Slashdot Mirror
Transcript of Talk with Richard Stallman
An anonymous reader writes "This is the transcript of the talk with Richard Stallman, the father of GNU in the background of the 4th International GPLv3 Conference being held at Bangalore where RMS is a prominent delegate. He answers questions related to GPLv3, DRM and a couple of other queries."
A transcript of a talk with the father of free software is something that will forever go down in history as a very meaningful talk. It will be remembered long after Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union Address is forgotten.
Now, this is something I do not get: are Linus, Richard Stallman some kind of Gods ?
Everytime they just say something, it appears as if it was God in person speaking...
No matter what they did (I mean: how many people wrote their own kernel ? be it Un*x or not), I don't understand why they always appear as Gods...
Yes, he is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. He doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for him, free and open source software wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
It's been reported on Slashdot that "RMS isn't a DRM"
The original interview (which the blog has just copy-pasted, inexplicably introducing errors) is here. There is also another interview (another newspaper, another Indian city) here. Both of them are short and say the usual things, and not much info on GPLv3 itself (naturally, as they are newspaper interviews).
Just a heads up. The article contains nothing new, interesting, or provocative (which many of RMS's interviews tend to be). It's very much a fluff piece.
Although, I was interested to see how an interview that takes place outside of the mainstream tech media unfolded. There was no discussion of a FSF/RMS vs. Linus Torvalds/Linux headbutting. Nothing at all about why there is much contention of v3. That being said, I found it admirable that he did not take the opportunity to express his opposing views in this one-sided piece. Many would take such a chance to bash the oppositions arguments.
I've seen the light. I mean STALLMAN has spoken! Let's create a Stallmanic Bible so we all, oh, believers can use and adore every minutes of our, oh, so insignificant life. Alleluya the holy trinity, Father Stallman, Son Linus and Holy Jobs (yeah, notthing to do with freeware but he **IS** a saint indeed, isn't he?)
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Richard Stallman is, in my humble opinion, A HERO and even a true american patriot.
b _start:int=0
h ard-stallman-protests-at-un-world-summit/
He has been protesting evil surveillance technology such as RFID for years. And there are few other people who have contributed more to free software and humanity in general as he has.
Take a look at his past speches: http://www.fsf.org/events/past-rms-speeches.html?
And remember his protest at the UN Summit: http://www.secureidnews.com/weblog/2005/11/21/ric
(as you may or may not be aware, the UN are evil. They openly admit they want the UN to be a one-world government and that they want to destroy the sovereignty of any existing nation. Richard Stallman is a hero for protesting against UN evil)
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Now, this is something I do not get: are Linus, Richard Stallman some kind of Gods ?
Everytime they just say something, it appears as if it was God in person speaking...
No matter what they did (I mean: how many people wrote their own kernel ? be it Un*x or not), I don't understand why they always appear as Gods...
O Lord Stallman, forgive this unbeliever for his foolish words of blasphemy. We, your true believers, will shun him and send him out from our fold. Once he could visit Slashdot and bask in the glory of (transcripts of) your wisdom, but now he will live on the streets and fight over garbage with alleycats.
Quoted from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/15/the_bofh_q uestionnaire_how_geeky/
2. You're locked in a room with Richard Stallman and Bill Gates and have only a gun with two bullets in it (which you normally secrete on your person in case you ever get locked in a room with Richard Stallman, Bill Gates, etc). They both clear their throats to speak. What do you do?
A. Shoot Bill, hoping he hasn't got a tablet device (or the XP Security Vulnerability notes) crammed up his blazer
B. Shoot Richard, hoping he hasn't got the notes for his speech in front of his heart
C. Shoot Richard AND Bill and take your chances
D. Shoot yourself, twice, for getting into such a contrived situation
To me it seems like RMS totally dodged the question. What is "...there are many people who don't have to make money" supposed to mean in this context? I'm sure there are people that don't have to make money, but most people do have to make money, and I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance. It seems that he believes F/OSS's noble goals will be corrupted if Linux gains momentum in the corporate world, but don't we have the GPL to prevent just that? Ultimately, corporate support will help secure the foundation of F/OSS -- I'm thinking of IBM and Sun, and the corporate support behind OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
I cannot believe that those 5 tiny questions were the whole interview...
If it weren't for him, free and open source software wouldn't exist the way it does today.
This is very important to remember. If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System - http://www.gnu.org/
Remember, the "Linux" part of GNU/Linux only refers to the kernel, which is made by Linus Torvals... that's just one piece. The rest was pieced together by mr. Stallman.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Richard Stallman is a dick.
I guess he would rather be called GNU/dick.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
A collection of miscellaneous links about OSS developments in India.
Indian President Advises Open Source Approach
President Of India Advocates OSS
Indian President Advises Open Source Approach
Stallman Goes to India (and meets the President)
and finally, more recently...
Indian State Logs Microsoft Out
I'm hoping to see more active participation in OSS development from India, as more of it's educated masses come online. Computer and internet usage has surged among the middle-class only in recent years, with improvement (albeit gradual) in infrastructure.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
... under Linux?
Richard Stallman is GNUTS
In other words, [Stallman is saying that] software developers aught not be paid for their efforts.
You didn't consider the context. Stallman was arguing against the belief that "if people aren't paid, they won't write code". He was mentioning the fact that most FLOSS code is written by nonpaid volunteers, while only a minority are paid.
He did not say that developers shouldn't be paid for their efforts. In fact, his GPL says the opposite: you can write free software and make money from it - by selling warranties for it, or media with your software on it.
..being held at Bangalore?
I thought it was over a week back.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
When he says (without the careful wordsmithing) that developers shouldn't be paid, and that they should just either be independently wealthy or find other means of supporting themselves, he demonstrates an almost willful disconnection with/disdain for many of the very people who praise his efforts.
