Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
Well this is what he said according to TFA:
So basically, he being outed as a Charity basher because he is citing the LA times article that the foundation only spends 10% of its money on actual helping the poor. He doesn't say the organization shouldn't exist... He's pointing out that they aren't doing their best job of giving to the poor because they are investing for a return.
Read the LA Times article and decide for yourself though.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Have a read of this article from the LA times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I think that's what Stallman is referring to.
Don't know how much is true, but it makes depressing reading.
There's also this story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
To be fair to RMS, he doesn't really personally attack the Foundation, but simply cites an LA Times story criticizing it. The LA Times story makes a convincing argument that the Foundation's investing in pollution-causing industries negates a lot of its good work, and uses as an example an African man who has been immunized by the Foundation against polio and measles, while his lungs are destroyed by a nearby oil plant whose owner the Foundation invests in.
If RMS is high on your list of respected people, you have never actually listened to what he says.
Please. What do you suggest as the reason why someone would respect RMS? His good looks? His impeccable cleanliness? His tact? His unmatched skill at singing and songwriting?
RMS is respect-worthy for two reasons: What he says, and perhaps more importantly, what he has done. RMS pretty much single-handedly and deliberately created the free software ecosystem. Like it or not, without RMS, Linux would never have been anything but a 386 assembly-language pet project, the Mozilla project would never have happened, "Open Source" would never have happened, and Microsoft might even have a full-blown monopoly on web technologies by now.
Agree or disagree with him, if you can't imagine why anyone would respect RMS, then you need to research what's happened over the last 25 years.
http://outcampaign.org/
Newspaper articles don't carry citations, that was an article written in 2003 by Greg Palast. Hardly J. Random Conspiracy Nut Job or an orator of the contrived fictions presented in Fox news!
The reason they 'only spend 10%' is because they have a endowment to maintain.
I'm not sure anyone is criticising the foundation's financial model, but the LA Times has questioned the nature of the investments that the foundation makes to sustain itself.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I believe the assertion being made is that the foundation's charitable efforts are being sabotaged by its unethical investments.
Free software existed fine without RMS.
My look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows it was founded with two primary purposes:
- Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes. By giving it to a charity he controls, he gets additional benefits.
- As PR for Microsoft against the anti-trust investigation.
Bill Gates has been rich since the 1980s, but his Foundation didn't really get any significant money until 1999. And then Bill then realized around 2004 that he could run his Foundation as his "retirement", and so started giving it more focus.
By checking out the contributions provided at www.gatesfoundation.org, you can see (this is complicated by the fact he had two charities, with the primary one now being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation):
- As of 1998, Bill Gates had donated a grand total of $300million to both of his charities. That's not for that year, that's over all previous years combined, with interest/appreciation. This number is embarrassingly low for a person worth $100billion. However, it's probably just about the right amount to maximize his tax savings on a yearly basis. Also, the charity was building an endowment, and not spending all that much money.
- Then suddenly, in 1999, in the middle of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, he gives $15 billion. He gives another $5 billion in 2000.
- Then, once the anti-trust lawsuit effectively ended, in 2001, he gives $0. Yup, check it out yourself. Probably because he took a loss that year due to the stock market drop, didn't need the tax writeoff anymore, and didn't need the PR.
- In 2002, he gives $82.5million, again, back to the tax dodge. He gives $81.9 million in 2003. He's still worth $40-50 billion dollars due to Microsoft stock.
- In 2004, he starts to give his charity a little more notice, and starts donating $700million in 2004, $442 million in 2005, $333million in 2006, and $1.2billion in 2007.
I wouldn't be surprised if the recipients of his money found it had lots of strings attached, but I'm not interested enough to dig up all this dirt. Although it's nice he's giving some of his money away, IMNSHO, it's just about the least he could do (except for the $20billion PR stunt). I also think the expenses for this foundation are quite high, and are probably more of a tax dodge. The foundation also spends considerably less than he has contributed, so it's building a very large endowment. It seems benign. So far.
I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.
I did a web site for the PTA (Parents & Teachers Association). Microsoft has "charitably" given them a pile of software. This "charity" was like the 1950s image of the drug pusher - the first one's free. This "charity" did not include any support or upgrades. Given that the original cost of the software is generally the smallest portion of Total Cost of Ownership, Microsoft's "charity" was, at best, just "good business".
The PTA would have saved a huge amount of money by refusing Microsoft's "charity" and used open source software and spent the money that would have gone to support and upgrades on hiring skilled Open Source people to customize applications to their needs.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
Yes.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
The more important point the LA Times article was making is that the foundation invests in companies that cause or exacerbate the global health problems that the foundation is itself trying to ameliorate.
