Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Selling Autographs
UltimaGuy writes "Sports stars, musicians, and other celebrities have been charging for autographs for years, but who would have thought Richard Stallman would be doing the same? Is this just for fun, or a clever, highly effective protest? Hackers, geeks and nerds gathered together at the 7th FISL - Internacional Free Software Forum, in Porto Alegre (Brazil) last week, were astounded when they got word that Richard Stallman, the founding father of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the GPL, was charging R$ 10 (about US$ 3) for an autograph and R$ 5 (less than US$ 2) to get his picture taken by free software enthusiasts at the event floor."
Does RMS allow anyone to copy and modify those autographs?
just to piss him off, if his point was to show that it's wrong to charge for photos.
The FSF should exploit RMS some more. I'm sure there are loads of products which could be based on RMS.
OMG!!! RMS PONIES!!!
There's now way the FSF fanboys will be able to make it past the crush of girls desperate to get close to the Man :-)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Stallman would have to pay me to own a photo of him. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy but his regexp.c is prettier than him!
I, for one, welcome our Nerd celebrity overlords.
In all seriousness, I applaud Stallman's ironic sense of humor.
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
Not quite Microsoft evil.
PS : Please don't reply "Whaddya got?"
RMS wrote:
"People who ask me to sign or pose are asking for some of my time, which needs must come from my other volunteer work for the cause. On most occasions, the total time involved is not very large, so I do as they ask, taking steps to make the process efficient. But this does not mean my time is theirs to dispose of. I think it is entirely proper to ask people to make a small contribution to the cause in exchange."
---
When I write a piece of open source code, that takes a bit of my time too and is sometimes boring. By RMS's logic, I should charge each user some sort of nuissance fee so that my time is better spent on more "productive pursuits" or somesuch. Hrmmmmm...
I do like the fact that he is starting to grasp how scarcity is managed in a capitalist economy though.
So, somebody asks Stallman to sign their badge. Stallman realizes he could be stuck there for hours signing badges instead of doing something more useful. So he asks for a donation for the FSF (not even for himself!) to get something out of it, and hopefully reduce the size of the queue. Sounds completely reasonable to me.
It's not like Stallman ever had anything against charging money, from what I heard, he sold Emacs tapes.
Yes, and if you read the entire article you'll see that he's not opposed to selling software. What good is it to click on the link to the article and then only read half of it?
Slagborr
Autographs are only the beginning. I hear a Richard Stallman nude calendar is in the pipeline!
If you'd ever read the GPL, you'd notice that source only needs to distributed to the people who got the binary, and the binary can be charged for. I never heard Stallman say that services like duplication, tech support, etc should be free. IIRC, Stallman has a webpage somewhere detailing his requirements if you want to have him give a talk, which sounds completely fine to me.
Stallman was always about freedom in the political sense, not in the lack of economic compensation one.
RMS isn't keeping the money for himself: he's trying to reduce demand by charging, and giving all the proceeds to the FSF.
What do you people all have against RMS? Remember that you use his software every day.
[ home ]
Yes, that's what he's always said. He just doesn't whan people to sell him something and make it legally impossible for him to alter it, so it works better for him, and to give the altered version to a friend.
So, if you want to put a smiley face on his autograph and xerox a copy for your brother, I'm sure he'd be okay with that.
My March 1987 copy of the GNU Emacs Manual (Sixth Edition, Version 18) has a FSF order form in the back. The source code is avilable on tape for $150. The Gnu C Compiler on tape for $150. Gnu Emacs manuals for $15 each.
Why is there an 'outcry' about Stallman and his organization making some money to support their efforts? It's how movements based on ideals, not keeping 'the bottom line' number big, sustain their organizations and themselves.
He's buying Microsoft.
-- Dvorak
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If I am a celebrity and if there is a demand for my autograph, I might also choose to charge for it. It has atleast two advantages.
One: It reduces the crowd as only those who are serious about getting the autograph will pay up. The others who get autographs just for kicks will stay away.
Two: It helps the cause a little bit. Especially if it is a person of the likes of Stallman who is associated with a not-for-profit movement.
Any way, charging $5 for an autograph or $2 for a photograph is much better than charging hundreds of dollars for a piece of software.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
Poster sayeth:
You ought to read the GPL. You can charge whatever price you want for any GPL'd software. That's one of the freedoms. You're also free to dual-license it if you're the creator - another freedom. It works for Trolltech (Qt), MySQL, etc.
GPL:
You people tagging him as a sellout are dumbasses. He doesn't have a regular steady income. He lives off shit like this. Fees for appearing at events and the like are what he uses to his buy pizza and mountain dew.
Complete translation of the original article in the Business Journal Baguete
FISL: Stallman's autograph auctioned for R$ 22 (~US $10) 22/04/2006
An autograph from Free Software guru Richard Stallman was auctioned for R $23 (~US $11) at FISL 7.0 (International Free Software Forum) this Saturday, the 22nd. The initiative by gaucho Leonardo Vaz (Open BSB - RS) [Ed: Residents of the state of Rio Grande do Sul are called "gauchos".] caused a joyful uproar on this last day of the event when he went to personally deliver the money collected to Stallman, accompanied by about a hundred people.
Vaz bought Stallman's signature during the first edition of the Forum, six years ago. To charge contributions for the Free Software Foundation in trade for autographs or photo ops is only one of the eccentric habits of the American, who accepted the money gratefully and affirmed that it would be delivered to the recently founded Free Software Foundation of Latin America.