If you are a paid programmer, RMS is not your friend.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Um. those are your words, not his. RMS is pointing out that not everyone who works on free software makes money from doing so. Some people do get paid for the specific task of writing free software (it's in their job description, so to speak) but many others do so without direct compensation. RMS is responding to the interviewers fallicious assertion (that because not everyone gets paid to develop free software, there can exist no reason to develop it by pointing out the falsity of the argument.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
That would be true if we assume that the people working on free software are programmers by profession. This simply isn't true for a number of people. Also, who's to say that an open source programmer can't work for a private software company during the day? I believe that many FOSS contributors are programmers at their day job, which is a means to an end.
Either way, Stallman isn't saying that software developers shouldn't be paid for their efforts. It sounds to me like he's being realistic about things. I play in a band with friends, though I'm not a musician by trade. I make no money from it, but I enjoy it along with those I play to (I hope). I also program, though I'm not a programmer by trade. My limited skill hasn't produced any quality free software, but I've written some ebuilds for Gentoo and fixed a few bugs here and there. It's all in the spirit of collaboration, dig?
Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
It has never been more clear to me that Stallman has zero perspective on the average working human being.
He is talking about the 1.000.000 angry penguins who just like to code in the afternoon. Not about the average human.
RMS: "I want to ask you why that question is worth asking."
In other words, "Why should anyone considering FS be concerned about money?" Afterall, "there are many people who don't have to make money."
Sure, he didn't come out and say that developers shouldn't be paid, but his angle on that is (to me at least) crystal clear.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I Find RMS to be to far Left to be a Hero and I for one would fear a world ruled by him and his ideas. His views are based on conspericy concepts. Like TFA about DRM he assumes DRM is out there for the sole fact that people cannot make players, while the real reason is that DRM is there because it is to easy to copy and share the data, the way the creators of the data don't want it to be spread. He has a complete lack of understanding why anyone shouldn't want to share data, and any attempt to not share data is part of some large conspericy or corruption. People want to protect their property, and some people but value in their property. Their Code is there property, they have the right to choose who should view it and how it is viewed.
The Devil will come to you when you are looking for it. RMS is in the practice of finding all the evils in the world and spends little time incorageing the good in the world. A true Hero in my book is someone who is willing to commend people for what they are doing right, and less nagging on what they are doing wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You make money by doing something *else* than software development. In RMS's World, software development is a *hobby*, just like solving jigsaw puzzles. Selling sloved jigsaw puzzles shouldn't cross your mind as a way of making a living, even if you're good at it.
If that were true, he would be content to let like-minded programmers/hobbyists produce and distribute code however they want. His crusade against commercial software suggests otherwise.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
In other words, software developers aught not be paid for their efforts; it should be something they freely contribute to some global software collective. Software developers should instead find another way to make a living.
1 4188526128&q=stallman
Stallman has never suggested that software developers should not be paid. In fact he's said many times that FLOSS creates economic opportunity. He's even detailed how its earned him some decent consulting fees.
You can see him discussing that on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-16476263
When Stallman landed in Bangalore all of the locals were heard saying, "Whoa.. what's that smell?"
You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I saw no such "fallacious" assertion on the part of the interviewer, and I think Stallman's dismissal of a (IMHO) reasonable, pertinent question spoke volumes of his opinion of paid developers.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. He was asked about the economic impact, and his immediate question is "why are you concerned about economic impact?" Well the simple answer is that most of us live in capitalistic societies in which we need money. Pretty much everyone needs money. Now, who are the developers who can afford to work for nothing? They have to be in pretty special situations. I'm thinking the disabled are high on the list, but if they have a salable skill, why should We The People pay for them to sit around and write programs all day unless the legislature gets to decide what they spend their effort on?
Or then there's the people who already made their nut programming... they already made money at it, so clearly their ability to contribute without additional income is based on the fact that they were able to make money at it.
Who else is out there writing code full time for free?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He's not actually saying that developers shouldn't be paid, but rather that they don't have to be paid, which is an important distinction. He doesn't mind if people do get paid, but he thinks if they don't get paid it's not that big a deal as long as software still gets made.
But yeah, Stallman really doesn't care that much about the interests of the professional programmer in particular. His goals are for the freedoms of computer users in general, (people in general, ultimately) and if proffessional programmers have to take a paycut or enter a new field entirely, so be it. Making proprietary software is (as he sees it) unethical, so why should they feel entitled to make money that way? Of course, if you asked him, I imagine he might say that programmers are (ultimately) better off with free software but small paychecks than they are with decently sized paychecks but unfree software because unfree software is just that bad.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Let's just play with your statement a little to illustrate that just because someone's a "self-assertive" kook doesn't make it a good thing:
Yes, Hitler is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. Hitler doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for Hitler, anti-semitism and the Aryan movement wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
(just a joke, but also making a point)
"Sufferin' succotash."
From http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484...
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
This is neither the time or place for people to ask a Why? to RMS about free software. Sure, it was a place to ask a Why GPL v3 or about DRM licensing or patent protections, but the questions that were asked was almost total bullshit. Yet again, I'm not speaking from personal presence there - I've just talked to people on irc and read their blogs.
Was one of those weeks when I wasn't in Bangalore ... but RMS was in Kerala (where I am now) and the discussions here were more practical than those quoted from Blr. The ones here were really about the freedoms and mostly by students or political decision makers versus the armchair activists from the software industry.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
In other words, software developers aught not be paid for their efforts; it should be something they freely contribute to some global software collective.
That's all fine and good. I'll do that as soon as someone volunteers to come and clean my house and mow my lawn. If someone's willing to free up my time I'll be more than happy to donate the software I create with that time.
