Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Unsure Whether Firefox Is Truly Free
Slatterz writes "Among the theories Stallman bandies about in this Q&A are: Facebook may not share private data with the CIA, Firefox isn't really 'free software,' and his dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software. Agree or disagree?"
Agree or disagree?
I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
He is sure Firefox was not free.
He is knows the problems have been corrected.
He is not sure right now because he uses lynx.
You could offer a homeless man on the street a free sandwich, and if he had to walk a block to get it, Stallman wouldn't think it was free.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Thus the reason he is labeled a ZEALOT.
The man is delusional and just needs to go visit any communist/socialist society and live in it to discover that his ideals just don't work because human nature will not allow it.
He in fact says:
I'm sure we're going to get debates about pragmatism versus idealism. Isn't idealism just pragmatism with an eye to the future? Both want to get the best. The pragmatist wants the best of what is available now, the idealist is prepared to sacrifice now for the best that it can be in the future.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I Just Took A Huge Shit. It was free!
Good for you buddy. I keep trying, but can only release vaporware.
I'll need to get some prune juice, it's the latest 'open sauce'.
some of what he is smoking....
and his dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software
I mean, I'm all about open source but nobody developing or promoting proprietary software? What about the business world and the wide variety of custom made software tailored to specific business segments? What about gaming?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
...that Stallman wasn't out to destroy the software industry as we know it. Now, his own words condemn him.
I can't decide if you are trolling or not but Stallman is mostly harmless. I seriously doubt that he has the ability to destroy the software industry as we know it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
...that Stallman wasn't out to destroy the software industry as we know it. Now, his own words condemn him.
argh. Stallman is out to destroy the software industry.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You could offer a homeless man on the street a free sandwich, and if he had to walk a block to get it, Stallman wouldn't think it was free.
He'd also have to make it himself, and not use any sauce with a logo on the bottle.
Not only that, but anyone who eats the FREE shit will likewise produce more FREE shit. And if you happen to have a virus, like hepatitis or AIDS, it will be passed along as well.
I think the FSF should change the GNU logo. Sure, a big smelly cow-like animal with unkempt hair and dingleberries hanging from it's asshole represents most FREE SOFTWARE programmers, but a steaming turd represents the ideals (and implementation!) of FREE SOFTWARE
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If the CIA needed access to the Facebook databases and were unable to get it (either through social, legal or technical measures), I would consider that to be a massive display of incompetence. If the world's most highly funded spying agency isn't capable of accessing Facebook accounts from a cooperative company, then it (the CIA) should be shut down, since it's clearly going to be of no use at all against more determined opponents.
I think he should switch to Opera or Safari.
Wow, Stallman's done a lot of great things but he's marginalizing himself with these statements that are borderline silly.
It's similar those ridiculous things that hippies would say in the sixties like "I dream of a world where everyone takes LSD" or "drinks the kool-aid" and then everyone will form a Terra-wide circle and sing "age of aquarius".
The idea is out of touch, his hair is out of touch, he really needs a healthy dose of reality.
Good riddance to most of it. It's a vast economic inefficiency.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
If Stallman says he isn't sure whether or not Firefox is free software, I'll just play it safe and surf the web with HURD.
As long as you don't prevent the homeless man from analyzing the sandwich, copying it, and giving it (or copies of it) away without making the recipients walk a block to get it, Stallman would probably say it's Free.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Facebook may not share private data to the CIA
There's private data on Facebook? I thought the whole point of sites like this was to enable teenagers and not-quite-grown-ups to plaster all nitty gritty details of their lives on the internet in unreadable blue-on-pink pages.
Firefox isn't really "free software"
He's not the only one. But as always, normal people don't really care if free software is 100% kosher as long as it works well for them.
and his dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software.
People who have trade secrets to hide will develop proprietary software, that's a fact of life. Video card manufacturers for instance may not want to reveal the underlying structure of their hardware through the driver code. I fail to see how this is morally wrong.
It's a royal pain in the ass to end users who may be forced into a particular OS because of feeble driver support, but the motives of the driver maker is understandable.
Agree or disagree?
Yes.
I don't remember anyone scoffing such a statement. Mostly I've noticed people either agreeing it was a good thing, or disagreeing and saying it wasn't a good thing. Regardless, not enough people take him seriously to make him much of a threat. All of free, open source (but not quite free) and closed source software are all valid points in our modern computer industry. They all provide differing sets of pros and cons, each of which help out the industry as a whole. All categories have excellent software, and software that sucks. Each category, when it improves, encourages the other categories to improve as well.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Maybe people should stop drooling over every little thing the experts claim and make their own decisions using their own thoughts. Read what someone says, then make a decision about whether it is an opinion piece or they have some facts that are useful.
I realize his opinion was an 'I'm not sure' opinion rather than what the OP stated, but still. I use Firefox, it's free, and it does what I want. The other conditions he puts on it are irrelevant to me. If it stops being free (as in beer, not freedom) or doesn't do what I want, I'll go elsewhere.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No he isn't. He appears to support the idea of paid software development and paid services, but insists that the users of that developed software should have the right to copy, modify and redistribute it.
Anyway, I agree with him. Having worked for 2 years with a contracting company that was almost 100% Linux and open source, I can say that the open source software development and services arena is very profitable. We never had a customer complain that the solution we delivered was either based on open source, or that our changes would be open source due to the GPL or whatever. What customers cared about was a) did it work and b) did it not crash (the two are somewhat related). As long as we checked those boxes, they were very happy - you'd be surprised at the number of contractors who try to deliver overly fancy solutions but fail on those two basic points.
More software developers should ask themselves "What's the worst that could happen if my customers could modify and redistribute this software"? For proprietary software, it means you can no longer hold customers to ransom and insist on yearly revenue generating "updates". For developers who get paid for hours worked doing actual development and support, this is no problem. I prefer the latter - getting paid for actual work just seems more honest.
Oh, the woe! Stallman is trying to get people to voluntarily stop engaging in practices that create artificial scarcity for the purposes of artificially inflating stock values. If he succeeds, the CEOs of our companies will no longer be able to justify their huge compensation and golden parachutes, and will no longer be able to dangle the promise of riches, in the form of stock options, in front of us so as to trick us into accepting lower pay, long hours and lousy benefits.
What a bad, bad man he is.
Where people like Stallman stop begrudging others the right to make their own products and sell them. It's one thing to be critical of the fact that software is so much more restricted than say, a car or a new TV because of the contract they're able to get away. It's quite another to act like someone's rights are being violated because they have to buy a new copy of a program for each computer they want to run it on.
If corporations and other profit-seeking entities were not involved, free and open source software wouldn't have gotten anywhere. One inconvenient little fact that people like Stallman fail to understand is that consulting is no way to support a business that **makes** things. I doubt RedHat would be successful compared to Microsoft if they had to shoulder most of the R&D costs themselves.
You make ask yourself "why does this matter?" Because it turns the role of corporations in the economy on its head. They go from being the primary drivers of production, to being the primary beneficiaries of production because they are the ones making the few consulting bucks off of others' production of OSS code that can't be sold off as individual licenses due to it being open source.
I happen to like and support a lot of open source development, but having worked as a contractor since graduating college, I can't even imagine how fucked up our industry would be if it were run by consulting firms. They are some of the cheapest, most short-term thinking businesses in this country.
I'd wish he'd drop dead but that may just make him a bigger "hero" for more RMS goodness see: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/12/10/486713 *sigh* The guy is nothing short of mental
It is not. The Firefox logo is not free. Thus, any software that includes that logo is non-free also, and Debian developers know it very well
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Stallman isn't mostly harmless. He's let the wind out of the sails of a really pernicious business model. For the people who were prospering on the basis of that model, he is pretty much the antichrist. The reason you think he's mostly harmless is that you are not one of those people, not that he is not effective (a less polite way of saying "mostly harmless.").
All of the code is open source and tri-licenced. Do with it what you want.
Say about him what you want.... He does stand for his principles. That said: I never managed to get Debian Etch to run on my EEE 701 4G. The wired network card isn't even supported. :-(
Okay, many people have accused him of this, but reading his response how he came about to his free software ideals really doesn't strike me that he quite understands why software costs money. Kind of like how warez kiddies I knew in highschool didn't quite understand why those pirated copies of Photoshop weren't free to begin with. Coding on a PDP-10 in the 80's is great ... but now we're at an age where thousands upon thousands of software developers have to make a living *somehow.* Calling commercially closed source developed software a social problem is extreme. I couldn't imagine an age of software development where I could buy something, freely replicate it and expect the application developer to make money on it in other ways than dragging their heels on supporting it. How does he expect software developers to make a living?!
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Destroy as we know it? Evolution does that, something that used to be isnt that way exactly anymore. You can call it destruction, or call improvement, or change, for better or worse. And if the software industry dont fit exactly in reality, then it must adapt or die.
And if well i dont fully agree that everything must be open source in a future (as could be cases where is better that way, even if is the "guess how i did it" game), more openness is needed definately in a lot of areas. And that wont mean the end of software industry, nor the companies on it.
that is all
I have no personal evidence that he is currently free, thus he falls into the same category for me as Firefox does for him.
More disturbing (from TFA)...
I wonder which of these is true:
Richard Stallman has had his stay in the limelight. The world moved on.
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
If you believe that then you have never heard him talk.
He believes that all software should be free software and if you can't make a living off free software then that's not his problem. He say's you should get a different job instead of being a paid programmer while still working on free software.
Ironic from a man who lives in a bubble, he's never had to have a real job his whole life.
I can't remember the podcast, he said this on, it was around 5 months ago I would say.
Because honestly... who does? Mozilla is free. Saying otherwise is pure pedantry.
No, they aren't, because the Firefox name and logo are registered and well-defended trademarks, so you can't modify them, etc. Iceweasel is Free, though.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Stallman's definition of "free": stuff he likes. His definition of "not free": stuff he doesn't like.
If firefox isn't free enough whats stopping him from making his own free browser?
You know what? So what if firefox is not completely free?
It is a superior piece of software - I would use it in preference of IE even if it were completely proprietary.
I would give Opera a more serious consideration if that were the case though.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
You can always replace the logos and distribute the same software you got, so, it is not Firefox that isn't free, it's the logos. There are packages where everything is free, but on Firefox, just the software is free.
That, of course, doesn't make the problem less anoying to distro makers.
Rethinking email
Yes, I agree, Richard Stallman dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software.
The -- ahem -- "idealist" says "these are my principles, I don't violate them".
The "pragmatist" says "I just want this done by Friday and will violate my principles for the sake of that."
At first glance, it looks like the second person values action and results more than principles. But that's actually not the case: She just has a different principle: expedience, "getting it done by Friday", and values this more than her other principles.
Thought experiment: make it so that the thing won't be finished on Friday unless the pragmatist kills someone. You will discover a closeted (horror!) *idealist. In most cases, the thing won't be done on Friday.
To sum up: this is a false dichotomy, and a tiresome one.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Stallman was not talking about cost in $$$ or effort. He was talking about "freedom" (free as in speech). He believes that there must be some piece of code in Firefox that is tied into some corporate governance which does not allow people to take, use, modify, distribute, etc, etc. It's really a sorry thing. Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, people like Stallman were critical. The community needed people like him to ensure that FOSS started free and stayed free. It kept the corporate money mongers at bay and made sure free software (as in speech) had a place to grow and mature. Every time there was an encroachment by somebody trying to corrupt that, the GPL and other such licenses were there to push back. Unfortunately, it seems that lately Stallman and his crew have gone beyond simply "protecting the idea" and have moved into fanaticism. This could be potentially dangerous for the community. While many view Stallman as a crackpot, he really has been critical to the open source community. Sometimes, an idea needs an empassioned person to keep the fire alive for the good of all. But if he really does go further around the bend and really does become a raving lunatic, conspiracy theorist, a true wackpot: then he will simply be ignored, even by his own FOSS community. Then he will be irrelevant, and the staunch support of the open source ideal will be marginalized, and then FOSS will have no protectorate. Stallman is hurting his own cause, which does make me concerned for the community as a whole.
"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." Richard Stallman
"Programmers could develop custom software by day, develop general purpose free software for fun. Or pay people for developing free software. Or sell support, or copies of free software." Richard Stallman
It seems RMS fully supports the idea of paid software development. I wonder why so many people think differently - poor reporting, or just personal bias?
I doubt he means in house use only software. I really doubt he cares if that is open source. I do not think it even matters. For all intents and purposes to the world the software does not exist.
I think his concern about everything being open source is in reference to software available to the general public by any means. I seriously doubt game companies would give out source simply because staying ahead is coming up with tricks/effects your competitors don't have.
while his idea sounds cool the problem I see is providing incentive for people to do something. Who is going to write tax software, let alone stand behind it, and just provide source to where any competitor could get hints on how to do it? I know, extreme example, but writing good software does not require it to be open source or even have source code available. It is their work and they should be allowed to distribute it as they see fit. To that end Stallman is just the reverse of some corporate types - in that he is just as selfish as they are.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I really don't get it. He's ideologies are extremist and not realistic for what most of us call the "real world". Said real world is most definitely both free and not free. Air, for example, is free. The home in which you live, is not, although I'm sure RMS would argue that THAT should be free too.
What a flipping wacko.
