Slashdot Mirror
ZNet interviews Richard Stallman
ProgressiveCynic writes "ZNet has just published an interview with Richard Stallman. Much of the interview will be review for Slashdot folks, intended to introduce ZNet's audience to the free software movement, but many interesting bits remain including a discussion on the outlawing of free software, patents as applied to literature, and this quote: 'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"
RMS > You could not run free applications on such a system (sic, trusted computing). If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
In other words. You Must Pay the Microsoft Tax.
Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.
Who will guard the guards?
In an otherwise informative article, I learned that Mr Stallman is yet another person doesnt know what the hell fascism is (nor do most people who throw around the term "Bush Regime"). :rolleyes:
I quote RMS
"Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally."
If you're going to throw the F word around at least learn what it means. Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler. It is a pragmatic form of government when it comes to business. If anything, it functions under a permanent war economy with the major industries cooperating. In other words, it is a centralized economy that still retains private property and freedom of commerce.
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Does anyone care? Probably not, but I have to try.
PS:
I'll have some ridiculous replies accusing me of being a Bush supporter (hardly).
Free software has a much better chance of working than Communism (yes, I know, it has never been truly implemented, etc). Unlike a government for a country, not everyone has to be in on it. If you live in a "communist" nation, you fall under communist rule. However, free software and non-free software can mix. People can use one, or the other, or both. Provided that there is a critical mass of people in the free software community, and there is, we should be just fine.
If you're saying Linus could've written all of the GNU programs himself, you're way off mark. The truth is, they needed each other, and both communities put in a ton of work, hence GNU/Linux. No, it isn't short, and it isn't catchy, but it is hardly a power grab or anything similar.
James P. Barrett
Either you don't work in the software industry or you work for Microsoft (or you're still in school) but you apparently don't have the slightest idea how the real world works.
When you get a work working on software, it statistically *never* is writing one of those things that ends up in a box in your local shop.
Writing software is fiddling with an application that's internal to the company you are currently working for or which ends up embedded in the entrails of some sort of device (or of a web site).
This you can absolutely do with free software and you can often liberate tools that you created while working on your main product.
As for working freelance, it's something else entirely. But most such customizing jobs are subcontracted to large service firms, not individuals.
Or you can specialize in working with small companies in which case you'll have the same problem every budding entrepreneur has, whether he sells software services or diapers: finding customers.
Welcome to the real world (you should have taken the other pill).
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
That his intensity of focus could also make him an object of ridicule is a natural side effect of said dedication. i doubt I'd be able to talk to the guy about software or legal issues for more than a handful of syllables before the punching instinct kicked in, but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?
You obviously have no clue about what your talking about.
Millions of people depend and use GNU software everyday. Why do you think that RMS tries to tell you to say: "GNU/Linux" and not just "Linux".
This is because not only do you use GNU for their compiler the most common userland tools and programs in Linux are almost wholey GNU.
GNU Bash, GNU tar, Gnome, CVS, GTK, Gimp, Glibc There are literally hundreds of GNU programs used around Linux distros.
Hell if you don't like Gnome GNU has a entire other desktop system to choose from.. Window Maker + GNUStep.
Try to remove all GNU software from your Linux system and see how far you get.
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
People go: Oh, why don't you just call it Apache/GNU/Linux since you have lots of apache-sponsored applications?
Well the thing is is that without Apache you'd still have a working OS. Apache isn't the only Free web server around...
Without GNU there would be no workable Linux distro.
If you use Linux for a living you depend on GNU and GNU Software to do it.
Even if you don't use Linux and use something like Solaris.. Solaris userland is crap. Best way to improve Solaris for day to day use as a workstation and server is to install a bunch of GNU software on it. And it's similar situation for the BSD's although it's not nearly as bad.
Hell even Apple uses GCC to build OS X.
To say GNU software as unsucccessfull.. your completely wrong.
In fact the GNU project is one of the most successfull software projects ever created. It's wildly successfull.
The goal was to create a Free software OS for using Free software for Freedom-liking individuals.
Just taking GCC.. It's one of the most ubiquious development tools ever created. Probably the most popular software compiling suite ever created. You can build C programs, fortran programs, Java programs, C++ programs, ada programs. It works on VAX, on x86 variants, on POWER/PPC varients, and pretty much every other hardware platform created in modern times.
Apple, IBM, Redhat, and many other companies put development time and money into it.
Think about it. They give it away for no-cost and for Free.
If that is not successfull then tell me what is?
So what if nobody uses the kernel, almost every other peice of software that was ever created or ever joined that project is used buy buches of people.
GNU/Linux is the 2nd most common OS anywere. It's used in everything from super computers to wrist watches to toasters.