--
Q
Stallman has said EXACTLY that.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
But is he a bigger dick than Theo?
Fuck Slashdot
And so did Gandhi. Mother Theresa. The founding Fathers of the US. Stalin. Bill Gates...
So nobody should be assertive, because bad things can happen (see the Inquisition) when you are? And how the fucking donkey-jesus hell is your response in any way detracting from the statement that the free software movement would not be as it is without RMS?
You have merely started with the conclusion that RMS is evil and worked from there.
To paraphrase another poster: why is it whenever RMS talks, some people treat it as the Word of Satan?
Why doesn't RMS watch movies? Why does he not like Linus? Is RMS a pessimist? How does RMS feel about the record companies? Does he care about their profits?
Learn the answer to these questions and more in the new documentary "Alternative Freedom". The documentary is as independent as RMS himself!
http://alternativefreedom.org/
Also features Larry Lessig, Danger Mouse (of Gnarls Barkley), and others...
For a joke, there is no funny. And there is no point in your comment.
It's the classic head-in-the-clouds, hippie mentality that making money is evil and that your "freedom"--or, rather, Stallman's particular personal definition of freedom (in which somehow the BSD license is less free than the GNU license)--is more important than functionality, technological progress, or simple economics in which people make money for their efforts.
For some reason, he has a following in which he's revered as a "hero" and a "patriot." Apparently, using the word "freedom" over and over in interviews and insisting that proprietary software is evil and should be abolished makes you a genius.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Sure, he didn't come out and say that developers shouldn't be paid, but his angle on that is (to me at least) crystal clear.
I agree that there is something in his manner that implies 'money isn't important'. He is an idealist; it makes him seem out of touch with the need to make a living sometimes. I would NOT go to him for career advice, I'm with you on that (which does not contradict the fact that I value his ethical stance and I agree with much of what he believes in).
Still, he doesn't say "developers don't deserve money". And I do not think he believes that (just my guess, of course). I am betting that he would e.g. be very happy if governments paid salaries to FLOSS developers.
There is no need to be parsimonious with your gratitude. You say that as if we must choose between giving thanks to both the community and RMS and Torvalds. By the standard you endorse we end up essentially saying "what have you done for me lately?" instead of valuing both the community including both men for their work in the past and their continued work on things that matter.
After all, even by the silly logic of valuing what is and not what was, Torvalds and RMS both deserve thanks; Linus Torvalds is still involved in Linux kernel development, despite not writing all of the code in his fork of that kernel. Richard Stallman is the author of the most widely used free software licenses—the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL, and the free documentation license the GNU FDL. And when it comes to the GPL (the subject of the talk at the heart of this /. thread), Eben Moglen says "there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure".
Digital Citizen
I don't think that contradicts anything. This discussion is not "Should programmers work on proprietary software", it's "Should programmers be able to be paid for programming".
Next time, find a relevent link.
I merely made the point that someone being self-assertive isn't automatically a good trait. I never started with the conclusion that RMS is evil, nor did I say nobody should be self-assertive.
As for the "fucking donkey-jesus hell" comment, just because I insulted your god, Stallman, doesn't mean I want to read you wigging out. Please calm down.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The non-free software he refers to is closed versus open. Cost is not relevant to the discussion.
You might want to read the free software definition at the GNU Project's website.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:
"You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important."
Patriots Unite!! Our fearless, selfless, demigod, true American HERO, has granted those hedonistic job-stealer's an interview.. This was no ordinary news piece, but a call to arms... The GPLv3 is not a license, it's the 21st century version of Paul Revere's Lantern... RMS gave us this coded message.. er, ah.. interview, to let us know that the time draws near..
NOW! Fellow FSF Patriots, dawn your hand-crafted, aluminum battle helmets.. For the stealth RFID mind control satellites are powering up as we speak (Which are rumored to be controlled with.. Gasp!! OSS Software that has had the GPL...REMOVED!!!) General Kofi Annan has been briefed and has notified the Illuminati and Skulls & Bones.
Harden those Apache installs, remove those Flash plugins that you swore you'd never use, and get ready... Our leader needs us..
Mod me down if you must... It only shows us where your loyalties lie.
Fair enough; I'll refine my earlier statement by saying Stallman doesn't think people should be paid to write non-free software.
I wonder how many RMS admirers either make a living developing non-free software or even use non-free software at work. RMS considers both immoral.
How should he have better conveyed that the question was unimportant and how should he have better conveyed why it was unimportant?
Most people already know how to make money and they do it without programming computers. People already know that not every activity they take on needs to make them money. When computing was young, people in computing made money by selling their expertise just like plumbers, mechanics, electricians, and carpenters do (just to name a few expert professions). I can see how you would think his answer was a dodge if you are under the impression that indeed all of your computer-related work must make money. And if you think that's so, it's your job to come up with ways to make that happen. It isn't someone else's job to come up with a business plan for you.
Digital Citizen
He is saying that being able to make money on software is not an important aspect, question or prerequisite for the importance of Free Software.
And that is true. Without the monetary incentive, many will undoubtedly leave the field, but many will still stay - and Free Software will still propsper.
I was at a talk that he gave at our college. He was quite irritated by people referring to GNU as Linux, and made the distinction very clear. He did get rather irritated with people, and he did have to ask the crowd (completely uninformed students for the most part) to keep quiet.
So, has Stallman shipped your golden star patch yet for being such a good defender? I'm still waiting for mine.
The fact is that RMS is loaded, and he hangs out with other such people (you know the kind.... they come up with a concept, hype it to venture capitalists, run the company into the ground or simply never produce a product, but they walk away with millions), and he is completely and totally out of touch with those of us poor souls that (God forbid!) have to WORK in order to earn money and pay our bills. Not all of us can be a blowhard that gets paid for spouting nonsense like "First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. " He sounds like a smug, pretentious asshole to me.