And anyway, what does he exactly mean by "free" and how does it affect me? Why should I care what he thinks?
We need to get this communistic line of thinking out of our software development, people.
What kind of freedom do I lose by using a GNU browser? Does one exist?
Oh yeah there is Konqueror. It requires me uninstall Windows Vista, give up on ms office, wow, and many apps and use an os that is not supported fully by my laptop. I lose wifi, sound, lan, and 3d graphics. I would have to purchase an expensive mobile wifi card by sprint or verizon which is against the spirit of free software.
Oh that is right its my fault for buying a laptop that is not fully supported, but Linux or Gnu Turd is the saint and why is not everyone using? I do not have time nor should the average user care to look up every device in every computer for excellent linux driver support. Most stores wont give out all the hardware detail anyway for things like the 5-1 card reader. THe average Joe will just shake his head and prefer Windows after hearing about hardware support and blaming the user for problems with GNU/Linux.
Linux is great in the server room but not for the average Joe for the reasons I dscribe above. Installing Linux or other GNU software does lose time and freedom for people who want to get work done and use their equipment. Windows already comes with the price so they might as well use it. Install and work and have no problems.
After all of this I then end up with a browser that sucks and can't support sites like my bank and my schools outlook program.
Time is money. If free as in GNU is inferior and costs time then its not worth the free price.
Also in business I need things done and I do not care about freedom. Free things cost money to implement and support and I am willing to pay $$$ off of my employers dime if it helps us achieve the required results. RMS does not understand economics 101.
Firefox is both opensource and free to download and offers little drawbacks. In my opinion its freerer than the GNU alternatives.
I will take firefox with its source code anyday.
Also RMS should take an economics 101 class. Money is freedom as it gives incentives for people to work and offers rewards and excellent products and support.
http://saveie6.com/
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
That, of course, doesn't make the problem less anoying to distro makers
Pot? Hello, Kettle! The distro makers are all doing the same thing. You can take the source code to Fedora Core and make your own Fedora-like distro, but you can't use the the trademark 'Fedora Core' nor can you use the Fedora logo or any other trademarks.
My blog
So software written in C# or VB is not free software?
How about applications written in Java before it was open source.
Heck say you used cc vs. gcc to compile your code.
Using non free modules is just like using a non-free compiler as you are building in code that you may not have the full source with.
I myself am a larger support in Open Specification vs. Open Source. (Yes you can have Open Source code which isn't Open Specification) as Open Specification is real free speech as you explain how the application works. Vs. just giving them the source no matter how sloppy or cryptic or incorporating platform particular commands (Eg. Saving Floats in binary format of the particular hardware, Different platforms and hardware will save this data in different format). An Open spec tells the person what is happening and allows you to create a new app that can do the same thing or better or communicate with the app.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, people like Stallman were critical. The community needed people like him to ensure that FOSS started free and stayed free.
Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, Richard Stallman was still working on Emacs and the Free Software Foundation wasn't even a twinkle in his eye. It wasn't yet called any single name, let alone "free software" or "open source software", but it was incredibly common and was being promoted and distributed without restrictions by companies like AT&T (the Software Tools virtual operating system grew out of code published in Software Tools) as well as individuals and user groups like DECUS and FIG.
You can always replace the logos and distribute the same software you got, so, it is not Firefox that isn't free, it's the logos.
Well technically : the logos and the "FireFox" name itself. But the code is still free.
There are packages where everything is free, but on Firefox, just the software is free.
I think that's why the parent mentionned IceWeasel.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I hear RMS is adding a clause whereby anyone using GPLv4 software, no matter how indirectly, implicitly agrees to forfeit their right to use or develop any piece of software that is not also covered by the GPLv4. Long live Freedom!
why does trackback make firefox non-free? by the logic stallman uses, cedega running on any linux based os makes linux non-free
portfolio
RMS would probably just eat the sandwich you gave to him. And then complain it wasn't free enough.
Well, you better erase that Linux distro off your hard drive if you'll only use software that doesn't use trademarked names. No, no, you can't use Debian either, because the name Linux is trademarked, too.
My blog
Ironic from a man who lives in a bubble, he's never had to have a real job his whole life.
At least someone in the tech industry still gets to enjoy a bubble?
*ducks*
You can ask that the guy walk to pick up his sandwich. That's reasonable. You just have to let him know where the sandwich stand is, not prevent him from eating other sandwiches when he eats your sandwiches, and allow him to modify the sandwich including using different sauces and garnishes, bread, cheese, meat and spices, then copy and distribute the modified sandwiches without restriction as long as the sandwich is distributed under a compatible sandwich license.
Some of the terms of other sandwich licenses:
LGPL - same as GPL except specific exception, the sandwich may be combined as a platter with non LGPL side dishes such as fries or perhaps a salad.
BSD (three clause) - the ingredients must be packed with the license warning, the sandwich must be packed with the license warning, you cannot claim your sandwich is endorsed by any individual or organization without prior approval.
Artistic v2 - please note what ingredients were changed from the standard sandwich to produce the modified sandwich.
X11 (MIT) - do whatever you want, it's not our fault if you kill yourself.
Richard, you're rewriting history. The licenses of open source software are more often derived from sources like the BSD and MIT licnses, which are at least as old as the GPL.
The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid
I'd like to see where he gets that from, I've never talked to anyone personally that works in a company that develops free (as in beer) software.
Well, this little blurb convinces me that RMS is now firmly in the grasp of the last throes of DMAAS (Doesn't Matter At All Syndrome).
FTFA: "and his dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software"
I guess RMS has never realized that one of the reasons that Linux(the kernel) has been so successful, and Hurd such a failure, is the plethora of companies that have been willing to provide support (direct, indirect, or simply documentation) to Linux to increase its features to work with their hardware. I think it has something to do with the mascots. At least Tux looks professional.
Thanks for insulting the paid and unpaid programmers who made it all work, RMS.
Sit a potential user down and get them to look at GNU. Shitty logo, meaningless name, and stereotyped militant following. Now get them to look at anything to do with Microsoft. Clear cut image, a household name before it was a household name, and a stereotyped idiot following. People seeing this would rather commission a team of programmers to create them an app that already exists in Open Source form that they never knew existed, because apart from the odd exception of people like Red Hat, Ubuntu et al, nobody in the open source community is willing to regard people used to closed-source software as anything else than the unwashed masses waiting for enlightenment. The people that make the decisions don't give a shit whether a new OS/software package/etc has a particular philosophy associated with it, as is evident from a lot of companies being "liberal" with site licences they actually paid for. What does matter is the snobbish attitude shown off by people like Stallman towards people who have a need for software, be it open or closed source, and the stereotypes they generate that have harmed the open source community.
You can't, however, use the trade secret of your source code (I would be flabbergasted if you could write software for the F22 and keep it secret, and the MoD have no need to share a GPL change for their purpose, so what's the difference? None.) to overcome your incapability.
In the 1990s, there was a philosophical split in the free software community between those of us who wanted freedom and those who only appreciated the practical by-products of free software.
In the 1980s there was a philosophical split in the free software community between those of us who wanted to write and share good code, and those who wanted to make a political movement out of it. The split was created by the GNU Manifesto, long before one group of people in the 1990s decided to pull together in response to the Free Software Foundation's politicization of the community.
Well his views are freedom at the cost of freedom. He wants a world where all the software is free. However by enforcing this he restricts people on their freedom of choosing how to license their software. I am OK if you choose to release it via GPL but I don't like being harassed if I choose to release my code via closed source, or a non RMS Approved Open Source License.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
> getting paid for actual work just seems more honest.
Who cares what's honest? The goal is to get your client to willingly part with their money and give it to you. I couldn't care less what seems 'actual' or 'honest'.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'm not sure why words such as 'threat' keep showing up. Technically, you can say Stallman is advocating destroying something, but you could say the same about an architect who says "We'll have to bulldoze the old carport before we can put up the new addition." There's pure destruction, and there's change, and change invariably entails the old stuff not being around, unchanged, anymore. Anyone who advocates any change is advocating the old being destroyed, or allowed to destroy itself, or time erasing the old, whether we do anything to help time along or not.
I see people disagreeing with Stallman because they don't like the direction he's pointing towards, and want other changes instead, and that seems reasonable enough. I also see some who are disagreeing with the very idea of change, and want to change the real status quo, by changing things so there are huge forces working to stop all further change, and who swear they aren't advocating changing anything. That seems a mite paradoxical.
Who is John Cabal?
How does he restrict how anyone licenses their software? All he has the power to do is choose how the software he writes is licensed. Considering this, his ideals must mean a lot to people considering the extraordinary amount of free software out there today.
GPL killed this scheme.
As much as William Henry G3 dreamed to monopolize it all, let Richard be the counterweight dream to free it all.
I understand: the language you speak is owned by no one ( French exempt), the symbols of writing ( though not all fonts ) are free, the rules of mathematics are free -
and so should all cultural techniques be free which are to be used by the majority of the population.
Therefore SW should be free!
There will always be some fields who are special so that nobody is willing to invest programming time in it. There commercial software is right.
You want it - you get it by inserting the proper amount of coins!
I realize this headline is trying to make an issue out of something that isn't there. But I can't help but pose the question: If someone is so obsessed with his own orthodoxy that no practical wide release can meet his standards, do we really care what he says anymore?
---don't make me break out my red pen.
Those people are few in number, and we disapprove of them. Hence, two meanings of "mostly harmless" are relevant :)
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Most people are morons unable to read past the headlines and the sound bites.
A lot of these people accuse Stallman of essentially being consistent with his own ideals, mostly because they feel offended that he doesn't mind if in his ideal world they were out of a job because they used to develop proprietary software. Well, suck it guys, at any rate he doesn't want the development of free software to be forced; he would like users to come to the conclusion that Free software is better and this would not chose proprietary solutions to begin with.
How does he expect software developers to make a living?!
Simply by getting paid to write code.
As they've always been.
What Stallman wants to change is that as much as possible of this code, once written, should get distributed :
1. with its source.
2. with authorisation to play around with said source
As an example, a huge amount of the contributions to the Linux kernel (which is GPLv2) are done by professional developers paid by IBM, Novell, RedHat, etc.
RMS' dreams are to extend this model to as much companies as possible.
Of course then there's the problem that not all companies are going to hire developers to write GPL code, simply because the some companies count on making money by selling said software.
(Unlike, for example, companies whose main income is done by selling hardware, services. Or academia who are state-sponsored. etc.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Stallman Unsure Whether Firefox Is Truly Free
In related news: I'm Unsure Whether Stallman is Truly Sane.
#DeleteChrome
The EeePC comes with a variant of the GNU/Linux operating system, but it's a very bad one: it contains lots of non-free software. In fact, the machine demands that the user agree to an EULA before it will even start up. I received an EeePC as a gift, but I could not run it because my conscience will not let me agree to the EULA. Finally, I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used.
Does anyone else find it strange that he couldn't (or wouldn't) install Linux on the machine by himself? Why exactly does he need a friend to do that?
Stallman has been around since 1980. I hope there isn't that much to discuss.
I mean seriously haven't we all heard it.
Let's talk about weather chevy or ford is better while we are at it.
My opinion is simple enough. I don't oppose his ideas. I don't see him forcing anyone else do to anything. So the compitition looks good to me. If you want to use a service provided , you use it under the circumstances provided or don't use it. That seems simple enough to me. Use free software, or open source software, or role you own.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The -- ahem -- "idealist" says "these are my principles, I don't violate them".
The "pragmatist" says "I just want this done by Friday and will violate my principles for the sake of that."
Could not one say a pragmatist is one who has a set of "ideals" but realizes that list may contain mutually exclusive goals?
Lacking the ability does not mean he doesn't want to. You confuse ability to do something with desire to do that same thing.
>Good for you buddy. I keep trying, but can only release vaporware.
That's still better than not being able to release anything at all for decades.
If the general masses don't have to pay for it, then according to the majority it's "free". Stallman always has and always will argue about the true definition and scope of "freedom" and this case is no exception. I'd be inclined to say !news, both for the true freedom of FF and for RMS's opinion about it, but then again FF is a really tough one to call...
/* No Comment */
Out of touch he believes that more people get paid to develop open source software then proprietary.
If you can't see the stupidity of your own quotes then please don't respond, I don't want to argue with someone who is like stallman, unable to see the truth and only able to see their ideals..
Restricting people to open source their program is just another kind of control, and I really hate that.
...whether Nelson Mandela is truly free
No one is garenteed the right to a successful business. So it turns out that hippies living in their mom's basement are capable of churning out professional quality software. This is not a situation to complain or litigate about. This is an indicator that perhaps writing proprietary software is not the best business to get into.
In most cases, the thing won't be done on Friday.
And in the case of some CEO, someone will be found fucking killed by some chair.
Plus it won't be done on Friday, until it's been redefined as "Friday... next year".
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Your answers:
"Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons - for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs."
No, it isn't. It is generally accepted that the copyright of user generated output of a program is controlled by that user. Some rare (inevitably proprietary) licenses do claim copyright over output of the program, but no open source license does that.
If I have 2 terminals open next to each other, and personally type GPL source code line by line making changes as I see fit (mostly renaming variables), can I redistribute my copy using a different license?
You speak London? I speak London very best.