Go back in time on Google groups and you can find usenet postings from when GNU was just starting and you'll find people saying stuff like: "that RMS is entertaining and has lovely ideas about software, but nobody is ever going to make a compiler like $LONG_FORGOTTEN_COMPILER and give it away for free!"
or
"Well GNU is funny stuff, but no way it will ever come close to $DEAD_OR_DYING_UNIX_VERSION in terms of capabilities, much less convince developers to work for free, what a wacko!"
I know I'll be slammed for that, but it's hard to say it any more clearly
no way in hell I'd be relying on GNU to develop the tools I needed
RMS does not say that you must pay GNU to develop something. Find whatever team you like (it is about FREEDOM, see?), pay them to develop a software (or enhance an existing free one) and release it to "free wild". Your possible benefit is that if your software is really good, than people will continue to develop it at no cost (at least at no cost to you). In this way you can make a world-class product at the cost of startup.
And linux kernel *is* free software, even though Linus didn't mean it to be that way.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.
Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.
The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics
And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism
The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.
Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
You've missed the "free software" and "open-source software" distinction.
OSS I'm 100% in favour of. The intention of OSS is to produce open-source replacements for closed-source software that will be used because they are of superior quality and significantly cheaper. To that end, the ability to find/fix your own bugs is intended to lead to superior quality. OSS doesn't say that closed-source software *shouldn't* exist, simply that they will replace mass-market closed-source software wherever possible. And OSS also allows for closed-source software to exist where it's fulfilling a specific niche - again, we're talking about how to do the job better/faster/cheaper, and measuring on quality.
"Free software" though has a political angle which I don't agree with. OSS is about getting the job done. RMS though has explicitly said that if you can't do the job with free software then you shouldn't be doing that job! In other words, simply using closed-source software is immoral. As far as I'm concerned, that's crap - if we're talking rights, then no-one has a right to say "you shouldn't be working and making a living bcos you're using closed-source software".
Grab.
I'm a Conservative, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.
Why point out the fact that he is liberal? Can only liberals hate fascism? I don't go around saying "I'm a Conservative, I hate Socialism" That seems awefully insensative for a "Liberal"
I like to code, lots of people do. I like to play around with features of languages. But in the end, I've got to eat. And that means doing a job. And no-one's going to pay me to do what I like. They want the rather dull account chaseup reports written, or send out "special offer" SS messages to a group of customers. Sometimes my work is fun, but sometimes there are things I don't like doing, but I trade my time and skills for their money.
This guy should go and do 5 years in a real computer department sometime.
I think you are being unfair here: RMS clearly says that there is another valid reason to keep using non-free software for the time being: "If you participate in development of the free replacement for a program, then you can excuse temporarily continuing to run it."
No hypocrisy here. Please use appropriate and objective quotes before accusing someone.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
And it's modded Insightful?!
How about acknowledging you don't know jack-all about what RMS does for a living? And instead of an apparently unsupported assumption of what his classroom is like (because, as far as I know, he's never taught a full-term accredited course) just make it clear you have strong views on what you think he is like in person, and that you disagree with his views?
In short: Talk about the ideas & ideals, not your fictional life for the person espousing the ideas & ideals.
(Oh, and public vowel-movements are unseemly; the paragraph is the writers friend!)
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
Are you arguing that anyone who is "100% dedicated" to the exact letter of his/her own belief system is "lawful good" because it takes "balls" to be that way? I really think you happen to like him only because he's dedicated to an unpopular cause *that you happen to like*. There are plenty of fanatics out there (and, yes, I claim that RMS is a fanatic) who are just as fervent, if not more so, than RMS is.
Is RMS willing to die for his belief? Is he willing to kill for it? If the answer to both of those is, "no," then how can you claim that he's "100% dedicated"? It would mean that he values his life and the lives of others higher than his own Truth(TM).
Other fanatics aren't as "weak" as he is in that regard. Take, for example, the thousands of Muslim mujahideen who fervently believe that killing infidels is God's work. They believe 100% that Islam will dominate the world and that anyone who resists should die, including you and me. I'm a gay man. How do you think I feel about muslims who want Islamic law over me (and are willing to kill and/or die to make sure that it happens)?
Take, for example, Randall Terry. He is the most infamous anti-abortion activist in the USA. He openly pines for theocracy (and he uses that particular word). Here's what he said about abortion providers: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." How's that for "dedicated"? Is RMS willing to take power and execute the producers of non-free software? Sounds a little less than "100% dedicated" to me.