It is similar to how the World Bank will offer developing countries "green loans" for environmental conservation at the same time as offering them structural adjustment loans, which have harmful effects on health, inequality, and the environment.
The implied criticism is that the foundation engages in only small-scale, reformist attempts at improving health conditions in impoverished countries while perpetuating the global system of inequality that causes these social ills.
Cheers, -m
Clever use of the "Poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Your Marketing professor would be proud of you.
There are very valid reasons to be suspicious of Gates' new-found generosity. And there are certainly very valid reasons to be wary of the path the Gates Foundation is taking to world health.
Their close financial ties to large pharmaceutical companies is another example.
According to a report published January 7 in the Los Angeles Times, the Gates foundation invests its assets in companies whose operations induce some of the health problems it seeks to combat.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
An authour of a piece of GPL software can re-release it under a different license, assuming of course he is the only once who has been working on it. And it's also possible to withhold your own changes to someone else's GPL program, if you're using it internally.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Give away a dollar to save 40 cents.
No, you're missing the point. When he gave the money to the foundation, he was not giving it away; he was just transferring the money from his personal wealth to the foundation's wealth (which he controls). I'll shift from the Gates foundation (which may be entirely legitimate) to the Ford Foundation for the example.
Henry Ford transferred stock from his personal wealth to the foundation. He gave away nothing, as he controlled both his personal wealth and the foundation. The difference is that when he died, his heirs paid inheritance taxes on the personal wealth transferred from him to them; no tax was paid on the foundation assets, even though control passed from Henry to heirs.
The Ford Foundation has since stopped being the largest owner of Ford stock (in 1956, when the stock went public) and stopped being controlled by the Ford family (in 1976, when Henry II stepped down).
It's also interesting that the Ford Foundation gives away an even smaller proportion of its assets than the Gates foundation does. According to wikipedia, the Ford Foundation gave away only $530 million on assets of $13.7 billion, about 4% rather than Gates' 10%.
Transferring wealth to a foundation is not like giving money away. The money isn't given away until the foundation actually does so. While its under foundation control, it can still be controlled by the person who established the foundation (depending on the rules of the foundation). That's ignoring any additional dodges, e.g. using the foundation money to issue loans to your corporation or employ your relatives.
Well, I'm too lazy to dig up links for you (I'm sure GrokLaw has archived something on that) but the money transfers to M$ business partners came up during antitrust case (the M$ vs. DoJ). This is a fact backed by evidence, part of antitrust proceedings.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
No, it was Compaq for figuring out how to legally create an IBM clone (by reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS) that brought a single platform to the desktop, which Microsoft then exploited because they retained the rights to DOS.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I work for an organization (www.fhi.org) that gets quite a bit of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for any number of health related studies and/or programs. For him to say what he did shows that he has no idea what he is talking about, as the programs they sponsor serve a definite need.
No, the foundation cannot solve all the issues that these people face. Whether it is a lack of viable employment, stable food/water supply, sanitary living conditions, or just a dictator who generally opresses them, their problems are much greater than just general health.
I've got news for you Richard: Open source software isn't the solution to their problems either.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
The catch with Copyright in the US is that it was originally 14 years, but laws have pushed it all the way up to the author's lifetime plus 70 years (or a flat 95 years on works made for hire, such as movies and music).
Unfortunately, when Eldred v. Ashcroft pointed out that this was contrary to the purpose of copyright as laid down by the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that as long as the length was not infinite, it was not in violation of the Constitution.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
In October 2006 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was split into two entities: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the endowment assets and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which "... conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and it is the entity from which all grants are made." Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths." This would close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ... Warren Buffett has stipulated that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns at death are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled.
The plan to close the Foundation Trust is in contrast to most large charitable foundations that have no set closure date. This should lead to lower administrative costs over the years of the Foundation Trust's life and ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ideology in modern western capitalistic world already ?
the right to retirement, weekly vacation days, daily working hour limits, job safety are all modern concepts that were only possible by pressure the socialist and communist revolutions of early 19th century, but especially 1848. still for these to come to fruition we had to wait until the advent of 20th century, and we are only able to have a civil working environment just for the last 60 years or so. before that, especially in 19th century, corporations were using people virtually as slaves - a few hours off for sunday mass, rest of the week hard work with pathetic pay for 10+ hours with no safety or guarantees and any retirement rights.
all the concept of preventing monopolies so there could actually be equal rights to compete comes from the socialistic ideals of late 19th century. yet still it took 2 presidents (theodore R and franklin D R) to get this important precondition of life to become a reality and liberated usa from the hands of 4 to 5 big robber barons you can easily name, even now.
i really detest people who put forward prejudices about stuff without knowing history.