He just created a fork of Stallman's dream OS: GNU/TURD.
Sometimes, I just don't know what to think of Stallman. Sometimes, he says things that make some sense. Other times, he says things that are borderline crazy. I guess the best way to put it is that there is a fine line between brilliance and insanity, and he walks this line quite precariously. As far as Firefox goes, what does it matter if it's not 100% GPL compatible? It's free enough.
--Z
This interview:
Copyright © 2008 vnunet.com
If he was such a "free" messiah, then he wouldn't have agreed to do this interview.
I don't respond to AC's.
If you read the article, he doesn't say that Firefox is not currently free. He says that it may not be, then gives a really excellent reason why this is so.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Did they complain when they realized that their competitors now have access to that same software solution, for free?
It's that he's not against paid software development, he's against (not adamantly, but somewhat) paid software.
It's as in "you pay for my time, skill and materials I use to produce, then you get the product I made" versus "you pay for the product, it's none of your business where I got it from or how much it cost me to obtain it." Socialist "Good pay for good work" versus capitalist "supply and demand regulate the price".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There is one thing about RMS that constantly amazes me. He is always on the right side of things. It usually takes several years before people start to understand what he is saying, but eventually everyone comes around.
The biggest misunderstanding that people have about Stallman's positions is the assumed fundamental disconnect between "capitalism" and "free software." He's not a communist, but he values his freedom above profit. If anything, that is historically a very "American" position.
He has no problem with making money, but he has a problem relinquishing his ownership rights and control over his property (his computer) to some other entity (proprietary software).
It is a reasonable and rational position, especially since Microsoft, Apple, and so many other companies are in bed with MPIAA, RIAA, etc. Web sites collect so much data about us. Are we really free? Is our own computer really our own property?
In many ways, and this my sound radical, the right to create proprietary software is similar to the right to own slaves. Look at proprietary software in voting machines! Is there a better example of the destruction of human rights and democracy by proprietary software?
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection. Why is not software? Why do we allow large corporations to sell us software that does not necessarily operate in our best interests? Do you think DRM is in any way beneficial to you a stake holder? Do you think it is right that YOUR DVD player will *not* let you skip a commercial?
The freedom to restrict another's freedom is not freedom, it is tyranny. There may be financial gain in such actions, but is freedom something that we fight for only to sell to the highest bidder?
I don't agree with his ideals at all, and cannot stand the GPL.
So, I'll continue to use the BSD license. Yes, someone can take my code and use it in a closed-source app. I'm OK with that. If I thought it was worth the time/effort to sell it, I wouldn't release it via BSD. If they think they can make money off my work, they're welcome to try.
Yes but if you do the job right then you are more likely to get other jobs from them later or recommended
Didja know that Slashdot moderators consist of multiple people? Not just one person with multiple personalities or an inability to make a decision.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
on and on the list goes. Those that feel they don't belong hang on to something that makes them feel they do. Is a case study in Psychology 101 classes. Psst. DON'T drink the kool-aid.
Well technically you can't have a GPL Java, c# or VB app, because you can only link GPL apps with closed libraries if they ship with the OS.
Of course nobody takes it that far, except maybe lawyers.
You're referring to an issue that was solved earlier by altering the User-Agent string to reflect that it was a Debian fork, and you didn't mention that the main reason for this was back-porting later Firefox security fixes to older Firefox versions. The issue at hand is that the Firefox logo has a branding license (see grandparent post) which is incompatible with Free Software licenses and thus it cannot be wholly released as Free Software. (If I recall correctly, the branding license is more clearly incompatible in small part due a policy change on these forks, amplifying the logo issue that had been largely ignored up until that point).
This issue surfaces with Debian because they, like Stallman (but unlike Shuttleworth for Ubuntu), will not make compromises in their definition of Free Software. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) are not compatible with the Firefox branding licenses, and that will not change in the future (DFSG is also not compatible with the GFDLv2, another non-code license, which causes similar issues).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Get over it. The trademark isn't free. The source code is or else there would be no Iceweasel.
Iceweasel must be the worst name EVER for what is basically a name and graphics fork.
You know I really liked RMS ideals but they will never work. FOSS doesn't fill every software need and I don't think it ever will. I use FOSS, I contribute code, and I tell others about it but I don't think it will replace closed source.
It is an issue that he doesn't have the power to do so. But if you have ever listen to his speeches he is not at all open to ideas other then his own.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Before RMS spoke about it most of you were for Cloud Computing now you are against it. You're a bunch of sheep.
Your sig: I don't know about the rest of /. mindset crowd, but I'm neither 'for' nor 'against' any technology really. I've always said that people should use what works.
My blog
have you even read tfa?
oh, wait, this is /.
Would you label programs such as OpenOffice and Firefox free software?
OpenOffice is free software, and has been ever since it appeared under that name.
Firefox is a strange case, since initially the sources were free software but the binaries released by the Mozilla Foundation were not free. They were non-free for two reasons: they included one non-free module, Talkback, for which sources were not available (even to the Mozilla Foundation); and because they carried a restrictive EULA [end-user licence agreement].
I think these two problems have both been corrected, so maybe the distributed Firefox binaries are free software today.
factor 966971: 966971
More software developers should ask themselves "What's the worst that could happen if my customers could modify and redistribute this software"? For proprietary software, it means you can no longer hold customers to ransom and insist on yearly revenue generating "updates". For developers who get paid for hours worked doing actual development and support, this is no problem. I prefer the latter - getting paid for actual work just seems more honest.
Well, that's not entirely how capitalism works anyway. You don't just get paid for actual work, you get paid for actual value. Proprietary software attempts to hold value at the vendor by forcing you to get your fixes from the same vendor, tying you to a support contract in order to get those fixes. Free software entirely changes that value - instead, you get value from not only being able to have many eyes looking over the code, but by being able to hire someone who thus has your interests in mind when reviewing the code. It definitely is much harder for a company to make money this way. Obviously not impossible, but much harder.
What vendors have to start realising is that the software actually has much less value to customers than they think. It's the results that have value. Once you realise that, you can start to capitalise on it, and start selling services which come with free software.
All that said, Stallman's answer to the last question was a complete non-answer. I've seen less evasion on a question from politicians. Not very often ;-), but still... The question asks about individual developers, and Stallman rants about commercial (corporate) power. Way to ignore the little person. And the guy doing the interview.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With Internet Explorer each installation has a unique ID that can be queried by the website being visited, thus enabling tracking more reliable than simple IP logging. Does anyone know if FireFox has a similar unique ID for each installation that can be obtained by visited websites? The product is "free" but it comes at a price of privacy.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
This has been discussed many, many times here. Sharing ideas is different from sharing physical goods. Making a copy doesn't take the original away from its owner.
My question is the inverse. I know you can use GPL tools to make non GPL applications.
But using a NON GPL Compiler vs. a non GPL Library really isn't that different. If you have taken a look at .NET part of the language is using a huge set of close source libraries that get compiled into the code. The same thing with Java. .NET code that does a function as part of the language but it is not ok for me to install a closed source library that can do the same thing for a different language. The issue of licenses it is possible for such license to be set for the compiler.
So it is OK write
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Additionally, he'd insist on attaching the sandwich's recipe to the sandwich, with a note saying that others who followed this recipe to make their own sandwich who did not do likewise were going to burn in hell.
Furthermore, he wouldn't use a 'black bottle' of sauce, instead, he'd insist on making the sauce himself from raw ingredients, even if the homemade sauce didn't taste anywhere near as good as the sauce in the black bottle.
Finally, he'd insist on calling it a GNU/Sandwich.
My blog
The sauce would require a freely available recipe.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Except that he's correct. More people do get paid to develop software that fits the definition of Free Software. I believe that's always been the case.
Every person who works in the IT shop of some company churning out custom solutions for that company is working on Free Software. There are a heck of a lot more people working in places like that than work for Microsoft or anybody else who's main business is producing software to be distributed.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
IMHO...
1. Those who think that the CIA cannot get any piece of information they want are being rather ignorant as to the real power given to these agencies. Do you actually think half of what the CIA or NSA is capable of doing is even declassified for consumption by the general masses?
2. Firefox is free. Free to download, install and use. Download and have fun, and quit digging for pointless loopholes.
3. I wonder how he would feel if we removed every royalty from his "proprietary" writings, never printed another hardcopy anywhere, and made them all available for free download?
I do use and promote open-source, but our economy is riding south in a handbasket as it is without the "help" of yet one more person ranting for a free e-lunch. Use FOSS where you can, but pay for what proves to be valuable to you and your business. It benefits everyone in the end.
Stallman says " I hope to see the day when nobody is employed in developing or promoting proprietary software."
Cloud cuckoo land so far as the embedded software community is concerned.
At the extreme, the military are never going to open-source, say, missile guidance systems. The chance that the software structure or some embedded fact (e.g. that the range storage can only reach 1000 km) will leak some militarily significant fact.
But at a lower level, imagine someone open sources an Anti-lock Breaking System, and the system is involved in an accident in which it might, or might not, in its original or modified form, have contributed to an accident. Yes, I know that most open-source licenses carry complete disclaimers. The cost of defending the, when people's children are in the morgue is too high for a company to consider. US tort law, allowing claims against any party with money, is just too wide ranging.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Heh. I think you underestimate scales of the market.
I develop free (as in beer) firmware that is useless for any other hardware than manufactured by our company. Firmware: Free but useless if you don't pay for the hardware.
In my previous job, I was making free (to use) software with millions of users, thing is the software was never to leave the door of the company, it ran on our server farm and users were connecting to it through WWW. Web apps: Free, but never distributed.
These two account for more than half of existing software industry.
At an earlier job, I needed to write converters and other tools for data for machines I was using. My job was to get the work done, nobody told me to write that software, but it appeared essential for the work. It never left the company, not that anyone would find much use for it. Closeware: Free, never used outside.
Before that, I was doing admin and freelance work. I would write small scripts and various little tools that got the problems solved. The employer never cared what I do with them, they wanted their equipment to work, that's all. Ad-hoc problem solving programs: Free, but you pay for service, not for software.
In the meantime I was finishing my studies. My thesis involved a rather big software project. Obviously, I couldn't demand the university pays for my program before I present it. University-made software: Free, paid for in form of passing exams or getting a degree.
Oh, and I wrote a couple of small programs just for fun or for solving problems that nagged me, and released them as GNU. Free Software: Free, just because.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
That's one way of putting it. Another is that the hivemind is maddeningly inconsistent.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Firefox might not be free (as in speech) but it's free (as in beer) and that's good enough for most everyone I know.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
And for those of us who don't agree with that, we have the GPL.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Like CentOS is already doing.
Exactly what did actual communists do with a popular piece of software that everyone liked?
They licensed it and sold it to the West, it was called Tetris.
If they think they can make money off my work, they're welcome to try.
it's not about making money off your work. that's not what the gpl prohibits. it's about not letting people steal your freedom.
You could hand Stallman a can of beer, gratis, and he'd say it wasn't free because it had a trademark on the label and the recipe wasn't open-source.
I bet he'd drink it, though.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If they think they can make money off my work, they're welcome to try.
[The GPL is] about not letting people steal your freedom.
No, it's not, and it's that sort of doubletalk that makes those of us who can't stand this crap cringe.
It's about not letting people close off their modifications to your code. THAT'S ALL.
If I release a project under a BSD license, and someone decides to use that to base his code off of, releases it under a proprietary binary-only nazi-EULA, where has my freedom gone? Oh wait, I still have it. I still have the copyright on my own code, I can still do whatever the hell I want with it. My freedom is unchanged.
I think he is kinda taking it too far. Everything should have moderation and he sounds like he is fuming over Asus adding non free components (which ALL computer companies do) to their linux OS. Just like with a windows PC if you don't like the stupid toolbars and trial crapware than remove them but he should commend them for not forcing people to buy windows.
There is a need for proprietary software and you people have to be realistic. We can't just go all the sudden to 100% free software because that meaning people working for free to make all that software. There are a lot of people who donate to free software and many people who contribute to free software but you can't expect every single programmer to work for free.
Just my 2 cents.
I just believe there is two sides to everything and having radical views are never good.
I don't understand. I can download Firefox sources and compile a copy for myself. I can change anything I want to inside that source code before I do, as well.
If I want, I can fork Firefox, change the name to - I don't know - Icecat, and use that instead. Oh, and I can release it, too.
How is that not free?
Moreover the mozdev web site seems to run on non-GPL software... even proprietary! Maybe it's time to switch to AGPLv3?
As Mateo_LeFou says below, it's somewhat of a false dichotomy - even the pragmatists have certain bedrock principles; his example being "No Murdering".
Idealism has its place, but idealists run into the problem of sometimes having pie-in-the-sky visions: ideas that won't come about today, and may not even come about in the future. So, by refusing to budge, they sometimes get no "payoff" rather than a delayed payoff.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
...Stallman definitely sure that water, soap and razors are not free. Thus, he holds to his principles, and refuses to use them.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
They take forever to update Icecat. I'm switching back to Firefox
difficult, when they patent bits of it and then sue you.
Only if it was a Gentoo sandwich :o)
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
A friend of mine hosted Stallman when he was speaking at our school. Among the other bizarre things that my friend witnessed Stallman doing, Stallman doesn't use _any_ browser. Instead, he sends a mail message to himself, his procmail settings then download the page, the page is converted to a PDF and the page is mailed back to him.