Take, for example, PeTA fanatics. Not only do they want total veganism, but also total animal liberation. This means that ANY type of animal research used for medicine and health would be banned. This means that any child whose life could be saved through animal products would have to die. Is RMS willing to sacrifice childrens' lives for the cause of free software? PeTA fanatics will respond to this message by denying that animal research is beneficial in any way at all. Of course, it's trivial to dispute that claim with abundant evidence, but why should evidence matter to a fanatic? If mere evidence is going to sway you from the Truth(TM) then you're not "100% dedicated", are you?
My point here is not to bash the groups that I happen to despise, but to point out that what you seem to be supporting is fanaticism. There are millions of things in the world that you can get excited about and millions of worthy causes that need your attention. Pick a few that you happen to like, and exploit your own unanswered question of, "Why am I here?" as the impetus to do good works in the world. But the people who decide that there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause worth championing, at the expense of all other causes, at the expense of all reason and evidence, and at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? Those are people to be exposed, denigrated, and ignored. They are not worthy of respect as they are dangerous, self-indulgent assholes.
If you want the most direct form of the value judgement, then here it is, and I make no apology for it:
Fanaticism is evil.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You've hit on something very important.
I have no other choice
The major party candidates know you think that way. John Kerry and Al Gore both ran campaigns betting that you'd hold your nose and vote for them rather than vote for someone you actually agreed with and believed could make a difference.
I particularly enjoyed many anti-war activists who signed a petition saying that they were voting for Kerry, but expected him to change his position on the war after they had helped elect him, or risk losing their support in the 2008 election. Kerry didn't care that people were holding their nose for him because a vote is a vote, no matter why it was cast.
Scenario:
Let us assume node_3 is a traditional liberal, who often sides with the Democrats. I am a candidate for the Democratic party, who knows that he(she?) and many others will vote for me no matter what my positions are. No amount of lobbying by node_3 and others like him(her) will ever change my mind because I already have their vote. I will instead devote my energies to change my platform to suit those who may not vote for me (likely making me more conservative). That is, by saying outright that you will vote for me, because voting for an independent is "wasting my vote", you have lost your only hold on my issue positions.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
My point is that we're going to have to crash a few times before the Democrats get their shit together. Sooner or later, they'll start swerving.
Oh, brother. Even HE can't see that liberal and conservative are both just two sides of the same worthless coin. All hope is lost.
You bring up an interesting pair of possibilities for a "businessman" who wishes to create custom software:
Possibility #1: Hoard and hide the software, in hopes of attaining "competitive advantage". Watch in horror as your competitors duplicate the software, but with better programmers, thus gaining better competitive advantage than you did. Try to stop them by spending tens of thousands of dollars on patent issues, only to have the entire market brand you as a vicious slug, and get buried by your own bad P.R. (while a court invalidates your patent as "obvious" and all your money ends up wasted).
Possibility #2: Release the software open source, so that your competitors better programmers end up improving YOUR software and you both benefit from it with no additional expense. Also, gain a great deal of good P.R. in the bargain.
Hmm...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Surprise! Despite most people claiming to have a political slant, the majority of Americans don't know shit about politics. I live in Texas and I can promise that many self defined conservatives here are just as ignorant as your friend.
Its not that one side is smarter than the other or something- both parties have mostly idiots as supporters (who then happen to elect mostly idiots to Washington D.C). Once you learn that both parties are composed of people who really don't know about politics, then you can finally reach Political Nirvana (aka you never talk about politics again with people because you know its a waste of time).
Open Source Sushi
Well, I can see I haven't helped you get over yourself. You're still thinking of whatever "code" you've got laying around as a competitive advantage, instead of a little do-it-yourself software you wrote to help you sell hamster food.
So, since you're doing the "number 1, number 2" thing, let me respond in kind:
1. You USED to be an "enterprise class developer". You didn't get bored, you got laid off or fired. You got creamed in the dot-com crash. Call it what it is.
2. You're a "real-world business user" who sells hamster food from your little shop. You don't count. Nobody would notice it if you DID open-source anythin, so hoarding your code affects nobody. Counterexamples people can provide you with, of enormous businesses like IBM, Novell, and I.D. Software (to name only three of hundreds) that use and support open-source dwarf your example in their relative importance. You are, therefore, insignificant -- by your own admission. Your opinion, by extension, is similarly insignificant.
3. Being a nobody who is completely insignificant, you nevertheless discount the activities of a company (ID Software) that has tens of millions in revenue and is extremely significant in their field. I find that remarkable. You really are a big doofus, aren't you?
You're a tiny little krill shrimp (you know what those are, Mr. Pet Food Salesman, now, don'cha?) waving his tiny little feelers at a giant rock lobster! "I'm important!" you yell. "I'm a bigtime business person! And I don't like open source!" To which the rest of us say, "Did you hear something? Like a little squeaking noise? Must be my ears..."
Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELF before you embarass yourself any further.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!