Read radical news here
They could, however, buy that support from local firms and consultants, keeping the money in local economy and simultaneously creating an incentive for education in computer science, helping said economy in both short and long term. And of course they'd eventually get every penny back from taxes.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Let's have some facts here - how much money is spent on proprietary software from Microsoft vs, oh, say, guns and military programs? This is the classic 'Guns vs Butter' argument in Economics 101. I mean, it's not as if all the software were to be suddenly be made free for governments, they would funnel the 'billions' they spend on Microsoft software into food-for-poor, or cure-diseases programs. As has been sited earlier, only a small fraction of any IT spend goes towards licenses. Services and maintenance contracts make up a bulk - as much as 80% [citation needed], and it is not as if the FSF software is magically cheaper to manage or maintain. Don't get me wrong - I love Open Source as a movement, but it has a long-ass way to go before it becomes truly ubiquitous in the consumer markets, the enterprise and the government. That is what we should all work towards. I don't think philosophical arguments are going to change proprietary source champions. But, if they find an economic way to benefit by releasing code and fostering innovation, I'm sure more of them will start doing so.
Consider this, actually: the pharma corporations have _already_ developed and patented _cures_ for a lot of diseases. Roll the time back a century or two, and stuff like tuberculosis or cholera or pneumonia or typhus killed people by the dozen. We now have antibiotics against those. Bacterial infections used to be the number one reason to die after surgery. Now they stuff you full of antibiotics instead.
Get this: the bulk of the wealth of those pharma corps is built on selling _cures_.
What people don't get is that there's more than one kind of disease.
- bacteria: we're quite good at killing those, because they're different from your own cells. E.g., the whole beta-lactam (penicilin) group works because bacteria have some different proteins than you do in the cell wall, and the beta-lactam ring can cause the whole cell wall to collapse. E.g., Streptomycin and the like attack the bacterial ribosome, which luckily enough is different from the human one, so things can exist that react with one but not the other.
At any rate, that's antibiotics. And basically that's the only thing we're really good at curing: bacterial infections.
- viruses. These slightly modify your own cells to produce more viruses. But otherwise it's the same f-ing cell, the same ribosome, and the same proteins in the cell walls.
The best luck we've had with these is vaccines. We pre-train your own immune system to deal with certain viruses. But that's not as much a medicine, as some dead viruses for it to play with. Downside: for some viruses it doesn't seem to work. Others mutate so fast that it's hit and miss, e.g., flu.
We have some anti-virals, which are very different from anti-biotics. They tend to be very limited in effectiveness, and very toxic to your own body. Which is what's prescribed for HIV. (Hence, any antibiotics you get for a flu are pure placebo, btw. Nobody prescribes antivirals for a flu, unless it's something deadly like the bird flu, because the cure tends to be worse than a normal flu.)
But, at any rate, we're still pretty bad at curing viruses.
- cancer. This one is even weirder, because it _is_ your normal cells, with some safety mechanisms broken. Essentially for a cell to become cancerous:
A) the proteins regulating divisions must break. (Human papillomavirus does this by adding the code to a broken protein to your cells, so hopefully it binds with the DNA instead of the real thing.) But even that then hits the maximum division counter and stops. That's why warts don't kill you. So
B) the cell must start regenerating its telomeres, i.e., reset the maximum division counter. That sounds like doing something extra, but remember that every cell has the DNA for all other cells, it's just inhibited or not expressed. The body already has the code to reset the telomeres of, say, sperm. (So your kids start with a full counter, and not with your remaining life expectancy.) A broken cell can start doing the same by mistake.
When you get both in the same cell, it's cancer.
At any rate, these _are_ your normal cells, with as little as some wrong aminoacid in a protein or two. Even your own immune system has trouble recognizing a lot of them, and since they still mostly work like the rest of the body, they can even send the right signals to get more blood vessels to support their growth and other fun stuff.
And btw, there are a lot of types of cancer, depending on exactly what was broken and in what type of cell. So one cure-all medicine is highly unlikely.
Nobody knows how to treat the vast majority of these, because there isn't some vital _and_ different protein you can attack, like we do for bacteria. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy actually break the DNA of all cells, and hope that it kills more cancerous cells than good ones. Because (I) cells currently dividing are more vulnerable than cells who have their DNA nicely spooled, and (II) cancerous cells often have broken DNA-repair proteins, so some breaks would be repaired by a normal cell, but
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.