Software was also not the driving force in the industry back then. Hardware was. Being able to copyright your software is an unqualified good because it gives you the ability to do things like release it under the GPL or sell licenses to others at a reasonable price. Good for Gates for helping us here.
That was then, this is now. One of the benefits of having copyrights on this stuff is that any inventor can use international copyright law against people who do seriously uncool things with their software, like if someone decided to fork Python or the Linux kernel into a proprietary derivative. The law did actually adapt to changing times because now that the industry is worth a lot more, there is a lot more incentive to screw over everyone, especially open source coders who often make good code, but lack a huge corporate backer.
Early gains are frequently very, very quickly made in any area of research or industry. This is because they're new and there is so much to learn and work on. As they mature, there is less of a frontier for them to explore. In a century, we'll probably be having the same arguments about genetic engineering because by then, genetics will probably be as understood as any other field like programming or mechanical engineering.
Maybe you should spend some time in, say, Norway?
More software developers should ask themselves "What's the worst that could happen if my customers could modify and redistribute this software"? For proprietary software, it means you can no longer hold customers to ransom and insist on yearly revenue generating "updates".
Just letting them modify (but not redistribute) the software would also accomplish that. Letting them redistribute it means that suddenly it becomes much harder to find paying customers in the first place.
For developers who get paid for hours worked doing actual development and support, this is no problem. I prefer the latter - getting paid for actual work just seems more honest.
I kinda think so too, but it's interesting... end uses don't care about your time, they care about how useful the results of that time are. What you're selling (time) isn't really the same thing that your customers are buying (useful software).
And that makes him different from, well, most people... how exactly?
That might be a little hard to do, what with the prior art being publicly available. Not that a little thing like that would stop a patent troll, but still.
In what possible way is his writing whatever comes to his mind "restricting people to open source their program"?!
He clearly defined the 4 freedoms he cares about, and licnesing your code with whatever you want is not one of those freedoms. There is not such thing as absolute freedom anyway, just rules to follow. You're just applying a reasoning here which pretty much voids any set of rules, for the sake of an undefined "absolute freedom". I might as well say that your criticism implies that I should not have the freedom to [X] (replace here X by "restricts people on their freedom of choosing how to license their software")
I thought BSD (three-clause) and X11 are functionally the same nowadays.
Not much of a hivemind, then, is it?
If people seem to agree, of course it is the hivemind at work---if they disagree, well, it is the hivemind again, now showing how sadly inconsistent it is.
You must be really good at parties...
If you cannot see the advantage of being able to know something labelled "Fedora Core" is actually *the* Fedora Core, well, then I have some designer clothes I think you might be interested in, at an amazingly low price...
Names and Brand Identity: Intellectual Property Everyone believes in.
I'm pretty annoyed by mindless rejection of everything Intellectual Property-related because some parts of the law aren't equitable, reasonable or decent. There's one poster to Slashdot (rms, is that you?) who goes by the name IDontBelieveInImaginaryProperty, with a link to EndSoftwarePatents.net. This individual has a name and an identity which aren't physical property (they may be correlated to a human being or a small shell script somewhere), but they're very much intellectual property. What would rms do if I passed myself off as rms, or supplied copies of any GNU software that was inferior product masquerading as the original?
From TFA:
I certainly won't use [proprietary software] myself. I launched the GNU Project in 1983 specifically to make it possible to get away from proprietary software. Now that I have escaped, I am not going back. I hope to see the day when nobody is employed in developing or promoting proprietary software.
Could you please point out the part where RMS wants to ban all proprietary software?
But if you have ever listen to his speeches he is not at all open to ideas other then his own.
Does that make him a bad person? Honestly, the guy is entitled to his opinions!
I don't know about anyone else - but so far I haven't paid for downloading the latest FF. Well besides the fact I'm running on a Windows pc.
Get up!
it's about not letting people steal your freedom.
By freedom you mean the ability to keep people from integrating your work into other work with the same license as long as your copyright is involved in the documentation?
If, sir, you mean that is stealing freedom then by all means.. yes.. yes it is stealing freedom.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
The saddest thing is we all know you are right, but legal fees and such may and usually do become a huge obstacle.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Yup..you are FREE to use any license you want. That's YOUR choice. But what if somebody takes your BSD licensed code and puts it under the GPL (they CAN do that your license allows it)?
Still want to go with the BSD license?
I think a lot of people just don't understand what the "free" part means. Now for an obligitory car analogy...a car is open source, I can get the manual and find out the specs of every part that goes into it and if I am patient and clever I can buy all those parts individually and assemble my own car, but I, like most people would rather buy a pre-assembled package...same with software...you can pay people to write it and charge people to buy it BUT once the software is paid for, then it belongs to the purchaser and he or she ,if they desire, should be able to monkey with it to their hearts content.
Stallman is useful. He's probably the most successful anarchist of all time. Anarchists are usually destructive or a joke, but Stallman figured out how to make anarchy work. His big success was in devising the GPL, which was a major breakthrough in contract and copyright law. If all we had were BSD-type license or dedication into the public domain, we'd have too many forks of the code, as with, well, Unix. The GPL maintains focus, because you can't add something and declare the result proprietary. That was clever.
Is the EEEpc coming preloaded with crapware, like Dell and HP products? If so, I take his point.
I'm not a Stallman fan personally; I've met him. Despite that, it's good that he's around.
However by enforcing this he restricts people on their freedom of choosing how to license their software.
Except that he 'enforces' nothing as he as no power to do so (except in the limited case where *he* controls the copyrights to a given piece of code, in which case it is surely his right to use any license he wants to?) Also he has shown no signs at all of wanting to gain the powers necessary to 'enforce' the one true licensing model by changing the law.
He persuades, maybe even harangues; he does not enforce.
I am OK if you choose to release it via GPL but I don't like being harassed if I choose to release my code via closed source...
Who *is* 'harassing' you? Stallman, a man you've (presumably) never met or communicated directly with, who doesn't know you even exist? Do you have an imaginary stalker as well? Do you have some sort of persecution complex?
Most of the anti-Stallman posters on this thread seem to think Stallman is trying to get non approved licenses banned and the related developers imprisoned or something.
Here's the news: He is just trying to persuade users of software that it is in their interests not to get locked in to proprietry non-open software. OOO! Scary!
Actually, he says "I think these two problems have both been corrected, so maybe the distributed Firefox binaries are free software today."
So they fixed the two criticisms he had, yet he still only 'maybe' thinks they are free. His 'excellent reason' makes absolutely no sense. He's probably just jealous that they have a successful ideology combining free software with making some profit from their ventures.
You are talking about cost of the sandwich, which Stallman does not care much about, he cares about the freedom of the man to get a recipe for a sandwich and modify it as he sees fit for his needs, and forbidding him to sell sandwiches without providing both the original recipe and his own modifications.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are going to use any allegories you have to use them correctly, not an incorrect interpretation of the actual stand of the individual in question.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You could offer a homeless man on the street a free sandwich, and if he had to walk a block to get it, Stallman wouldn't think it was free.
I understand you're joking, but your joke reveals a misunderstand of Stallman's position. In your example, the walking represents the price of the sandwich. The sandwich is not gratis or free from cost, but it may be free as in "free speech". Stallman has no problems with people making money from software, ie. the sandwich.
If, in your example, the homeless man was required not to share his sandwich with his friend or not to peek inside to see what's in it, that would be the breech of freedom that Stallman won't tolerate.
By the same analogy, the homeless man is allowed to peek inside and make the same kind of sandwiches and distribute them. He may sell the sandwiches, but he may not withhold the recipe. If he alters the recipe, he must make the alterations public.
You see? The bread and the toppings are the physical medium, the sandwich is the (compiled?) software and the recipe is the source code.
Lemon curry???
And what's the difference from them doing that with a GPLed program? Claiming patents on bits of it and suing you?
It's not the publicly available prior art. Nope. The BSDed project has that too.
It's not the major attorney fees from defending yourself from the bullshit suit. Nope. Both have that problem too.
Yeah, the patent system in this (and several other) country is fucked up. But that's orthogonal to the claimed issue of "freedom"
You also gain nothing from their work. The BSD license gives you more freedom to simply hand out your work and not have to worry where it goes to, but the GPL gives you the opportunity to see some benefit out of someone else deriving your software.
Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)
Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Sure it was free to distribute but I'll bet it wasn't free to make.
I'm sorry, what? Are your implying that licensing under GPL is mandatory or are you implying using someone else's code is mandatory and anyone who doesn't like the license they must comply to can't write their own damn code?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
You also gain nothing from their work. The BSD license gives you more freedom to simply hand out your work and not have to worry where it goes to, but the GPL gives you the opportunity to see some benefit out of someone else deriving your software.
So it's not a question of "freedom" so much as "entitlement." Gotcha.
Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)
MY code's freedom remains unchanged (if you believe in that sort of thing). If my BSD code is out there, someone modifies and closes it, then further developers are still just as free to download my original code and make the changes of their own.
Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.
Bollocks. Both BSD and GPL are about distribution rights. Neither has a damn thing to do with usage rights, so the end user is a non-involved party. Down-chain developers are involved, and they are free to start from my code and build, just like the guy who did so and closed it off.
Did you just not read the comment you replied to?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Except, if I were to use a secret sauce on the sandwich that I provided for free, Stallman would say it is not free. And that's just stupid.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
*whoosh*
Communist shill?
The government can't save you.
Without RMS always being so far out there to the extreme, the "comfortable middle ground" most of us live in would be too close to the other end of the extreme.
Zealot: "a fanatic or an extreme enthusiast"
Fanatic: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." or "a person whose enthusiasm for something, esp. a political or religious cause, is extreme"
Stallaman is an extreme enthusiast for user's freedoms, if you want to call that enthusiasm extreme, that is your prerogative.
But Stallaman has enough long reasoned philosophy about software licensing (which is what the GPL is all about) which many people, including for profit corporations, are embracing, that to claim he is delusional ( delusion: "a mistaken idea or belief") is at least highly debatable.
As for the childish meme that Stallman promotes any kind of communist or socialist ideology, well, it is frankly a baseless, tired statement.
Multiple for profit companies use GPLed software to make business and people like you, forget that humans are not rewarded only by money, also the GPL is based on a conceit that does not exist in communist societies: copyright (which is only understandable in a capitalist society, where the state is not automatic owner of whatever the populace produces).
So to insinuate Stallman uses a capitalist conceit because his love of communism is frankly a catch 22 that people spreading this nonsense need to explain satisfactorily.
But go on, keep trying to spread nonsense with no base in reality, we will gladly keep correcting you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm just thrilled to note that, at time of writing, and thanks to Slashdot's fervent disregard for logic, consistency, or relevancy; my brazenly flippant remark has somehow been modded DOWN to informative.
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
Wow, what you just said is so insightful, informative and funny!
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
So they put they're additions under GPL; the original is still BSD licensed. It has no effect on the original developer.
The Debian sandwiches take less time to prepare.
apt-get eat sandwich
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
> iceweasel was kind of a dick move from developers that didn't want to live up to the same expectations as everybody else.
You are missing the point as to who the 'dick' here is. It's Moz Corp. Take the .src.rpm for firefox from Fedora and issue an rpm --rebuild on it. You can't redistribute the result of that command without entering into a trademark license agreement with Moz Corp. That isn't true for any other package in the Fedora repos, because for any other package such a requirement would be considered a bug. Any other package would get renamed or removed to comply with their requirement that all packages be redistributable, modifiable and not legally encumbered such that Fedora has a special right to distribute. It is way past time for Firefox to go from any free distribution. Debian finally did the Iceweasel rename, now it is Fedora's turn to do the right thing. RedHat can certainly keep the branded version in RHEL but if Fedora is going to stick to it's Free Software only stance it must rename.
Democrat delenda est
Not when making sandwiches.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
My honest opinion, too, in the hope it is not utterly drowned in this flood of honest opinions.
1.
Anyone with a knowledge of the evolutionary process, especially as given in the natural history, would instinctively seek to regard a phenomenon as a form of life. Any form of life has that potency to survive and evolve, possibly suffering along the way but eventually possessing the qualities to outlive the current craze and ultimately thrive afterwards. Such was the case of mammals being bullied by XXL reptiles; such, I tend to think, was the way of early Christians in the Roman Empire.
What was it mammals possessed that allowed them to survive? Homeothermy, wool, milk, brain and crepuscular vision; whatever it was, it was not useful in fighting back. Whatever it was, it wasn't useful in the short run. Strong belief not drawn from any material token.
Stallman's propounded "free software" being the case in hand, is likewise not limited to 'here and now'. Many flashy things of early 80's from proprietary software are long dead and forgotten: emacs and, especially, gcc have ever been gaining vitality.
Stallman is right in dismissing commercial value as a principal condition of any piece of software to exist. One does not need to be a chosen one to go hacking; granted, a certain degree of talent is necessary, but the amount every male has inborn, would by and large suffice. And, to put the same differently, a piece of software will survive not because it is patentable and patented and protected, but because it is a *good* piece of software. Short-term exigencies and profitability don't matter here.
2.
