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?"
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.
Ideally, they are the same. Pragmatically, there are differences.
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.
The logo isn't source code, it's just a picture. A picture which happens to be a trademark. Mozilla's beef is with Debian or anybody else messing around with code or the settings and still trying to palm it off as Mozilla Firefox. People are still free to branch the code and call it anything they like, which is just what Debian has done. I really don't see what the issue is here. There are lots of registered trademarks in the open source movement - Linux, Ubuntu, Debian, FSF, Firefox, Java, Apache, Red Hat, Novell, Sun etc. etc. etc.
Then you should be thankful that he does CARE that it is free as in freedom. Because if everyone did what you did, we'd be stuck with free-as-in-beer crap (i.e: Crappy closed-source drivers, flash plugins, OS's) with no interoperability, tuned for the corporates' benefit rather than your benefit, etc.
Only caring about getting your immediate work done, and not caring at all about encouragement of the right kinds of software in the future is short-sighted and actually damaging to the causes.
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
You are ignorant and wrong. Software up to 1979 was not copyrighted (it was an "innovative" use of copyright by Bill Gates at the time that started this trend).
Many interesting software advances: OS design (Multics, Unix, etc), programming language design (Lisp, C) were all done without software copyrights and were really "open source" or "Free Software" by today's definitions.
If anything, the involvement of for-profit corporations using closed-source has crippled the progress of software, as you would expect exponential progress in a field such as software, but arguably software progress has slowed down since 1979.
Specifically, you say:
Stallman [should] stop begrudging others the right to make their own products and sell them
Stallman has been very clear over the years that he has no issue with people monetizing software, making money off of programming, or even selling software. He merely emphasizes that anyone who obtains software must have access to code.
You seem to think that consulting is the only way to make money in an all-OSS software ecology. I don't think that's the case. In addition to programmers being paid by the hour to code, it's not hard to imagine situations where well-organized "payment requests" are created. Someone codes v1 of a product (or releases a beta), and then requests funds to deliver the completed version. Once the requested money has been sent in (by interested buyers), the full version (with source code) is delivered. (The buyer could be other companies or many individual consumers.)
Would that be different from current software business methods? Yes. But I don't think it's impossible (the main reason it doesn't exist more routinely today is because everyone finds it simpler to just do the same thing as everyone else), and companies could continue to make profits from selling innovating new software. I'm not trying to specifically advocate that this would be better; merely pointing out that Stallman's "software should be free" is not in conflict with people making money. (You may not like the details of alternate money-making models, but that doesn't mean they are not viable.)
I just don't think it's fair to say that Stallman is against selling software, or that consulting is the only way to make money off OSS.
> There will be people who want to keep credit for their work, people who want to make money off of their work, and they do not want to make money supporting their software.
Each and everyone of the above is possible with Free software too.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
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
Ya, that's pretty much why I can't stand him. He talks about freedom, but wants to dictate how I, as a developer, can market or sell the product of my effort. He thinks only those that match his mindset are worthy of creating software. He can go fuck himself.
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.
So, presumably there would be no problems with my calling myself Richard Matthew Stallman, and setting up a Free Software Foundation of my own?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You want to dictate how I, as a computer user, can use my computer. You think uses of software you wrote are things you can control. You can... :P
Point is, either we decide original developers of software get to define policy or we frown on letting anyone define policy and let people do what they want with it. Many in the opensource community favour some form of the latter
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
You talk about freedom, but want to dictate how I, as a user, can use, share, and modify software.
The fact that something is the product of your effort doesn't grant you sovereignty over that thing's use. The luthier doesn't get to determine what songs I play on the guitar he made.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?
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.
Hint: when you start calling proprietary software developers "slave owners," you're a member of the "fucking crazy" subculture. You are the problem.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
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.
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.
Trademark law in this case is supposed to protect people from installing something which differs from what they thought they were installing. IP isn't always the enemy, sometimes you need to know what something actually is in order to know what to do with it.
Yes, certainly. However, given the previous statement, you seem to propose that if GPL code has a trademark associated with it that only the trademark holder "should" be able to distribute the code. That is obviously a horrible position.
So, it's a "dick move" to remove the trademark as requested so you can distribute the software? Uh, I don't think so. The *opposite* would be far worse - if people who associate trademarks with GPL code have some standing to prevent distribution of the code (not the trademark).
You give up no freedom in choosing to use proprietary software.
Except for the freedom to modify it to suit your own needs. The freedom to maintain it if the company goes out of business. The freedom to know how it stores your data so you can migrate to something else if your needs change. The freedom to move it onto a replacement machine if your current one dies. Yeah, except for, well, everything, you give up nothing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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 choose to use Windows because I like playing games, and I work on a few open source (!) Windows apps/libraries. It is a conscious choice that necessitates certain restrictions.
It's the same as life in general. If you want to stay out of jail, that necessitates obeying your country's laws (ignoring the whole "don't get caught" thing). That doesn't mean you're not free to kill someone - to the contrary, you're quite free to kill whomever you wish.
The freedom to control consequences is not a prerequisite for the freedom to choose.
Software is the same way in many respects. While you are free to use Microsoft Word in whatever way you wish, you are not free to disassemble it - and that is something you consciously agree to when you install the software. Any claims that it is not a choice are ridiculous.
If you don't like the terms of use of proprietary software, don't use it. That, in and of itself, is an exercise of your freedom to choose.
Not possible. If someone takes a debian system, and modifies it, they need to be able to redistribute it. Even if mozilla grants a license to debian, they can't grant a license to all debian users without just granting a license to the world, at which point you'd get spyware makers making "optimized" builds of firefox, fooling tons of non-technical users. Since the mozilla foundation's mission is improving the internet for everyone, that would run contrary to their goals.