
No.
Some public goods can be made artificially excludable by law. Lighthouses are a good example of this (lighthouses in England were once private, for-profit, very lucrative businesses). Software is another example of a public good which can easily be made artificially excludable. That's ``...why we have licenses'': to artificially turn a public good (information) into a private good.
We originally began doing that because our constitution allows (but doesn't require) our congress to grant these monopolies:
Whether it is still a good idea for Congress to grant those monopolies to all software creators is an empirical question, and the answer may be no. If we can identify any cases in which patents or copyrights are hindering progress in the sciences and useful arts, Congress would have no authority to grant those exclusive rights in those cases.
See what I've been reading.
Software Patents? Who needs them?
Patents would/will (and maybe in some cases already do) only slow developement, software, hardware, doesn't matter.
Company A - Has an idea, patents it
then
Company B - Get's cought and forced to pay up.
or
Company B - Is forced to re-invent another way to do the some thing (re-inventing the wheel)
This is exacly what's holding us, the human species back. We could share ideas and/or methods and concentrate on support and improvement.
Company A - Invents, and releases to public
then
Company B - Takes the idea and improves on it,
releases to public
then
Company C - Takes the work of Company C and further improves on it. And releases it.
If the big companies didn't play this childish game (which they don't need to, they already have dominance/influence because they are big companies) we as species would be way ahead of where we are today.
Even if you didn't want someone to know how you did something. You could refuse to show your code. In this case companies would compete on better implementation of thesome idea.
Everone wants somethingm for nothing...but not at expense of keeping the little business out. IMHO...
Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.
As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from ... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.
if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.
I can't tell if you are serious here. GPL is a clever mechanism to protect our rights from those who would take them, using the villain's own legalese. If he would not use it as a weapon, the whole thing would be pointless.
if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.
I happen to agree that GNU deserves very considerable credit for Linux, far more so then any other component provided by others. The GNU/Linux campaign is perheaps unwise from the PR point of view, but it has all the moral justification it needs.
free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.
Do you know the beauty of free software? You don't have to use it, you don't have to contribute under GPL, you can do what you want with your own projects. What you just said is "Meeee! I wanna to make others make software for Meeee under Myyyy terms!! Everyone, gimmeeee!". Somehow I suspect a conversation on this subject with you is waste of time.
I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed.
You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.
I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.
I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.