Yet I believe open source, as a form of life, is even more fit. Accessory to the nat. hist. criterion are the notion of enthropy in physics, and the notion of parsimony in discourse.
Open source puts the fitness for life down solely to the programmer, with his hackerdom vocation as the primary reason. Open source does away not only with commercial viability of a project, but also with moral attributes Stallman so vehemently stands by. This take on things is simpler, more elegant, more economical in means of subsistence. Both Stallman and Torvalds have that nearly subliminal clarity and succinctness in expression--and even here Torvalds outdoes RMS. Both live to support a grand cause; and yet watching Linus' speak is so gratifying in that it poses an example that there *are* causes to live for, and not just run round peddling whatever is selling to make ends meet.
Of course I did. The EULA debacle was rectified by Mozilla, and if memory serves correctly Firefox was actually forked for a short time while it was being resolved. That sure sounds free to me.
Stallman encourages people to sell their products.
... in so few sentences?
Who is forcing you to do anything?
Release your software in any way you wish, what Stallman and any proponents of FOSS say is that releasing non FOSS software is counter-productive for users of that software and for society as a whole, since cultural advancement is hindered.
If you don't like that message so be it, but equating âproposing* that people, *freely*, release their software for the benefit of society to some kind of enforcement is most disingenuous.
Now, if what you want is to do whatever you want with software that was not produced by you, well, we all want to be free loaders, but in most civilized societies we have reached the conclussion that such state of affairs would not be a good idea, so copyright is put in place to fend off freeloaders.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
if Richard Stallman should remain free...
Blame copyright for that problem, not GPL.
If you can combine works under different licenses and then pick which one you want to obey, then everything can be copied freely: Windows has BSD code in it, so no copyright there!!!!
But COPYRIGHT LAW says that in a merged product you MUST be able to obey all the clauses of all licenses.
So if you don't like it, change copyright.
Linux is trademarked
Even better, so is Debian.
iceweasel was kind of a dick move from developers that didn't want to live up to the same expectations as everybody else
That wizzing sound you just heard was the point going by directly overhead.
Can I make up my own distro and call it Debian?
I guess that's not Free either.
But what about if the new ideas are rubbish?
Since such a judgement is completely subjective, by holding that "closed mindness" against somebody what you are really saying is that you don't agree with him, but your wording masks a genuine disagreement with an alleged fault in the character of your opposite.
Which is of course a fallacious way of conduct a discussion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
whatever I want it to mean and nothing else.
When did Stallman send the GPL Ninjas to beat you up for not releasing your code under the GPL?
I think most people whining about this are like little children in the playground: they see that all the clever children are playing with a better toy but insist to play with the rubbish one they have, and latter claim they are being bullied by the other children ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hmm.. custom software or consulting is just not as fun as selling a software product.
Besides, software products have benefitted the world in terms of making general use software more available at a lower price long before "free software" came around.
I a "free" world people would be "free" to license there software the way they wish.. not be harassed by fanatics like RMS.
No, CentOS is based on the SRPMs for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (which is in turn based on various versions of Fedora core), not on Fedora Core itself.
My blog
By the GPL supersedure clause - the GPL license forbids linking with any of its libraries without your software also being GPL and if it is not GPL, the GPL license supersedes your license. Many libraries are released with an exception to that rule (like gcc), but if you build, say, on Linux and want to release using BSD you'd better be very careful and check to make sure every library you use is not strict GPL.
The LGPL was written for anyone that wants to allow the library to be used in commercial applications but the FSF strongly discourages its use. It also is explicitly only valid for dynamic libraries, although plugins are valid if and only if the parent library is also LGPL.
The simple solution would be to not link against GPL'd libraries if you don't want to release as GPL, but on some platforms that is easier said than done.
> Well, you better erase that Linux distro off your hard drive if you'll only use software that doesn't use trademarked names.
It is a matter of how the trademark is licensed. I can rebuild everything in a typical Linux distro and redistribute it. Yes the Debian or Fedora trademarks are an exception but there is an easy method provided to deal with that because modification and redistribution is encouraged. And note how the whole respin scene IS being brought into the fold in both projects and the trademark issues are being dealt with. The single exception is Firefox. Rebuild the unmodified sources and you have a package that can't be redistributed without entering into a legal agreement with Moz Corp. See the difference?
Rebuild, modify an rebuild, do whatever you want within reason and you can still redistribute the Linux kernel package and still cann it "Linux", you can even use the mods with the Penguin on the boot screen.
Rebuild Samba and you can redistribute it. Add some patch ya got from the Internet (perhaps a security patch) and yup, you can still redistribute it and even call it Samba.
Just rebuild Firefox and you can't call it Firefox anymore. All binary copies of Firefox must originate from a source under contractual control of Moz Corp. Not Free.
Democrat delenda est
You missed my point entirely. %s/Fedora Core/Firefox//g and then you'll get it.
My blog
A very big company (well, it is smaller today), does this.
They fix FOSS software for their own purposes, but understanding that it is in their own interest that the software keeps improving, release the changes back to the community (note they would not be obliged, since they are not distributing the software, only use it internally).
Here is what Stallman said:
So RMS pointed out, correctly, that Firefox contained non-free software before, and he believes, but isn't certain, that the problem has been corrected. Lesson: when a Slashdot article seems to suggest that someone is bat shit crazy, even someone you do not like, follow the link and read the original article before commenting. Slashdot employees who are actually getting paid don't do this, which leads me to wonder if the policy is to deliberately stir up controversy so there will be more page views and ad revenue.
That such thing is moderated as insightful is frankly tasteless.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Thus the reason he is labeled a ZEALOT.
The man is delusional and just needs to go visit any communist/socialist society and live in it to discover that his ideals just don't work because human nature will not allow it.
Well, I think there's an interesting question in there:
material communism seems not to work, but what about when we're talking about information? Information which can be shared at virtually no cost, and which (in the form of computer programs) can be complex, practically useful, and still trivial to copy and share - is "communism" when applied to such a substantially non-material "property" still impractical? Or do the different rules at play make it work?
That said, I would say RMS pushes things a bit too far... Hoping for a day when free software totally supplants commercial software, for instance. If technology stopped moving forward, if the capabilities of the machines stopped dramatically increasing so quickly and the concepts of what people need from the software running on them stabilized, then I could see the opportunities for proprietary software diminishing significantly. If machines could be made intelligent enough to program themselves, the same condition could occur. In either case, the system would then presumably be accessible enough that snybody who wanted the machine to do something a little differently would be able to make it happen - and the issue of whether that change is shared or not would be pretty meaningless. In the current world I don't see that working - things still change too quickly in the world of computers for hobby development to catch up, let alone take over.
To me, the best role of free software is to raise the baseline standard for computing. That is, you have these commercial developers creating new software that pushes the limits of what you can do with your machine - and meanwhile you have free software which raises the standard for what users can do without those applications. Low-cost or no-cost software with lower capabilities than commercial applications helps to raise users' expectations, which in turn acts as another force driving innovation in the high-end stuff. If this no-cost software is "Free Software" in the FSF sense, then it raises the baseline for programmers as well, because they can access and reuse the source code from the application to push the baseline further.
Bow-ties are cool.
Can we please move on?
Most people using Linux receive it in a machine with it installed already.
Can we please move on to discuss relevant, up to date issues?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you don't think that RMS had the end user in mind when preparing the 4 software freedoms? It's protection for the distributor that benefits the user, without the user that developer wouldn't mean a damn thing, and that can either mean working for the consumer's interest or exploiting the user. Proprietary software tends to do the latter.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Honestly, installing an OS is an almost janitorial task nowadays in any organization ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Huh?
..what adheres to the rules that he publishes, whatever the version they are at today (GPL 3.0 ?) which I lost track of. He is a purist for the sake of being purist not helping anyone else. He wants his name to be in the limelight all the time. What he says has no merit as far as I am concerned. So, who gives a flipping f*** ?
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Stallman has never defended piracy...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The problem is that the GPL is viral while the BSD license is not.
They said there were WMDs in Iraq.
They have no idea were Osama bin Laden is.
Thy allowed the murderers of 9-11 to commit their atrocities.
It seems only people like you and me, who are easily identifiable, are at any danger of being caught by the CIA if needed, any other people should not really worry much.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Most people are more practical and will use what works, whether or not it fits Stallman's definition of freedom.
fire -> ice
fox -> weasel
It's a very clever name.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Most software (by developer hours put into it) is developed for a single client (in house or by contractors) and never distributed to anyone. There is one customer who is willing to pay full development costs for one working copy of the software. This code is often technically "Free" by RMS rules (the one and only user owns the source), and there may be little impediment to making it really free: the client doesn't care what anyone else does with the code, they just want their solution. A lot of people make software that easily could be free, even if it isn't currently.
So it's probably reasonable to point out that developers can still get jobs if they only work on free software.
Of course, there is still a heck of a lot of software development funded via the traditional proprietary model, spending the money up front so you can sell enough cheap copies to make it up later. The fact "most" software could be made via Free methods is irrelevant to the objection that quite a lot could not. (At least in an obvious manner)
Is the military distributing its software?
If they aren't then all this discussion does not concern them. As a matter of fact the UK government protested strenuously about not having access to the source code of the software in some US made fighter jets, the problem was solved to the *client's* satisfaction (the agreement was undisclosed, but if the UK government was demanding access I can't imagine they did not get it in some way).
As for your second example, I don't know what you are smoking. I still have to see any software that accepts any liability of any kind, proprietary or not, in any case litigators would go after the person that packaged the full solution and offered it commercially, I fail so see how any developers, who most likely would have put disclaimers on their software, would be liable about how a third party decide to use their software...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The BSD sandwich will let you sell a whole new sandwich based on the old recipe if you so choose. It's more freedom and a tastier sandwich.
Stallman has, in fact, done a few days of "real" work in his life. At least I assume so, since he wrote original versions of emacs and gcc.
Give the guy a break. He fights for what he believes in. And if he *wasn't* doing that for the past 20 years, then the software landscape today would be a hell of a lot more proprietary and annoying than it actually turned out to be.
You don't have to agree with his views, but at least respect the man for consistently being right. Why not go flame someone else.
Did you read the post I was replying to and mine?
I don't use his 'free' source code because of it's restrictive license.
I do use open source code with less restrictive licensing.
And, I do use proprietary and 'free' binary applications, but don't modify the source.
Just read the article. Generally, he makes sense and I'm happy he started this FSF thing because I'm using a lot of the software today and I like his philosophical ideas.
I think I understand his criticism of open source software. It's not just limited to software development. Corporations use certain dirty tricks to coerce power away from people when they can't have absolute control. From that perspective, I can see rhyme and reason in his philosophy.
In any case, reading a lot of the comments, I'm seeing that people are calling him crazy and irrelevant, etc., but it's kind of hard to avoid that his ideals have led to significant progressive changes in the freedom to use and develop software. I, along with millions benefit from this change. This process needs to continue.
Doubtless, no one is "right" about everything all the time, so that's why, you know, we all have brains to think with. Regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, he does lay out some very well thought out ideas. Personally, I think trashing a person because you don't agree with him is a waste of everyone's time. I'd rather read some real criticisms and perspectives on his philosophy.
"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." Richard Stallman
"Programmers could develop custom software by day, develop general purpose free software for fun. Or pay people for developing free software. Or sell support, or copies of free software." Richard Stallman
It seems RMS fully supports the idea of paid software development. I wonder why so many people think differently - poor reporting, or just personal bias?
Here's the problem:
Let's say that we live in RMS's ideal world, and all software that exists is FOSS.
Say I want some software developed that doesn't exist yet.
I can either:
And there you go. Rather than taking initiative and doing something, it becomes advantageous to sit around and wait and hope that someone else will do it for me.
"Leeching" innovation in this way doesn't advantage the state of the art, but it does advantage leechers who can afford to sit back and wait forever if need be.
If you're a company and your choice is to lead or to leech, the only benefit you gain in leading is that you control the direction of software development, because you're the one funding it.
However, if every one of your competitors can derive just as much benefit from your capital investment simply by sitting around, waiting for you to release a FOSS solution to everyone's problem, then your competitors are going to eat you alive because they don't have to foot the development costs, yet can recoup all of the ROI without having to put up the I.
So, sure, Stallman supports paying people to program. But, so say the objectors, in Stallman's ideal world, no sane company would ever want to pay developers for work that they could get for free by virtue of their competitor doing all the work and releasing it for them.
In reality, I think that the demand for software will force someone to put the money up for its development. Rather than being proprietary products wholly owned and controlled by a corporation like Adobe or Microsoft, we'll see groups and non-profits like Mozilla and Canonical making contributions to open projects, and getting their funding from corporate sponsors that need them.
But there will also be a tremendous amount of software that simply won't get written, because there's no way to turn it into a product and sell it to directly recoup the costs of its development.
The software development ecosystem is probably healthiest when all models are permitted to flourish. FOSS is the best option, if you can get a community to sustain the developers; for small-scale niche projects hobbyist development is OK; but for certain types of software (large-budget games, perhaps?) proprietary just makes the most sense.
This isn't Stallman's pure utopian vision, however, and if a developer can't keep his source closed and sell compiled binaries if that's what he wants to do, then he isn't truly free, even though his software might be.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Did anyone else notice that every single stallman interview is basically the same ?
The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid
I'd like to see where he gets that from, I've never talked to anyone personally that works in a company that develops free (as in beer) software.
Is that what you meant to say?
As written, it appears that either you don't know very many people, or you haven't really thought about which companies develop free-as-in-beer software.
A few companies that I am certain develop free-as-in-beer software:
Microsoft? Yes
IBM? Yes
HP? Yes
Sony? Yes
Also, manufacturers of most hardware devices that require device drivers or have diagnostic software? Yes
Companies that develop free or open source software may be fewer than those that develop free-as-in-beer software. Perhaps that is what you intended to focus on?
If it does, why have you or anyone else not bothered to look in the source code for it? You're obviously fine with this "privacy cost" if you can't even be bothered to do that.
No it wasn't it costs water and your own energy, which was spent forcing it out. Oh, and you spend electricity keeping lights on.
but there is change that KEEPS the old stuff, in modified form, and change that eliminates the old stuff entirely. bulldozing the old carport doesn't destroy the whole house, it changes it. I don't think anyone has qualms with open source software entering the commercial market. I think some people, however, don't like the thought of all closed source software going away, if the manufacturers aren't interested in opening it. Stallman seems to go for the latter.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Uuuuh,the GPL is "viral" only in the sense that if you try to rip off code to use in your proprietary app it'll bite you in the ass. And hey! Guess what? That is EXACTLY the point! If those that released their code under the GPL had WANTED someone to take their code and close it off in a proprietary app,they would have written it in one themselves,or if they didn't care one way or another they would have went BSD.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong,but in such a hostile software environment the only real advantage I can see to a BSD license is to companies like MSFT that can take their networking stacks from it and not give anything back. Which is probably why you see so much more GPL code when compared to BSD code,since the ones that can gain the most benefit from the BSD license tend to not be big on the sharing.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I don't think the GPL actually defines the term "link". Java and C# don't really link in the sense in which C does. In fact, I've long had the impression that when the GPL was framed Stallman was thinking only of C programming.
MIT is a limitation of liability mostly. BSD deals with attribution explicitly where X11 just handwaves at it.
I dream of the day where Stallman shuts the hell up
and now we must all ruminate ad infinitum on his true divine meaning so that it may guide us in our respective technological paths.
or, its a fat antiestablishmentarian with a beard and a flute whos been kicked off planes, pisses off BSD devs, and makes us all generally uncomfortable.
heres some other tripe that stallman approves of:
Contribute funds to avoid a ban on selling hallucinogenic mushrooms in the Netherlands.
Boycott Coca Cola Company for using paramilitaries to murder union organizers.
how is this guy still relevant?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Yup..you are FREE to use any license you want. That's YOUR choice. But what if somebody takes your BSD licensed code and puts it under the GPL (they CAN do that your license allows it)?
Still want to go with the BSD license?
In a sense, you're not really "giving" people your code unless it's with no strings attached. I respect that - being willing to give your code to someone under terms that let them do almost anything - even if it's something you don't like. In that sense using a very permissive license is very generous.
What I appreciate about the GPL, though, is that its restrictions create a structure which encourages the long-term growth of the program. People looking to take advantage of the code written for the project are expected to grant their modifications back under the same license, so they could be incorporated into the original project. And if the original project team drops the project to do other things, then anyone who attempts to resume that work would be doing it under the GPL as well. Of course, one could rely on the culture of the userbase to achieve the same ends (free software users use free software, so if they work on the project they're likely to let it remain free software) - having that as a condition of the license just means that people outside that culture are expected to contribute back, as well.
Personally when I set out to write a free program my goal is to have it be a lasting gift to the free software community - specifically, I want people to be able to use it and modify it as necessary, and if the project survives beyond my own involvement in it, I want its nature as a free program to remain unchanged. But if the license were to interfere with the intended use of the application then I think it would make sense to use something more permissive. Or if I felt the project was trivial enough that I really don't care what people do with it, and my priority in giving it away is really just to make sure it's useful to someone - in that case a more permissive license would make sense, too.
Bow-ties are cool.
The English Language has no instances of one word having more than one meaning.
If you have nothing to lose by open-sourcing
But you might very easily have something to lose - marketshare or profits or something - it might give competitors an advantage that you want to keep for yourself.
If your company writes something that really streamlines your operation, you don't want to give it to the competition to help them out.
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
Or you could just stop putting words in his mouth and accept that he said he just doesn't know if they fixed those two things, but if they did then it's free software. It's not that hard.
And re jealous about the profit: do you know what RMS charges for consultant work?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Based on what? On the fact that he has refused to use proprietary software for decades, based on his principles?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
You could hand Stallman a can of beer, gratis, and he'd say it wasn't free because it had a trademark on the label and the recipe wasn't open-source.
I bet he'd drink it, though.
But Stallman doesn't like the "Open-source" terminology or the philosophy that drives it!
Bow-ties are cool.
But you may not change the proprietary parts of the BSD sandwich, so if you don't like it you are fucked. Better to start with a GPL sandwich and be free to change as you see fit.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
No, Stallman does not use Lynx. In fact, he doesn't surf the web at all.
Stallman wants to live his life as if he's still living in a 1970s computer lab. He's out of touch, disgusting to look at, and pragmatically WRONG when you step back from his rhetoric.
Every person who works in the IT shop of some company churning out custom solutions for that company is working on Free Software.
This is bullshit. The code is owned by the company and is not "Free Software". If you want to distribute the code outside the company you'll need special permission.
I don't.
Hello? Mods on crack!
iceweasel was kind of a dick move from developers that didn't want to live up to the same expectations as everybody else.
I'm not certain why you think it's a "dick move" to do something that you're allowed to do. But I AM certain that they are living up EXACTLY to the same expectations as everyone else.
Oh! I can field this one... As someone who once made a fairly shitty, uncourteous move myself...
See, back in the late 90s I made a fork of the game XEvil. XEvil v1 was GPL'ed, while XEvil v2 was not. I forked a late version of v1 and called it "XEvil Mutant Strain" - added some characters and weapons and stuff, put my name on it, etc. It even wound up on a CD release of Linux games.
So why was this a shitty thing to do? Basically, during all this, I wasn't thinking in terms of how to be courteous to the original author of the software. In the case of Mutant Strain it was like "I'm gonna fork this 'cause I don't approve of your new license" - followed by a lot of shoddy work, and promotion of said shoddy work, using the name XEvil and without being courteous or thankful for the original code I was working from. I didn't do enough to distinguish my project as a fork and I didn't do enough to recognize the original author.
So I can appreciate the perspective from which someone says it was a shitty move to call the fork IceWeasel. I never really thought of it like that before - mostly I just thought the name choice was kind of funnny. But the fact that the name choice is kind of a parody (especially given all the name changes Firefox was subject to early on) is kind of ungrateful in a way - almost like the people who chose the name wanted to express spite toward the Firefox folks for creating the condition in which they couldn't change the source to fit their distribution and still call it Firefox. I think a more appropriate attitude is continuing thanks for making Firefox source free in the first place, even if there are uncomfortable limitations.
Bow-ties are cool.
Just because I post on Slashdot, does not mean I have the know-how to dig through the source code to see if there is a unique identifier... The only reason I know about the IE identifier is because I have seen examples of it.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
That depends; do you get beer with the sandwich?
He said 'maybe its free' because he 'think[s] these two problems have been corrected'. He doesn't know if its free, because he doesn't know for sure they've removed the unfree elements. It is hardly rocket science. Stop trying to make innocuous statements of his sound radical.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
And what's the difference from them doing that with a GPLed program? Claiming patents on bits of it and suing you?
The GPL forbids them from distributing a derivative of your code AND doing that. They have to write their own damn code and that raises the bar a little.
The recent ugliness with the model train software involved exactly this scenario. These Kamind scumbags did exactly that. They stole code from an Artistic licensed project, added to it, slapped patents on the result and then tried to turn around and countersue JMRI devs for patent infringement when they objected to having their project jacked.
"The biggest misunderstanding that people have about Stallman's positions is the assumed fundamental disconnect between "capitalism" and "free software." He's not a communist, but he values his freedom above profit. If anything, that is historically a very "American" position."
Stallman does not believe in the concept of contracts. More specifically, he believes that everyone must follow a contractual structure that he has dictated. If I want to hire someone to deliver a binary to me, under the Stallman regime I can't. Today I can. Exactly how that is "freedom" is lost on me.
"He has no problem with making money, but he has a problem relinquishing his ownership rights and control over his property (his computer) to some other entity (proprietary software)."
Noone forces him to. He has a choice - again, his position is all about denying everyone else that choice.
Oh, and comparing having the option of buying closed-source software to "having the right to own slaves" is just vulgar and wrong. If you can't figure out why yourself, you are probably beyond help.
But what if somebody takes your BSD licensed code and puts it under the GPL (they CAN do that your license allows it)?
You cannot relicense someone else's code. Not even BSD licensed code. Even more than the simple fact that you cannot relicense someone else's work see the part about retaining the copyright and license.
You can however integrate BSD licensed work with GPL licensed work. What you derive from that integration may be released under the GPL but the original BSD licensed work still retains its BSD license.
He wants to dictate a mandatory licence that in practice will mean the end of most commercial non-custom software development. Which is what the poster above said. "Free software" doesn't mean non-paid software.
would appreciate if Stallmann would just shut up.
His penetrant narrow-mindedness about commercial software is just annoying. A solid mixture of open-source and properitary software is the solution. Not everything can be free, not everything must be free
You automatically assume that all software that isn't free is made by huge multi-billion dollar evil corporations.
Do I have a golden parachute and live off huge mega stock options just because my games aren't open source or freeware?
Stop trying to paint all commercial software devs as evil Enron types. It's just silly.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
You actually can redistribute the Debian logo.
All business models are just that - models. They are there to give structure to effort within the framework of what's possible at a particular time.
The model doesn't create the reality, it must reflect it or utterly fail. If the underlying reality changes, the model must change or die. Those who adapt can prosper, and those that don't will ultimately fade away into irrelevance.
That's still better than not being able to release anything at all for decades.
GNU/Turd?
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
If you get the chance you should watch the Adam Curtis documentary series "The Trap: Whatever Happened to our Dreams of Freedom". You may think it to be some form of Communist propaganda (from the BBC no less!) but it does a good job highlighting how nobody has a monopoly on the idea of freedom. Free is such a loaded word.
Stallman does believe in restricting the freedom of rightsholders to own and exploit copyrighted works. His views are a little more nuanced than you make out as he actually believes there should be a 3 tier copyright system that ranges from technical manuals and software tools that should be broadly available along the lines of the GFDL and GPL to entertainment works that should have pretty much the same copyright protection as at the moment, just with shorter terms.
So yes, freedom at the cost of freedom, although in this case I'd say it's a good thing.
Nick
or you could try the slashdot metaphor sandwich , its tough and chewy , mostly tastless apart from the odd grain of truth and guaranteed to generate an near fatal excess of bile.
[site]
Open source is really starting to get on my nerves. I'm really getting tired of these losers who have produced nothing but 3rd rate junkware with bad documentation at best, telling the rest of us that somehow we're all bad people if we charge money for the fruits of our labor.
I used to like Stallman but now he's becoming to nazi'ish about open source. To be honest, Firefox is one of the very few open source software packages out there that actually works well. Who cares about the license! Its a free download, it works well and that's that!
When Richard Stallman produces software that "everyday people" actually use, without having to go to a news group and ask questions, then he can open his mouth.
You also can't stop the guy from shoving the sandwich up his ass instead of eating it.
One of the things he argues for is that copyrighted works that function as tools should have GPL like freedoms. So yes, he does argue that developers should loose freedom to exploit their work in the way they see fit because he's got his eye on a much bigger freedom.
You can agree or disagree if that's a good thing but he is honest about what he believes and why he believes it.
Nick
I agree. Many people don't understand what he says.
Government oriented solutions such as the NHS and electronic voting examples given earlier, should be completely GPL, and make use of open standards to support maximum interoperability, this would allow development funded by the first world governments to be charitably donated to 3rd-world/emerging countries.
The governments should not be profit focussed, so this should not cause a conflict of interest.
Consultancies / companies and contractors that are hired to implement the vision should be made aware of this fact upfront and these conditions should be acceptable, as they are not being asked to donate their own brainchild, merely the fruits of their labour for which they should be remunerated fairly.
However, ethical difficulties may arise when a re-usable eureka component solution is discovered based on high-level vague requirements, but falls within scope of the overall program. Custom written top-secret military programs however are clearly a different case, this software represents an advantage to the government over potential enemies, and as such should not be open-source and definately not GPL. If the development is outsourced, one would expect the government to get the source and the vendor to destroy their copy once the contract is handed-over.
Within business, the advantage would need to be measured on a case by case basis, similar to normal build or buy evaluations. What is the business advantage offered by the particular software? Is it a core differentiator, or is it payroll? If it is non-core, then it should probably be acquired and preferably open-source, what are the available support options? If an outsourced service is going to be used to fulfill the non-core function, then the Data Ownership needs special attention within the SLA with the service provider.
If it is a core function, that will directly impact differentiation within the market then source ownership is a crucial element and one would not want to pass this on to potential competitors.
Finally commodity cycles will probably catch-up with most market differentiation factors eventually, and what was once a core differentiator will become a norm and will probably be available as open source or as an outsourced service.
RTFM is not a radio station.
So it's not a question of "freedom" so much as "entitlement." Gotcha.
Clearly you don't. Entitlement is a type of freedom. It just sounds less idealistic.
MY code's freedom remains unchanged (if you believe in that sort of thing). If my BSD code is out there, someone modifies and closes it, then further developers are still just as free to download my original code and make the changes of their own.
No, it doesn't remain unchanged. The original code remains unchanged, but the copy taken into a proprietary project has lost some of its freedom.
And *that's* the fundamental difference between the GPL and BSD, what happens with the copies. Which is interesting as we'll see below...
Bollocks. Both BSD and GPL are about distribution rights.
Nonsense. They are about copyrights. The code is yours, you get to decide what rights others have to copy it. It's a broken system (with an unclear solution). It stems from the notion that people should have ownership over their creations. Over the fruits of their labors.
When people copy a GPL or BSD licensed work, they are benefiting from the fruits of someone's labor. The original creator can either give away complete control over those copies (e.g., but not limited to, BSD), or place restrictions on those copies (e.g., but not limited to, GPL).
Neither the GPL nor the BSD is more free than the other. They both approach freedom asymptotically, from the opposite direction. For the initial, and some subsequent copies, the BSD license is more free. For the overall network of code, wherever it makes its way to, the GPL is more free.
He's arguing that people should get jobs at development shops that deliver Free Software solutions. TBH Free in this sense doesn't even mean GPL, it just means the customer gets the code. I think most custom programming jobs work like that anyway, you'd have to be mental to get a contractor to write a system for you and not get copyright assigned to you as a "work for hire". In such a situation a developer could rip off as much GPL code as they want and not be in violation because they're not restricting anyone from distributing or modifying the code, they would just be keeping the system internally. The business itself would probably have no interest in giving its improvements to other firms but if they ever did then they wouldn't be able to restrict any other parties freedom.
I think that's what RMS is arguing for. There should be a vast body of Free Software that everyone should be free to use. People would contribute back to a certain degree but also keep things internal just to themselves for a competitive edge in certain cases. It'd be different but there would still be software being written.
Nick
What code do you write?
You're entire point hinges on accepting the premise that code can be anthropomorphized and may possess "freedom".
Many, including me, do not do so.
BSD/MIT/etc.. provide greater freedom for downstream developers.
GPL provides greater restrictions on downstream developers.
Right, I think Stallman's argument would be that if you 'give' a homeless person a sandwich not with *preconditions* (as in a sale), but with *ongoing conditions attached to their subsequent behaviour* (as in a licence), then you're not giving them freedom, you're establishing a relationship of dependency and control.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
And if they are dishonest enough to fraudulently claim the patent on the software, you think they will magically be too ethical to claim they wrote the software in the first place, counting on the lawyer-imbalance to carry them through?
Thanks. As a GPL user, I also cringed at that comment. RMS's only real mistake is turning the GPL into an ideology. Ideologies only serve to polarize people. It's freaking SOFTWARE for crying out loud.
Having said that, I don't like when people rip me off, and I don't like it when people take credit for my work. The GPL prevents that, while the BSD license does not.
Jeremy
Finally, he'd insist on calling it a GNU/Sandwich.
Well, wouldn't that imply something about what's in the sandwich?
I wonder if it tastes like Buffalo, which is pretty much substitutable for beef.
Maybe there's a difference between a Gnu sandwich and a GNU/Sandwich (the latter probably tastes different).
Sounds like a no tome.
"But what if somebody takes your BSD licensed code"
Impossible. I've still got it, right here on my drive, and it's still BSD licensed.
"... puts it under the GPL (they CAN do that your license allows it)?"
They can put their own copy out under whatever license they want; doesn't effect me, so why should I care?
"Still want to go with the BSD license?"
Of course. What possible reasons could I have for wanting BSD that would be undermined in that situation?
As far as my actual reasons for liking BSD: I've found there are a lot of programmers like me. We appreciate the advantages of sharing, and will happily contribute our improvements to projects we use. But because we need the freedom to integrate with proprietary code and not worry about licensing, we don't use GPL code. So in practice, GPL code doesn't get contibutions from us, and BSD code does, by virtue of not requiring it.
Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)
Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.
The end user retains the freedom to use the BSD code. The fact that someone has released a proprietary product based on the BSD code does not diminish the BSD code.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
The GPL is about protecting the end user, not the developer per say.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
How is that stupid?
People may need to know what's in the secret sauce. What if they have allergies or an intolerance to certain ingredients? It's in their interest to check the recipe to make sure this product is not going to harm them.
Just as people may want to check what's in the source code of the software they use, again to make sure it's not going to harm them or their computer. Keeping anything a secret, whether it's a set of instructions in code or the ingredients in a sandwich, is potentially harmful.
Well, you better erase that Linux distro off your hard drive if you'll only use software that doesn't use trademarked names. No, no, you can't use Debian either, because the name Linux is trademarked, too.
WRONG. It was never entirely about trademark. It was initially about the copyright status of the artwork for Firefox (the restrictive, all rights reserved "license"). Debian removed those artworks as they violate DFSG, and Mozilla Foundation said that Debian can't use the Firefox name at all if they do not use the official branding.
As for Debian's own logos and branding, they are in fact distributed with an open license (with a varying degree of openness depending on how official it is), so you are free to take them, modify them, and even distribute them (like fan art). The only thing you can't do is fraudulently claim some modified version of GNU/Linux distribution you have is the official Debian distro (i.e. the only thing that the trademark law really governs).
For some people it is then a different application if you rebrand it.
Same thing is some people believe that already compiled binary version is different application that application what is in source format.
Example, you have three different applications if you compile mozilla-firefox.tar.gz source files to two .deb packages for Ubuntu and Debian. And then one as .rpm for Linux-distribution like Mandriva.
And some people say that Firefox is different application in Windows and Linux or even on different Linux-distributions.
Richard, you're rewriting history. The licenses of open source software are more often derived from sources like the BSD and MIT licnses, which are at least as old as the GPL.
Stallman's not talking about the licenses here, but about the CRITERIA for something to be free software or open source software. The FSF has the four freedoms, the OSS has a pile of crap which basically resembles the four freedoms from the aspect of business.
And that, my friend, is what's known as "Choosing the license for the right reason!"
Good on you!
is rapidly taking on all of the humility and open-mindedness of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
In all honesty though, writing proprietary software is a great business. A lot of make plenty of money at it, and hippies in their mom's basement just don't scare us. Now, I wouldn't try to start a business writing an operating system or a browser. But the software industry has always been a land of a million niches, and hippies in the basement aren't so good at finding new niches and filling them quickly. They'll get there eventually maybe, but we'll have moved on to find new ones.
Microsoft might feel threatened by the open source movement. But most of the proprietary world is small shops that never needed to dominate the world to get by, and survived successfully in competition with M$, not to mention all the other little guys... I don't see proprietary software going away anytime soon.
Damn right. I also notice that a lot of code under commercial-friendly licenses (BSD/Apache/to a lesser extent LGPL) is often of much higher quality than the GPL'd offerings. I'd put this down to professionals being happy to donate code back to these projects without legal hassles when its not their core business.
The GPL is for programmers with pretensions over how valuable their source code is. People that think that their code is worth even more than a trivial license fee - and that its worth any software ever built on top of it. Its ridiculous.
Despite how much RMS tries to push his hippy agenda, the commerical licensing model of pooling resources to build components, which are then resold, while competing against others is just more efficient. I mean seriously, most experts like to be paid in something useful, like money. People that provide the money want ROI.
I actually agree with RMS that Firefox isn't really open source. Google funds development - gets a bunch of search/anti-phishing eyeballs. Its "open source" - but this is only a gimmick to attract users (and get loads of crappy themes in /contrib). Its better than IE for security, but not orders of magnitude (and certainly doesn't approach Opera). Its not like theyre getting "10 Billion Downloads!" on /trunk :P
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Ah, a Gentoo user! Welcome!
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Yes only Stallman would walk into a El Swanko, order a meal and then demand:
1) The recipe
2) The business plan
3) The financial statements for the last 7 years
And then leave in huff when hes given the finger :P
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
False and already debunked. Seriously, you guys need to update your FUD playbook. You're getting as bad as Microsoft.
clever -> childish
name -> attempt
It's a very childish attempt.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Propietary - You may eat the sandwich in previously approved sandwich-eating places, chew for at least half a minute before biting it again, and you may not look at the sandwich or it's contents for any reason whatsoever. By eating our sandwich you agree not to work in the food industry or make a sandwich yourself for at least the next five years, and to poop only in our special, sandwich-recycling pooping places until an independant doctor (to be determined by PropietarySoft, Inc) determines your body is free of our product. You may not use sandwich if you're a government agent of a country declared as enemy of the United States, are in jail, or manipulate heavy weapons such as chainguns or shotguns.
Do not use sandwich as replacement for doctors. Do not pee on sandwich. Do not use sandwich to build nuclear weapons or any other kind of WMD. This sandwich has no guarantee of satisfaction, taste, or even suitability for feeding. Smell of sandwich requires a special "sandwich-smelling" license, not included with sandwich. The eating of this sandwich does not imply endorsement by PropietarySoft, Inc, or any of its subsidiaries.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Cliffski, that's not precisely what I said. What I said is that it's perfectly all right for RMS to propose a business model that's not based on monopoly rents, and people who flame off at him for doing that are mistaken.
I in fact work for a commercial software company. I also wrote one of the two open source software packages that my company now competes with. The irony is that because we released that software as open source software rather than as free software, competitors sprang up and ate our lunch, and we wound up having to go closed source ourselves. Had we started out releasing free software, that probably never would have happened. So I happen to think that RMS has a point.
Oh, good rebuttal, ya douche.
The link to the article where RMS says that developers must not develop proprietary software as a matter of idealism and go do something else instead.
(Non-free software section).
You can't handle the truth.
Bullshit. Straight from the "Quick Guide"
Stronger Protection Against Patent Threats
In the 17 years since GPLv2 was published, the software patent landscape has changed considerably, and free software licenses have developed new strategies to address them. GPLv3 reflects these changes too. Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.
What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.
That was actually kind of a big deal about the GPLv3. If you try and pull the stunt you're talking about, you suddenly can't use the code.
So that's the difference - you can't sue on it or you lose your license and have a major liability you didn't have before.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
It seems RMS fully supports the idea of paid software development. I wonder why so many people think differently - poor reporting, or just personal bias?
- my believe is that it is totally my business how I want to distribute my software. I distribute some free. I distribute some as proprietary. It's up to the end users to use it or not, but it is not up to RMS to tell me what I should do with my time.
You can't handle the truth.
And what's the difference from them doing that with a GPLed program? Claiming patents on bits of it and suing you?
hmmm...sounds kinda like SCO. Interesting. ;-p
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
You're entire point hinges on accepting the premise that code can be anthropomorphized and may possess "freedom".
It can be anthropomorphized, as a means to make talking about it simpler. It can also possess freedom, just as any physical thing can.
However, I'm not talking about the physical freedom of movement. I'm talking about the freedom encoded in the object as applies to those use make use of it, just as you are. The distinction you are trying to make is pointless. When people talk about the "freedom of the code", they are talking about the freedoms of the users and developers. Pronouncing tomayto as tomahto doesn't make it a different fruit.
BSD/MIT/etc.. provide greater freedom for downstream developers.
GPL provides greater restrictions on downstream developers.
Only half-correct. For the BSD license, the greater freedom is not granted to all downstream developers. Only those that keep the software open. Once it's closed, that stream has less freedom for any subsequent developers. The GPL removes, fundamentally, only one freedom. GPL code can never be made as non-free as BSD code can. It's the old tortoise and the hare routine. Is a lesser, but broader amount of freedom superior to a greater, but shorter-reaching amount of freedom? That's the difference, and one for which I do not believe there is a single, overall answer.
I'm a software engineer. I don't participate in open source software. Maybe because of that I'm missing some key bit of information. Why, in general, is it that people think there should be any free aspect to software development? Why is it viewed differently than any other line of work? I expect to pay anyone who has knowledge I don't have, whether it's a car mechanic, plumber, doctor, whatever. I understand that others can profit from open source software by adding to it, offering support, etc. But that seems to be done off the back of many programmers who participated initially creating the open source base of software. Aren't programmers devaluing their worth by working so hard to make as much as possible free? Not baiting anyone, I'm really curious, and would like to be enlightened by programmers (especially those who work on open source for nothing, and then see it made profitable by someone else).
The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid
I'd like to see where he gets that from, I've never talked to anyone personally that works in a company that develops free (as in beer) software.
Internet explorer is free as in beer.
yeah, an agreement between 2 entities is such a bad bad thing. It's no more artificial than a contract.
Obviously it's only software companies that give these ceos these golden parachutes.
"But what if somebody takes your BSD licensed code and puts it under the GPL (they CAN do that your license allows it)?"
In that case - the code that was written by the GPL developer would be GPLed, however that developer has no right to change the license on the original BSD licensed code. If the developer removes the BSD license and replaces it with a GPL license they have broken the terms of the license of the BSD'ed code (one of the few requirements is that the BSD license cannot be removed from the source code). Anyone can still use the original BSD'ed code under the terms of the BSD license irrespective of what future licenses are placed around software that uses this piece of code.
Oh please RTFA:
OpenOffice is free software, and has been ever since it appeared under that name.
Firefox is a strange case, since initially the sources were free software but the binaries released by the Mozilla Foundation were not free. They were non-free for two reasons: they included one non-free module, Talkback, for which sources were not available (even to the Mozilla Foundation); and because they carried a restrictive EULA [end-user licence agreement].
I think these two problems have both been corrected, so maybe the distributed Firefox binaries are free software today.
How can that be extremistic? If I was not alowed to give a friend a copy of firefox, then of course it couldn't be concidered free.
When people talk about the "freedom of the code", they are talking about the freedoms of the users and developers. Pronouncing tomayto as tomahto doesn't make it a different fruit.
But redefining "tomato" as "banana" doesn't make it a different fruit either. The ability to lock down the code is a freedom. It didn't make the "four freedoms" list because RMS doesn't believe people should possess it. Saying the GPL is more free because it restricts what others can do is disingenuous at best.
BSD/MIT/etc.. provide greater freedom for downstream developers.
GPL provides greater restrictions on downstream developers.
Only half-correct. For the BSD license, the greater freedom is not granted to all downstream developers. Only those that keep the software open. Once it's closed, that stream has less freedom for any subsequent developers.
Again, that is false. If Developer A releases BSD licensed code Foo, and Developer B turns it into a closed-source system Bar, NOTHING keeps Developers C,D, or E from downloading Foo and doing whatever they want with it.
The GPL removes, fundamentally, only one freedom. GPL code can never be made as non-free as BSD code can.
More double talk. The BSD license removes less freedom than the GPL does, but GPL is more "free" than BSD?
All other things being equal (which they are not), the modern BSD license has 2 restrictions.
1) You based this off my code. Don't hide that.
2) If this blows up your computer, tough noogies.
The GPL has significantly more restrictions, including what you are allowed to do with the code.
All the fud and claims otherwise, NOTHING in the license stops anyone from downloading BSD licensed code, even if someone downstream closes it. Only those changes are closed, which is the point of the BSD license: It's free and open, do what you want with it.
The only valid, non-idealogical reasons to use the GPL are a) you used GPL code in creating it (this is, IMO, the flaw of the GPL)
or b) if you don't want anyone benefiting from your code without giving it back to you.
If b) is the case, fine, then admit that. No harm no foul, it's your code, you can make the call.
Just stop pretending it's some mighty paragon of morality, and for fuck's sake, stop trying to redefine "Free" to suit your purposes. Doing so reduces GPL advocacy to simple propaganda.
Your uncanny ability to read only one sentence out of my comment and reply only to that is marvelous, however I'd like to point out my interest was in the users, the idea of software itself as being an feeling, caring entity was rhetoric.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I am sure Ballmer would not agree with this. Anybody know whatz Ballmer's Slash ID ?
The real deal is Bison meat. Take it from me, I'm Canadian.
"Buffalo" = cow crossed with bison at some point
Yay facts!
I love the subj. line of this thread...
Well you could always fork his sandwich and improve on it...
*rim shot*
No? Nothing? Hmm.
JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
I think I missed the point, can someone explain? Firefox is not free because the logos are copyrighted? Just like practically everything else in linux? What is different about Firefox than any other mostly free software? i.e. RHEL
I'm not making a point I'm seriously asking.
Ahh, you don't understand the definition of "Free Software" then. Free Software does not have to be distributed. The people who have the software must be free to run it for any purpose they choose, they must be free to study it to understand how it works, they must be free to give copies to whoever they choose and they must be free to modify it and give those modified copies to whoever they choose.
Software developed internally satisfies all of those criteria. A company generally doesn't choose to exercise its freedom to distribute but it certainly has that freedom.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Saying the GPL is more free because it restricts what others can do is disingenuous at best.
I never said it was more free. I said the system it creates is more free. Actually, twice I pointed out that the BSD license is more free on an individual level. Why are you being so obtuse?
Again, that is false. If Developer A releases BSD licensed code Foo, and Developer B turns it into a closed-source system Bar, NOTHING keeps Developers C,D, or E from downloading Foo and doing whatever they want with it.
Again, you seem to be unable to read. A's creation is locked away in Bar. Bar is a direct descendent of A's Foo, and B has locked it away and denied the original creator from using that branching of his code.
Because BSD license proponents seem to miss this point, I'll spell it out for you. Developer A is a contributor to Project Bar, but Developer A is denied free access to Project Bar. You're right that A's original Foo is still just as available to everyone as before. But that's a red herring. It's not in dispute. Pretending it is is not an argument in favor of the BSD license. In fact, in that particular sense, both the BSD license and the GPL are identical.
Just stop pretending it's some mighty paragon of morality, and for fuck's sake, stop trying to redefine "Free" to suit your purposes. Doing so reduces GPL advocacy to simple propaganda.
You've got me confused with someone else. I've said nothing of morality.
Your problem is that you are taking this as a holy war, and that you have to choose the One True Way.
The fact is, both the BSD license and the GPL tackle the same problem from different directions, and neither is objectively superior to the other. The GPL creates a freer system, the BSD license provides more freedom at the individual level.
Except that he's correct. More people do get paid to develop software that fits the definition of Free Software. I believe that's always been the case.
Every person who works in the IT shop of some company churning out custom solutions for that company is working on Free Software.
wtf!
Can you give any facts that support this claim?
If you offered him a free sandwich, but required that he suck your dick first, then it really wouldn't be free. I guess Stallman is against giving out blowjobs on other people's terms.
Except that the additions on the GPL'd version can't be included back into the original BSD version.....
yes, they can't take your code but they CAN include your code in an improved version of your software (even if it's only one or two lines) and release it under the GPL.
The result? You can't use their changes with your code in a BSD only licensed version.
You are playing word games. My point is that is it OK with you if you release your code via BSD and then somebody takes your code, adds a couple of lines to improve a feature (or fix a bug) then releases the code with both the GPL and BSD licenses in it?
The resulting fact is that YOU cannot take the bug fix and integrate it into your software
That's true, but is it really a problem? How often do people gpl a version of a bsd program, and then how many actually want to return that code to the original?
You seem to think that once A "contributes" code from Foo to Bar that A gives a damn about Bar. Bar is programmer B's problem to deal with. A can continue to modify Foo, or can abandon it (often but not always the case - "here, I'm done working on it, knock yourselves out"). In either case, why does Bar being closed-source matter?
If you like GPL, good for you. Go use it. Some of us will use BSD. Others will use propriatary licenses. Others will use License of their choice. All we ask is that you GPL folks get down off your high horse and realize the GPL is just a license, RMS is not the messiah, and that your code simply isn't that important (nor most other code, including mine).
And slightly off-topic, and not directed at any one single person here: Does GPL Smug stack with Prius Smug? Because if you add that to Obama Smug you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug, which would be amusing.
That would be fine with me. Chances are, I won't even know about the GPL project. If they find/fix bugs, politeness would have them let me know so I can fix them, or freely contribute the fix, but that's based on politeness, not license obligations, and I have no real expectation that they'd do so.
I can still improve my code, regardless of what they do with their copy of it. In the end, its just code.
I dubbed it GNU for GNU's Not Unix.
I dubb it stupid. Here is another "recursing acronym" for you: RMRAAS. Expanded it means: "RMAAR Means Recursive Acronyms are Stupid."
Sorry. His idiotic compulsion to give a complete history of how clever it was to come up with GNU just drives me nuts.
Why should I *force* others work to benefit me? Forcing this is a restriction, not a freedom.
Please, make a car analogy! Sandwiches are so damn old!
If the software was Free, the developer would be able to take the code and distribute it.
It's obviously possible. Linus does this with the Linux trademark, and there don't seem to be any downstream limitations. There are all sorts of free and non-free entities ... including Debian ... that are able to use the Linux trademark without legal repercussions.
So, to ask the obvious question... Why doesn't the Mozilla group handle the Mozilla trademark in the same way that Linus does with the Linux trademark?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
still an ass bonch? Are you karma farming, hairyfeet? DrLang21 should know that RMS often walks homeless people to buy them food because that way he knows the money is going to food. The walk is a sacrifice RMS is willing to make on top of the trivial ammount of money.
"The result? You can't use their changes with your code in a BSD only licensed version."
One of many possible results I specifically endorsed when I chose BSD, and continue to be entirely happy with.
I'll certainly point out to people that if they send me changes under a BSD license, I may integrate them with my main codebase, saving them a bunch of work integrating changes down the road. So that might be better for them. But if their changes need to be GPL, or proprietary, or whatever, for any reason or desire, that's cool too. I'd rather they used the code and not give back changes than not use the code due to licensing issues. Who knows, maybe they'll have changes they can and want to contribute in the future; they certainly won't if they don't use the code. Besides, when it doesn't cost me anything, helping people is pretty much required by my neo-hippy moral code.
When I choose BSD, I specifically encourage anyone who wants to to use the code in any project where it is helpful to them, regardless of license. Why do you imagine I don't mean it?
You seem to think that once A "contributes" code from Foo to Bar that A gives a damn about Bar.
Actually, I'm not. If I were, I would state that the GPL was universally better. And I've never said any such thing. I've stated that the GPL creates a freer system (for A's who care about what happens to downstream projects), and that the BSD license creates more direct freedom (for A's that don't).
The fact is, it's up to A to decide whether or not he does, not you or I. That's why I keep saying they both have their benefits.
All we ask is that you GPL folks get down off your high horse and realize the GPL is just a license, RMS is not the messiah, and that your code simply isn't that important (nor most other code, including mine).
Please quote where I said anything of the sort. You've been away from this thread for a while, so go read all of my posts. There are only a few. I'll wait.
Unless you can, quit flogging this straw man. It makes you look stupid.
And slightly off-topic, and not directed at any one single person here: Does GPL Smug stack with Prius Smug? Because if you add that to Obama Smug you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug, which would be amusing.
Off topic and directed at you. Claims of smugness are almost universally smug themselves. Go to a mirror and try it for yourself. Go, "you're so smug" in a convincingly realistic manner and see if you don't appear smug.
And besides that, it's pointless. "Does BSD Smug stack with Hummer Smug? Because if you add that to Palin Smug, you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug." It only works, as a general rule, with those who already agree with you, or with the weak-minded. With everyone else, it just makes you look... you guessed it, smug.
The beautiful thing about the BSD license is that it gives you true freedom to do whatever you want with the code. Want to add bits and pieces and add your own license? Go for it. The only condition - you attribute the code to its original author (which is fair enough). You want to release a bugfix under the GPL? Fine. Except anybody can still use the original code without having to abide by the GPL.
The correct response to this behaviour is "enjoy maintaining your own fork, asstard".
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
... that Stallman wants us to be free to call him God, or whatever the word is in your language and/or religion?
I'm no pro[phet|grammer], but something sounds a little fishy here.
One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.
RMS does consulting work? I thought he was Emacs Developer, GNU Project Leader, and FSF President. I did not know he had time to do consulting work.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
The developer (the company, it is a work for hire) can take the code and distribute it. It meets all the criteria for Free Software that Richard Stallman sets out in the various bits of stuff he's written.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Read the other replies to the post you replied to and follow those threads.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Nice personal attacks. But hey, if it makes you happy, keep it up.
If you think I'm smug because I cannot stand the GPL, good for you. Have a cookie. Random slashdot users' opinions of me matter not one bit.
THAT'S Intelligent
Ok, you are right, it meets the criteria. However, it also gives people the wrong idea when the software isn't meant to see the light of day.
I imagine as a developer Stallman would be upset if he couldn't release the code he was writing. He used to be paid by academia and was allowed to release his code. Would he work for a company under the guise of Free Software if the code he was writing was considered a trade secret?
If you are going to pick up a work that you didn't create, you must be willing to accept the terms it is provided under. Complaining about it being "viral" is stupid. Shut up and use something else if you are not happy with it.
I probably used the present tense incorrectly. Here he mentions that he made his living from consulting work for the second half of the eighties (I guess he was available for consulting work if you needed stuff done in the code he maintained):
http://www.stallman.org/articles/texas.html
Here's an interview with him from the time:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html
I seem to remember to have read about him doing consulting work in the nineties, too, but I cannot give a link and might be wrong. In any case, I once read about or heard quoted what he can charge, and it was a whole lot of money ($1000 per hour? Something like that, I think, but my memory is hazy). That, the MacArthur grant [1], and his priorities (which he made very clear) make me doubt that he ever was jealous about Mozilla's profits.
[1] http://tech.mit.edu/V110/N30/rms.30n.html
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
And completely correct. They have to maintain their own fork and keep pulling upstream forever.
This is why I have no trouble with any corporate legal depts contributing back to a BSD project. The decision process is simple "Do we need to capture the IP in this patch?" (generally no) - and the license is clear cut "We're just giving it away - the maintainers will look after further work on it".
Trying to roll a BSD project into GPL is only going to be worth it if you enjoy maintaining your own fork, asstard.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Please, make a car analogy! Sandwiches are so damn old!
It's like we have gasoline engines, but Stallman wants us to use pedal power. Then we eat sandwiches to power our cars.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire