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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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