He doesn't say this, and you are intentionally lying or are just completely misinformed.
He says people shouldn't be paid to write software that is then sold under a non-free license.
He has no problem with people being paid to write custom software, so long as other people get a chance to add on to it or modify it.
He specifically recommends that programmers would be paid to maintain and operate, and modify software for business and other entities, by selling support plans and so on.
Not in that quotation he hasn't. Either you didn't bother reading the rest of the interview or you are deliberately misinterpreting his words.
A lot of people are paid to create software - custom software for some particular customer's needs. For me, the act of writing of software is the process of creating wealth, not the act of selling it. Enough companies make their living just producing code rather than licensing the same code over to a million customers.
Now, when I create something out of nothing, I expect to be paid. But that doesn't go against any Free Software concept to be remunerated for work, but it does go against a few of mine if you merely sell licenses instead of the work done. Proprietary firms do exactly that, they sell you the use of some code, but not the code itself. And RMS might be a hardliner, but we need those in moderation too - because otherwise the rational people among us will accept compromises which might be harmful in the long run ... (yes, I'm talking about ESR).
In short, with free software, you get what you pay for and sometimes a few developers whom you didn't pay for.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
as you may or may not be aware, the UN are evil. They openly admit they want the UN to be a one-world government and that they want to destroy the sovereignty of any existing nation. Richard Stallman is a hero for protesting against UN evil
Explain me this: if they want to destroy the sovereignty of any nation how come that the UN strongly opposed the US invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan and are still officially against the occupation of both countries? If you call that evil then your whole tyrade suddenly starts to fit into a most peculiar spot don't you agree?
So Stallman is now a hero because he's against an organisation who strongly opposes countries who illegaly occupy other nations under false accusations? I think you should lay down the crackpipe now, you've had enough. Not even Stallman is that stupid.
Stallman? I thought it was STALIN !! He's pinko-commie to the core!!
(I (was (expecting more) (brackets (in (that transcript)))))
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
now, if he was giving a talk at your college, wasn't he there to Inform the Uninformed? Wasn't he there to spread the word? To bring those not in the know, up to speed? Seems like he was instead acting like everyone should have already known everything he was going to say. The reputation I see surrounding him is one of elitism and snobbishness. He might have once been great at what he did, but he doesn't appear to be very good at what he is doing now... giving talks and interviews.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
I noticed that when asked about how people can create a buiness model around Free software, he dodges the question by asking another question. His response was that software can be created out of the goodness of your heart and not for profit. I understand that point, but then I should also have the Freedom to also work for a proprietary software company so I can support my family without him picketing or protesting that the software is defective by design. You can't have it both ways Dick. There are a lot of Free Software programmers that work at Starbucks. Is that what he proposes. It's easy to be idealistic about money when you get paid to be idealistic. Hey Richard, how do you get paid? Off the backs who whom? Who paid for your trip to India? I love Free software and contribute when I can. However, don't blast those who have made programming their profession without providing an alternative.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Ah, the power of non free propaganda. People's heads are so filled with stuff that is at odds with their own experience. They might as well have asked, "How do I make money with a computer?" Of the bazillions of ways to do that, only one of them is the non free way and very few people really make money that way. Really, ask yourself, do you or anyone you know make most of their money writting non free code? Why is it that so many people feel the need to support a model so few people are involved with? That's the power of non free propaganda. It needs to be addressed by knocking down the assumptions that support the conclusions best expressed here: If you don't give me money, your computer will be useless. Most of the missconceptions the public has about software have been created to support that demonstrably false conclusion. Let's look at the particular question.
What kind of an economic model does an entrepreneur look at when he starts out with free software? is vague and hard to answer. What exactly does that mean? At best, they are asking for a laundry list of ways to make money with free software. There are as many ways to answer that question as there are ways to make money with a computer. The only difference between free software and non free is user freedom. You get all the tools you need for the job without cost and you can do anything you want with them. The only way you can't make money with free software is to take someone else`s work and make use it to deny the end user of their rights. The only reason people ask that question is because they are bombarded with FUD that says you can't make a living with free software and that the free software models will one day collapse because of that. After 20 years of GNU growth and mainstream acceptance, you would think that question would go away. It's important to understand that free software is not dependent on any economic model so it is here to stay.
Your statement,
I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance. It seems that he believes F/OSS's noble goals will be corrupted if Linux gains momentum in the corporate world, but don't we have the GPL to prevent just that? Ultimately, corporate support will help secure the foundation of F/OSS -- I'm thinking of IBM and Sun, and the corporate support behind OpenBSD and FreeBSD
is equally vague and missleading. While free software is about freedom and not about making money, there is no hostility to commercial activity or corporate involvement. A FSF newsletter a while back was positively glowing over the way free software has been adopted by embedded developers. It's pretty obvious from this that free software can be commercial software and that no one has a grudge against that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What exactly are you God people talking to when you pray.
Can you logically convince yourself that you are using some kind of telepathic communication with some entity that has a telepathic connection with every human on earth and desires that everyone talk to him/her/it and say nice things?
That's just not true. He didn't say programmers shouldn't be paid. He said that some programmers don't do it for money but volunteer out of altruism or because they love programming and well crafted software.
I think he is sick of hearing the proprietary software shops of the world tell him, and any tech trade rag that will listen, that it's impoosible to create software unless you spend a ton of money. The GNU project, Linus's kernel, the BSD's and numerous other examples have proven that to be completely false.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
People kept refering to me as a crank, so I looked it up, it's a useful tool for starting revolutions
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
Are you going to appologize for lying? We don't need your shilling for software companies on slashdot. Here is an selection from an RMS interview
JA: How do you react to the opinion that non-free software is justified as a means for raising dollars that can then be put into the development of completely new software, money that otherwise may not have been available, and thus creating software that may have never been developed?