The auction concept summarizes the distracted atmosphere of this last day of FISL 7.0. The launch of GULA (Alcoholic Linux Users Group) is scheduled for 4:00 pm, which promises to shake up the final hours of the meeting.
[Obs. Apesar de ser canadense, moro em Brasil há seis anos agora.]
Whaddya got?
Of curiosity, do you know this in some authoritative way or are you speculating? I didn't see this stated in the article.
You could, I suppose, test this by making a GPL'd program (to eliminate red herring objections based on your market paradigm) that uses a picture of Stallman (with a rectangle missing) and merges a gif you give it of yourself to that photo, and then give your program away as freeware (perhaps for media-cost on a disk you brought to one of his events). Like with any free software, you could get your grins from trying to drive down the market price of the original idea to a more "tolerable" level... zero, being the canonical tolerable level.
His primary point (made in the article), that fans have no inherent right to his time is right in principle. However, when you make yourself available for an event and especially if you're already paid for the event, it gets more questionable. [Credential: I've hosted a conference at which RMS spoke. He wanted a fee, which I had no objection to. Where feasible, speakers should get paid for time and travel. There are fortunately speakers who sometimes have the resources and interest to travel and/or speak where they can't be reimbursed, but it's not an obligation on speakers. Speaking takes prep time and time to do. And, in my limited experience, Stallman rightly insisted on being reimbursed for such things.] But if he had arrived and started charging people at my event for his services while he was on "our time", I'd have found that to be "double billing" (at best) and would have strongly considered kicking him out on the street on the spot.
Perhaps the conference event people approved of his action in advance. Or perhaps they didn't think to object on this basis. I suspect there's also a question at a conference on free software whether it's "his" conference. It may be his topic, but the ownership of time and conferences is something where I'd follow the money. Perhaps the conference had him as their guest speaker and didn't want to offend him even when he offended them. I don't know the full fact pattern, so am substituting questions for people to ask in order to speak on the issue. But Stallman speaks as if this were simply an issue of signer's rights, he's oversimplifying by not similarly qualifying his advice to others according to forum/venue, which certainly influences any discussion of rights.
It'd be quite another thing entirely if this fee were asked on his own time (say, when someone finds him in a restaurant or hotel or out on the street where he's not already scheduled). I might then argue that the fee was too low. Fans should not have their right to inject themselves upon unwilling celebrity in their private lives. But I don't see that that's what's going on here.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
You went to school to have "a career developing software - not providing tech support". How nice. But if you want to sell your software, you're going to have to support it at the code level. Custom modifications, new features, etc. That's more than just "tech support."
Businesses pay for these things all the time. Ask any IBM customer.
Besides, that has nothing to do with the main thread - Stallman's free to charge whatever the market will bear for his autograph. You're free to charge whatever the market will bear for your autograph.
After all, why should they buy Stallman's autograph for $5 when they can get yours for $1?
My bet - Stallman will sell more autographs at $5 than you will at $1.
He'll also sell more autographs at $5 than you will for free.
The point? - Value is in the eye of the buyer, not the seller. If you can create value to the buyer, they will buy. If not, it doesn't matter that you spent 1,000 hours working on a piece of code - they won't take it even for free.
He just spoke at the University of Illinois at Chicago on Friday and the first thing did was tell people they should buy some GNU/GPL/FSF merchandise that he brought with him. Then he milled around for a while so people could before he began his talk.
The only thing that surprises me is the idea that there's any real demand -- outside of a tiny circle, I mean.
Move about five feet away from geekdom and you discover that he's no more important to the world than, say, past bridge champion Pierre Jais. O.K., maybe that's too extreme... certainly he's no more important than Esperanto-creator Ludwig Zamenhof.
Every subculture has its heroes, and every subculture overestimates the value of its heroes to the general public.
Tom Geller
I think I said pretty clearly that I expected there might be conferences where this was expected, so this refutes nothing of what I said.
What makes Stallman's position questionable is, when you cut away all the guff, that his underlying claim is based on the notion that there are "good" and "bad" ways to earn money. He holds himself out as someone who wants to be judged in this light and he will be judged differently by different people for what he does. But I think it's fair to impose a stricter standard upon him than on the average person on the street who's just trying to make a buck.
In this regard, one of Stallman's implicit claims is that "other people do it" or "I do it because I can" are not adequate defenses of why one makes money. Hence, if he will deny either of those to others, he must deny those defenses to himself. If "it's customary to charge money for software" is a good enough reason, a lot of the debate on free software would go away. So let him defend himself however he likes, but if it comes down to "other people do it", he's undermined his whole political movement.
What he seems to many to be saying is how people should structure a theory of economics from first principles. And so my arguments are from first principles. My argument on the California law was not "what does it give a person a right to" nor "whose right is defended", but rather "what are the material elements one must take into consideration in deciding such a case". The law extends protection to workers only in the case where various material considerations are satisfied. I looked to that law not for precedent in terms of outcome, but in terms of considered thought on material elements. Venue seems to me a material element.
In any case, my role here isn't to convince every last person nor even to assert there's a definitive answer, only to lay out an alternate point of view because I tire of these discussions being one-sided. I've done that, and I'll hold to that. Invite me to your conference sometime (for a fee, of course) and I'll debate it until the late hours with you. And if you can find me while I'm out in public milling about at that conference, incidentally, just mention that you read this post and the autograph I give you will be free.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer