Slashdot Mirror
RMS Weighs in on BitKeeper Debacle
mshiltonj writes "You know its what we've all been waiting for: RMS weighs in on the BitKeeper debacle. An excerpt: "I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient."
Now let's get back to actually working on this replacement...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Richard Stallman is a nut who would kill the entire software industry if he had his way.
If all software was "free" according to Stallman's definition, there would be no incentive for students to enter into the software industry (we're already seeing this in the US). That will lead to a lack of skilled programmers, and eventual stagnation and death of the entire software industry (including "free" software).
I am the maverick of Slashdot
My guess would be their message will be exactly the same (or Linus's will be, given he controls the project). Bitkeeper nonwithstanding, their argument will still be use the best tool for the job. They might be more inclined to think about the potential costs of non-Free software, but their overall philosophy is unlikely to make a significant change.
It's sad, but most people nowadays (including me, for that matter) will take the practical way over the idealistic way. RMS gets pissed (if I read this right) because people by and large steadfastly refuse to be idealists. I would be curious to ask him what his take would be on someone who thinks it is idealistic to promote capitalism and the economy (and hence a better standard of living, at least in their minds) by refusing to give anything away free. My guess is he would say they are dead wrong, tragically wrong, or even criminally wrong, but I'll bet he would find that person less exasperating on some level because they were acting on principle rather than expedience.
I don't say I agree with RMS - in fact in general I tend to be rather pragmatic about this sort of thing. But my pragmatic thinking basically boil down to:
1) We live in a highly litigious society
2) I have a finite amount of money
3) Commercial software is expensive for my income
4) Most of my software use is not the kind of use where the software Must Work. A few bugs or missing features aren't the end of the world.
5) Should I happen to create something with software I want to sell commercially (let's say a book) I don't want to have to worry about Microsoft coming after me for improper licensing and demanding a chunk of royalties or something equally fun.
6) Any kind of legal action, even that with little to no merit, is enough to cause major headaches.
7) Hence, in balance, there is no reason for me to either pay $$$ for commercial software or pirate it when there are workable, free alternatives.
This has some exceptions - I use Acrobat Reader for example, which is only free as in beer but allows me to fill out tax forms. But in general I prefer tools with licenses that cost no money, demand no information, don't expire, and at least in theory allow me and/or anyone to fix them when they break. That's what meets my needs.
Maybe, in some sense, it could be argued that ideals ARE practical, because the long term consequences of going without them don't tend to be good.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I believe your comment was a joke, and the GP obviously was, but it's silly to assume that just because someone wrote a program that he'd use it for that function...
:-)
:-)
Even when it's something you wrote by yourself (i.e.: instead of being told to by your boss/teacher/whatever), you might just not be the target market. Around 95 I wrote a nice shareware comm program (for use with BBSs - BRCOMM), which was great for newbies.
Most of the time, I used another comm program myself ({COMMO}), which was *not* trivial to setup, but was very powerful and much better for advanced users.
Of course, I avoided saying that to my users
There are also other possible reasons, such as your program is just something you whipped up in a hurry and barely usable, but that never happened to me...
I've wondered about this myself. In an essay (one of the ones in "Free Software, Free Society", and assuredly on his webpage or fsf's as well) he mentions that it is acceptable to run non-free software in order to develop a free alternative- so, it's acceptable to run Unix until a Linux kernel and a bunch of free tools enable development on a free platform, it's acceptable to have a PC running windows to make sure you can interoperate with Word, etc.
;)
I find myself seeing his points but being unwilling to condemn closed source stuff. I guess that puts me more in the open source camp than the free software camp, but I do agree that the freedom you get with the source code an a friendly license are reassuring on many levels beyond simply getting better software.
(To avoid a half-troll myself, I'd like to point out that RMS's categories of software are disputed by more than a few, the Free/Open duality being attacked in particular)
The fact that he's idealogically hard edged is *why* he's controversial, recall.
Anyway, I'm glad of the announcement. I was hoping he'd throw in a final word after everyone else ran around, spurting blood.
Reading RMS is like a guilty pleasure.
To answer your question, my understanding is that RMS would rather have you develop a free alternative instead of ignoring the task, and in doing so solve the problem for you and the others that come after you.
Thanks for explaining your reasons. I also dislike being foed with no explanation.
:) ) I've actually read a lot of what RMS has written in the past, and I agree with most of it. There is no reason why we should be restricted from doing anything we want with our computers. We are not restricted in using hammers and nails (compilers and linkers) with wood that we purchased (the PC itself) and our own ideas written down as a diagram (source code) to make a useful object like a chair (software). So why apply artifical financial barriers to software? The businesses that rely on profit from software will always be there because there are always some people who don't want to build their own software (or furniture). FOSS is not a problem. The people who want to control what we do with comptuers are.
My view is simply this: I should be allowed to do whatever I want to with my computer with no limitations except one. That limitation is to make sure that I am not negatively impacting anyone else. This is why I choose to use FOSS over proprietary software. I'm less interested in the political and philosophical squabbles involved. At the end of the day, the computer is a tool for me to accomplish whatever task is important to me. There should be no financial barriers to those tasks. As long as FOSS consinutes to provide viable alternatives to proprietary commercial software, I will lean towards FOSS. The software itself doesn't matter, it's what you can do with it.
My original post was actually just meant to be a "conversation starter". (Read flamebait.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
So many posts saying this or something similar, it's almost too frustrating to actually reply. Here I go...
It's absolutely possible to make money using free software, and make a very decent amount of money. Personally, I run a free software business in Germany. I recommend, install, and maintain free software for my customers -- big, well-paying corporations. I write free software for some of them, and I'm being paid for the software I write, just like any other worker is paid for the hours he spends working. It pays off tremendously well both for me, and the companies who employ me.
What the free software movement is against is to hide the source code of your software from the people who use it, just so you can make even more money out of it. But this is not necessary. The idea of the free software movement is a different economy where everybody can live well, and share what they know, and create. And this is possible economically, as I continue to experience every day.
Sorry, I just had to say it.
...he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software projects
I don't recall reading this before, but let's assume that McVoy DID deny access to his software to people to whom he had once granted access.
THIS is the reason why non-free software, in its current form, is a scary thing. Most licenses can be modified at any time, without notice, by the licensor. Bill Gates could, in theory, tell the whole world tomorrow "You can no longer use Windows."
Stallman promotes four freedoms; of those, the freedom to run programs as you wish for any purpose is what most consumers are interested in. Consumers could EASILY be persuaded to pursue this freedom through the political process, since this is the one that, if abused, would affect them the most. We have here a classic case of abuse of this freedom: McVoy takes away access to his software that he had once granted.
I would have preferred to see RMS saying "See? SEE? THIS is why I emphasize freedom!I Instead of emphasizing this evidence, he berates those too foolish to believe his dogma. I place myself firmly in the camp of those who believe his dogma, but only because I have seen and believe the evidence that his dogma is correct. Burying that evidence, as he has done, does no one any good.
And yet, you think RMS is the bad guy. Wow.