Richard Stallman: This is no justification at all. A non-free program systematically denies the users the freedom to cooperate; it is the basis of an antisocial scheme to dominate people. The program is available lawfully only to those who will surrender their freedom. That's not a contribution to society, it's a social problem. It is better to develop no software than to develop non-free software.
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.
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.
JA: What is the distinction there?
Richard Stallman: Non-free software is meant to be distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as you're respecting your client's freedom.
The next point is that programmers are a tiny fraction of employment in the computer field. Suppose somebody developed an AI and no programmers were needed anymore. Would this be a disaster? Would all the people who are now programmers be doomed to unemployment for the rest of their lives? Obviously not, but this doesn't stop people from exaggerating the issue.
Never really checked out the TorrentChannel before. Here's a gem:
_ alien_agenda
New World Order and the Alien Agenda -
http://torrentchannel.com/new_world_order_and_the
Pi Ran Out
>> Stallman has never suggested that software developers should not be paid.
> Is that so? "The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job. [- Stallman]"
Stallman is not against making money for writing software. As I said elsewhere in this topic, he would probably support e.g. FLOSS developers getting paid by governments. What he is against is non-free software. So, it follows that he is against getting paid for making non-free software. He is also against paying money for non-free software, using non-free software, teaching people how to use non-free software... you get the point.
If he thinks others should be limited in their choices by what he believes to be morally acceptable (like - horror! - working for a proprietary software company), I'd like to see how he behaves if all his sources of money were taken away and he was tossed out on the street and had to fend for himself in some rundown neighborhood where the locals would listen to his ranting and think he was just another homeless psychotic released from the loony bin.
It's easy to pontificate about how others should earn a living to support your family when you have no worries at all in that regard.
Ever hear the phrase "wackademic"? That's RMS.
OK, his ideas about free software are definitely a great positive contribution to humanity. But he's still nuttier than a fruit cake and totally disconnected from reality.
Of course, his contributions to free software are probably the result of his zealotry...
say the same thing?
.. in stone tablets?
Well, and there is a significant source of paid programming work that he is (intentionally?) not mentioning. It's when a company that develops some software product for internal use recognizes that it would benefit if the product is released to the public, even if it is only bug reports that it's going to get, and even if they can never hope to sell (er, should I have said license?) the program.
I myself have participated in several such projects. Moreover, I'm always actively on the lookout for things that would *benefit us* if GPL'ed. I actually have a very easy time convincing people of that. The story goes like this: it happened several times that we took sources of an open project, added to it internally (things like bugfixes, features etc.), but the management refused to release the changes back, citing things like "why should we share our work" and "it's now the company's IP". However, what invariably happened was that our internal source code stagnated, since we found it increasingly hard to migrate our changes whenever the new version of the outside software was released. Ultimately, things came to a screeching halt, when we had no internal updates for a year, while the outside version continued developing. (To be more concrete, one of the examples is when we decided to use XParam (xparam.sf.net).
What I did then, was schedule an appointment with a senior boss and explain him, as clearly as possible, the situation that we got ourselves into. Now, that may be sheer luck, or his good humor at the time, or maybe my persuasiveness :), but I got out of that meeting that, in principle, we are permitted to release any software, provided that we explain that it will not *hurt* the company bottomline (compare to the previous situation, where we had to explain that releasing would *mightily help*, otherwise there was nothing to talk about).
So, to summarize, there's a large source of GPL'ed code coming from paid programmers: it's when companies understand that it serves their interest to make it free rather than keeping it close to the chest. That's not right for any program though...
Yes, it's quite nice actually. I wasa expecting some piece of crap star, but this one is quality from "star"t to finish.
This is because he's a damn hippie.
From the article
---------
Q. There are a lot of misconceptions about free software. What kind of an economic model does an entrepreneur look at when he starts out with free software ?
RMS: I want to ask you why that question is worth asking. First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. Importantly even if a person has to make a living, he doesn't have to make a living from everything he does.
Lots of people develop free software in their free time and there are people who have to make a living and they do make a living.
To jump from, this person is not rich and therefore has to work, to this person can't write free software because he is not paid to write it, is an error.
There are over a million contributors to free software, a substantial fraction is getting paid and a majority are volunteers.
I suspect the reason people bring up this question of economics as a secondary detail is because they are labouring under the misconception that the free software community is impossible, unless the developers are getting paid.
-------------
He can't even wrap his brain around the concept that EVERYONE has to make a living unless they live in their parents basement, is indipendently wealthy, or makes fees spouting worthless hippie shit around the world. I honestly get the feeling that he has never, ever, had to make it in the real world. Perhaps he is a trust fund baby, perhaps he travels around like a deadhead, or perhaps both. Yes, people can make free software. No, people cannot make a living if that is all they do. Those that say they do have to have some means of support (other than parents, trust funds, PELL grants, etc...), and in 'the free software community' that is support.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
To an audience in Bangalore, no less. WTF?
>;K
>;k
the conclusion that RMS is evil,
Parent is a sad, tired anti-RMS troll. One of RMS's discarded love-slave-toys, after a fit of petulance (like the one displayed above), RMS dumped him, since then, he's had these outbusrts of jealous rage whenever someone mentions Richard's name.
Please, if you have mod points, mod him down. Its better for him not to have his RMS fantasies modded up.
If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System
No, you're using the GNU operating system, along with X.org, Mozilla, and QT/KDE.
Remember that the "GNU" part of Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux only refers to a small set of command-line utilities - that's just one peice. The rest was put together by many volunteers across the globe.
I'll call it "GNU/Linux" when Stallman calls it "Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux." Until then, he's just being hypocritical.
I've been saying this for awhile. He panders 'free software' as in 'free speech', but what he really means is 'free software' as in 'free beer'. I'd put up with his hippie shit more if he'd just be up front about it instead of trying to hide what he really means. Untill then, he's just talking out of his ass.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
...admit it, and STFU.
What's interesting is that many (probably a strong majority) of people who develop free software developed their skills (and their bank accounts) building proprietary software for big, evil corporations. And much GPL software has been (and continues to be) donated or financially supported by these companies. And much GPL software is modelled on successful proprietary software (e.g., UNIX and Linux).
Thus free software has benefited greatly from proprietary software, and of course vice versa.
I much prefer Linus T's view, which appears to be that free and proprietary software complement, rather than conflict with, each other. At any rate, people should be able to take any approach they wish. That's my definition of freedom.
Perhaps demi-gods, but not Gods. In response to this and other posts, yes we thank Linus and Stallman for their many contributions, but who and where would they be if not for the efforts of Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Doug McIlroy, and J. F. Ossanna at Bell Labs?
Temper your hero worship with some perspective...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Stallman, pointing out the trap: "To jump from, this person is not rich and therefore has to work, to this person can't write free software because he is not paid to write it, is an error."
SpacePunk, ignoring Stallman and falling into the trap: "Yes, people can make free software. No, people cannot make a living if that is all they do."
Stallman never said "THAT IS ALL THEY DO". He has never said that. He never will.
Consider those claims again:
Claim 1: Many people don't have to make money. Correct.
Claim 2: Even if you have to make a living, not everything you do has to make money. Not true for everyone, but certainly for the average working human being.
He nowhere states that devs should not profit from programming. However, I agree that he feels that devs should freely contribute.
Anyway, your poorly supported conclusions show that you need to improve your logical reasoning.
They're not large - they're just big-boned.
My biggest complaint against Stallman's crusade against non-free software is that all software is free. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. If you don't like the EULA's, don't use it. Freedom exists in the freedom of choice. A lot of software is there to make our lives so much easier, but we don't need it!
As for the freedom to be able to tinker with the code, the vast majority of people don't want to nor care to know how to. They want something to work and if doesn't, they will gladly pay someone to fix it. The people who do want to tinker with the code, like myself, do so with the Linux distros.
Don't misunderstand, I think the movement itself is great b/c it gives a lot of more opportunities to review and revise apps that we use, not to mention cost-effective opportunities away from the great M$ empire. I think it's great for me and other people who are interested in it but I donn't mind at all making money off of developing software and hope that I can for the duration of my career. I don't like exploiting people but I like being paid for something that I actually enjoy doing. I like offering them a product that could save them more money and being the cash incentive to develop something useful to others.
The comment does not distinguish commercial versus proprietary software business and so is completely pointless, i.e., mod to zero!
Perhaps it would better said that he chooses to ignore the real world and that his utopian goals are, well, anti-social. Yes, it would all be bery nice if we could live in a world free of responsibilities and simply pursue our hobbies. Work at Starbucks and write free software on the side. The real world is more complex. Support a family of 4 (well) as a Barista? I think not. Perhaps all books should be free as well...
Don't get me wrong, I like Stallman, but he needs to grow up and move out of his mother's basement.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How about all the free time you didn't spend writing a compiler or O.S.?
If you write a small GPL-licenced app, or enhance some existing free software, you are more than compensated for your time, because you are using all that other free software to create it.
If you're paying for all of your tools, and for your O.S., then you probably aren't going to be writing free software anyhow.
Do you think RMS even cares enough about the question to even want to "dodge it"?
How does near indifference equate to opposition? If anything he has repeatedly addressed economic acceptance of FS. If you bothered doing the most basic of web searches on the matter, you would have found one of many instances where he discusses how to earn a living with free software, e.g., http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html.
I totally agree. I commented about this earlier after reading the article. However after reading what someone else posted: http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484. I really get the fact that Stallman is perfectly happy with me not working in CS or programming if I need to make money from coding software. The above link needs to be spread around the net like wildfire. It goes to show how out of touch he really is. I have no intention of digging ditches the rest of my life. We all can't make money on the "lecture circuit" like you can Dick!
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
a lot of the base libraries (glibc, etc) are also gnu. That really shouldn't be underestimated.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Let's go back to the original interviewer question:
The interviewer is starting with the following assumptions:
If we wanted to keep the form of the question the same, but change topics, we could imagine an interviewer asking a famous sports star: "What kind of toothpick does a lumberjack use when he watches football on Friday night?"
Stallman's reply would fit either:
Stallman goes on to assert that most free software is not being developed by people being paid to do so. I'd agree. Stallman doesn't assert, but I will, that even those who are looking at free software for the explicit purpose of making money quickly learn that the economic model for doing so will be among the least significant models for doing so.
I don't have as much experience with free software as the Professor does, having been into it for only a decade and a half myself, but I can tell you what I do, and why I eventually came to agree with Stallman.
I am under no mandate to use free software; my bosses don't care, my workmates don't care, our investors don't care, our customers don't care. What they do care about is:
The hard part of software development is not figuring out how to make the computer perform a given function. It's in figuring out that the computer needs to perform a given function. That's what our customers pay us to do for the proprietary product we produce. That's what my boss pays me to do for the tools I provide.
My job typically involves working with the other programmers to figure out how to build, test, or deliver new functionality for our proprietary product. We typically use free software as the basis for custom built, in-house tools, which in a nutshell allows us to build things no one else can build, test our prototypes while other organizations are stil
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Let's have a look at some of the GNU contributions to the average Free Software system:
- The C library*.
- The shell, bash*. Even if you don't use the terminal, you can bet that you run a lot of shell scripts.
- All of the command line utilities required for POSIX compliance*
- The compiler.
- The desktop environment, GNOME, unless you are running KDE.
- The GIMP.
Beyond that, there are a large number of libraries, such as glib, gmp etc., that find themselves used by many, many, non-GNU applications. You can run the GNU operating system, in the form of Debian, on top of the FreeBSD kernel without noticing the difference. Try building and running Linux, *BSD, or OpenSolaris without any GNU code, and you'll realise how hard it is. Even small embedded systems like the Nokia 770 make use of GNU code; the entire GUI is built on top of GTK+ (GNU).* Assuming you're running GNU, not BSD or OpenSolaris.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
To me it seems like RMS totally dodged the question. What is "...there are many people who don't have to make money" supposed to mean in this context? I'm sure there are people that don't have to make money, but most people do have to make money, and I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance.
The question Stallman was asked is also a loaded one, it presumes that free software has to answer to and be acceptable to capitalists. It doesn't. He could have just said "selling services instead of selling software" but that puts free software in the position of looking like it needs corporate acceptance to be worthwhile and I don't think it does. Stallman doesn't need to justify free software to entrepreneurs nor make it easy for them to make a living.
In Stallmanland, there are two distinct categories of software:
- Infrastructure Software
- Bespoke Software
The second is easier to look at. Pretty much all bespoke software is already Free Software. You would have to be slightly mad to pay someone to write software for you, to solve a particular problem you might have, without granting you the FSF's four freedoms.The second is the problem a lot of people have. Currently, much infrastructure software is proprietary. Things like operating systems come into this category. Everyone needs one. It doesn't make sense for everyone to write one than it makes sense for everyone to pay someone to lay a road in front of them as they walk. And, once the costs of development are paid, it doesn't make sense economically to keep paying for it. It does make sense for people who need new features to pay to have those developed, and for people who need security to pay for periodic security audits.
It is easy to see how bespoke software would be developed in Stallmanland, because it is exactly the same as how it was always developed; and this represents about 90% of the software market. Infrastructure software is slightly different. Some would likely come from academia, much like Mach and BSD UNIX. Some would come from individuals scratching an itch and releasing their code, some from corporations employing someone to scratch their itches (see IBM, Sun, and Novell's funding of Free Software for examples).
The first poster likened Stallman to Lincoln. This is not entirely inaccurate; both were trying to help people who had had their freedom taken away. Stallman is trying to help more people, Lincoln was trying to help people who had had more freedoms removed. The difference, perhaps between a police officer catching a spammer and a murderer. A murderer who kills one person takes 91980000 person-seconds of life (assuming that the person would live for 70 years). A spammer who takes a minute and a half from a million people does the same damage to society. If you are the person being murdered (or enslaved), then it makes a huge difference to you, but overall the impact is similar. Stallman may well end up having an enormous impact on future society. Personally, I hope he does.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I believe people should be paid for their work, even if they happen to enjoy it. This is a very serious problem
.25 is probably too low, just for the hassles of maintaining it, but you get the idea)
affecting the open source movement and shouldn't be underestimated.
What is happening is, consultants are picking up free software, installing and supporting it while the original developers loose out on the bids. (How can they, they have to design the stuff) The idea of some how selling support is usually bogus. Someone else will sell the support for your product much cheaper than you can. (as well as support for other products, making them the logical choice for the end customer)
We need some form of registry network where people who CHOOSE can limit free downloads to other contributors, while charging consultants. (this would not violate the GPL, someone who obtained a copy could still make it available for free if they wanted, but lets see how many of consultants are willing to do that...)
I see people looking for "freeware" all the time. These are people who consider open source nothing more than a means of obtaining cheap (as in cost) software. I think these people should pay for it.
Even if the cost were just 0.25, it would point out that there is a real value in open source. A value that has unfortunately gone ignored. (Of course
This really needs to be addressed. Some how we seem to have this crazy idea that money is evil. (Mr. Torvalds even writes about it in the "Hacker Ethic") it's not the money thats bad, it's the closed nature of commercial software
thats bad.
You buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, thats the core spirit of the whole thing as I see it anyway.
Um, that "hippie with his head in the clouds" is responsible for an organization that has created some of the most widely used computer tools.
What the hell have you, the hard headed realist that you are, done?
Put down the hatorade and go write some code or something.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
People dispute that the renaming was done to advertise gnu, but RMS saw nothing wrong with this - "We think it is proper to give the GNU Project credit for making the free Unix-like system that it set out for a decade ago. But there is a more important reason for friends of GNU to use names like 'Linux-based GNU system' instead of 'Linux system.' This is to help spread the GNU Project's philosophical idea: that there is ethical importance in freeing users to share software and cooperate in improving it"
I'm an X11 hacker. You know, that software you probably use everyday? Now that I've responded, what have YOU done?
Regardless of GNU's accomplishments, Stallman actually holds the organization back with his, as I described them, head-in-the-clouds unrealistic view of the world.
"Sufferin' succotash."
http://web.archive.org/web/20020703193050/http://w ww.crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/1998q4/00 3006.htm
> I went to shake his hand, being that he's done alot for this community
> of ours. Ugh, and this gets gross, he kisses my hand instead of shaking
> it. Not only that, but he slobbers on it. That called for a bit of
> bleach.
RMS just made himself look bad when he didn't need to...although then again, what else is new?
In one of my last posts on here I talked about how (from what I've seen, anywayz) Red Hat had become profitable...there are a lot of other companies doing what they do, too. Making money with free software is entirely possible...RMS has written about it himself, and even used to do it himself when he was selling Emacs tapes. There's also this, which he could have even mentioned.
It is exasperating...No matter what else he does, the one thing he manages to consistently do is shoot himself in the foot.
There's three types of people; dicks, pussies and arseholes..
RMS reminds me of a communist regime. They preach about ideals and moral high ground to the poor masses while they are rolling in cash, driving expensive cars, and visiting their private retreats.
It's turtles all the way down!
GNU, Linux et caetera have burnt truck loads of money, but it was not "venture capitalist" money: it was time, bandwidth, equipment, brainpower donated by the contributors and their sponsors. The free software movement proved that:
If I read once more that free software was done with 0 investment I'll trak that bloke down and make him pay my electricity, broadband and ACM/Safari etc. subscription bills
As well as the above transcript of a talk with Richard, there is also a transcript online of the talk by Richard at the 4th international GPLv3 conference:
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
How do you get "0 investment" out of not spending a "ton of money"?
I never said it was created out of thin air. I said it didn't have to take the huge investment that a lot of corporations spend on their development models.
So pay your own bills until you track down two blokes as I don't qualify as one in the first place.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
my fault: you never said it was 0 investment, so you're off the hook :) ; still, lots of "open source advocates" tell that by releasing some half baked piece of software as "open source" a company (incorporated or privately owned) can get a lot of help for the cost of keeping the CVS port open to the internet and paying for the traffic.
about huge investments that are not required: if you think about the tremendous pool of resources that the Debian project alone mustered (skilled developers and QA, more or less skilled PR people, the sofisticated release and HR procedures, mirrors, bandwidth, hardware) and how much it would cost to own that, I think you will have a hard time to find many sofware companies that are worth more.
Part of the "huge investment" that "corporations" need goes on networked video cameras to prevent their employees from taking the company's IP home on floppies, on hiring well connected executives and lawyers, and on putting inspiring statues in front of the headquarters.
On the other hand, most of the cash some free software projects spend gets wasted on bandwidth by users that don't even give feedback like: "man, I hate your piece of *&^&*^(*; why don't you go into catering instead?".
If you meant that a free software project/company gets more value on the dollar spent, then you are right.
Good Point!
Instead of demanding from RSM to invent business models in addition to the many great things he already does, I think we have to use our own creativity to develop business models which do provide a way to make money directly from creating free software.
Just that there is not yet such a business model doesn't mean it that it is impossible. It just has to be invented, such as motors have been invented some day in the past. Before the first motor was invented, many people thought it to be impossible, probably.
Now, inventing business models is a task which requires a completely different skill set than inventing technical things. That's probably the reason why us programers have a hard time inventing them.
And people who are talented in inventing business models have no incentive to invent such a business model. They rather do what's easier, such as either proprietary software or selling services for free software written by others.
So, that's probably the reason why there is no such business model yet.
But I am still optimistic that such a business model is possible and just waits to be invented. Let me explain:
Actually it is a simple fact:
Free open source software delivers much more value to the public than proprietary software does. Among others, the value is enhanced by possibility to modify it, to study the source code, i.e. having a chance to really know what it does, so to be able to make an informed decision whether to use it, etc.
So, since more value is delivered, there must be a way to make at least the amount of money which can be made using the proprietary model.
The problem to be solved is a marketing and a selling problem. In other words, to find a way to convince people to pay for the value they get.
I think this must be possible in some way and I also think it will provide a lot of benefits to the free software movement if we find such a way.
I didn't yet find a complete business model but I am doing something for inventing one: I am intensively studying marketing and sales. (It has a real learning curve, especially for a programer. :-)
So I may come up with some solution someday. And I have a strong motivation to do so, being in my heart a believer in free software but on the other hand earning my money with writing proprietary software, partly with a program which I own. So as soon as I have a business model for free software which I trust, I am going to use it because I'd feel much better then.
I invite everybody to engage in a discussion about this topic in order to gather ideas. Just post a reply here or send me an email.
Maybe I will set up a website for coordinating the efforts of inventing business models for free software.
The current state of my ideas (which are not a complete business model yet) is as follows:
Provide an irresistible offer to the public which is a simple as: You pay me X dollars and I will release this software under the GPL which will provide Y dollars of value to the whole public. With the value Y being much much greater than the price X, of course. That's how the offer becomes irresistible.
(Now there are many variants to this offer. The software may already exist and already offered the proprietary way or the software does not exist yet but will be written as soon as the money arrives.)
This offer has just one essential flaw: The public is an abstract entity which cannot act as such. Only indivduals can act and to some extent organisations can act, but ultimately individuals make organisations to act.
So, the real challenge is to change that offer so that individuals can act upon it while th
If you meant that a free software project/company gets more value on the dollar spent, then you are right.
That is pretty much what I was driving at, but granted I didn't really articulate it very well. Being the self admitted Free Software Fanboy that I am most of my posts for this article were "is it let's all bash RMS day or what?" type of replies.
If I came across as argumentative then my apologies. Your absolutely right that developing any *quality* software takes a lot of resources, but resources don't necessarily equal dollars. I encourage the company I work for now to buy Free Software, specifically Debian for our servers. It's tough because it's not like paying for Debian buys you any support like with other distros. But the price is small so I convince them to get a copy of the CD's for day to day use (and copying for those of us that want to take home a copy) and DVD's to just keep safe in case they are needed later down the road. My main selling point is that if we want good quality software like this to continue to be available and for such a low price then we should invest in it. Hopefully the small amount we spend each year helps a little and buys some machines, bandwidth, whatever... I am pretty sure though that the majority of money that pours into Debian doesn't get spent on paying programmers but is spent on the infrastructure they've created to support developers and distribute software.
The main point I was trying to make with this article in general is that I don't believe that RMS lives in a fantasy world where software is created out of thin air by automatons that don't need to eat. His remarks about whether or not programmers should be paid have been twisted all over the place and my replies were basically knee jerk reactions to that.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal