Slashdot Mirror
Stallman On the State of Free Software 25 Years On
TRNick writes "What's the state of free software, 25 years after GNU's birth? TechRadar has an interview with Richard Stallman to find out. Stallman thinks free software is making good progress: 'Nowadays hardware developers are also increasingly likely to publish the interface specs so that we can develop free software that works with the hardware. Perhaps we are turning the corner, but we still have a big fight on our hands before all computer users have freedom.' But how many of us actually run an operating system that Richard Stallman would consider free? Many of the more popular GNU/Linux distributions, including Mandriva and Ubuntu, bundle proprietary code with their free software packages. Perhaps free software has reached a large enough install base that companies are happy to use it for their own gain, but aren't quite so willing to make their own commitments to free software development. How important this is to the success of free software depends on how strong your stance is on freedom is."
The term 'free' is an unfortunate consequence of there being no more specific word in English. The word is meant, to use the well-worn, free-software phrase, to be free as in speech rather than free as in beer.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_source.png
The problem with Stallman's approach is the assumption that most people want the free software ideal. The reality is that most people are not even knowledgeable enough about their computers to even understand what free software is all about, why it matters, and why they should care. All they see is Windows with driver support in one corner, Mac OS X working out of the box on bundled hardware in the other corner, and Linux/BSD/etc. in the last corner with poor (but slowly improving) driver support that may or may not work out of the box.
.doc file, you should refuse to open it and insist that they send you a PDF or ODT file instead. Great when you are dealing with engineers and programmers, but not so great when you are dealing with people who think you need to create a .doc file in order to attach an image to an email.
What Stallman needs to do is catch up with the biggest development in the computing world of the past 25 years: the growth of computer users who do not know anything about their computers, and do not care to know. Most people do not care about the legal or technical issues surrounding their software, they just want to get online and do stuff. Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a
Disclaimer: I am a big supporter of free software, and I do wish that more people would learn more about their computers so they could at least understand that they have a choice.
Palm trees and 8
Which is why we prefer the term "free-libre," which at least forces the uninitiated to ask, "What do you mean?" rather than jumping to the conclusion that we are talking about the price of software.
Palm trees and 8
Fortunately, the concept of 'Free Software' has nothing to do with 'being able to have a thing or service for free'.
(btw, it says so on the second sentence of the second paragraph of the FA)
Whilst I respect Stallman enormously, I still believe that absolutes and extreme ideals are damaging to any cause. For example, how many of us can say with hand on heart that we don't use an MP3 decoder? A nVidia graphics card? Firmware for the Intel wireless cards? In RMS's eyes we've tainted our freedom, but in reality these compromises allow us MORE freedom of choice, not less.
I'm a great believer in the BSD way of doing things: Here's some code, it's free, use it however you like as long as you don't claim it's yours and we're not going to treat you like a second-class citizen if you install Flash because, quite frankly, you need to make compromises such as this these days. Idealism is all well and good in the abstract, but when you need a piece of information that's hiding inside a Flash-covered web site, freedom should really be the last thing on your mind; making your life more difficult for an ideal is not going to change anyone's minds whilst the majority are accepting the status quo. It just makes you look ridiculous and you end up with rather less freedom, realistically speaking, than you started out with.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
if I give you the ability to do *anything* with my code and you turn around and tell your end users *you can't do all that much* who exactly is the one that is free here?
it's voluntary, no one's holding a gun to your head telling you that you must use the code, the only thing is that if you choose to use that code and distribute it to others, you can't turn around and weaken their ability to do the same as you. keeping the code in house without distributing it O.T.O.H you can do whatever you like with it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Sorry, but it's true. As such it is no surprise that few people use things he'd consider free. He has a very rigid definition of it, one that many people might disagree with. For example the BSD crowd might say his definition is messed up since it doesn't include the freedom to take something and make it not free.
Regardless, because of his stance on it, most people don't use software that's Stallman Free(tm). We live in a real world, and imperfect world. Most people have to be a bit pragmatic with things. If that means using software that isn't Stallman Free, well then so be it. Ubuntu is concerned with being easily usable and widely adopted, not with idealism.
Also there is still the large unanswered question of how everyone can make money in a free software world. Some software it's not a problem for. For example:
--Software that runs hardware. You are buying the hardware, the software is just something that helps make it go. Thus it isn't a problem to have anyone able to copy and redistribute it. Heck, might even be to your benefit as maybe they make it better. Your money is in the device, so the software needn't be restricted. Embedded devices would be an example.
--Software that needs support. You aren't selling the software here, what you are selling is service on it. The software is complex, and/or is used in a complex nature. Thus people are going to have difficulty doing it without professional help. That's what you sell, is the expertise to make it all work as they want. The software is free, the service isn't. Enterprise Linux would be an example.
--Software for a service. You offer a service, like hosting or something. You have software to make that possible and to interact with it. This works as free because people aren't paying you for it, people are paying for your service.
There are probably more too. However there are some major categories that don't work like that. The biggest would be a lot of consumer applications, like games and such. If you design the app well, with good tutorials and intuitive interfaces, people don't need anything else to make it work. Thus if you make it free software, where they are free to simply give it away, then they've no need to pay you for it.
Well this doesn't work if you want software to be made as anything more than a hobby. For someone to do something professionally, as in to devote most of their time to it, that thing has to pay. People have to eat, they have to pay rent, they have to buy things they need. That means they need a job that pays. So if there's no way to make money off their software, well then they can't have a job making it. It can be a hobby, but not a job.
For example I have a hobby redoing soundtrack from old games. It amuses me, and others seem to enjoy it. However it isn't my job, and can't be. For legal and practical reasons, I can't make money on it, certainly not near enough to support myself. Thus it gets relegated to hobby status. I work on it when I like, when I've free time. Ends up taking a long time for that reason. What takes me a year I could easily do in a couple weeks if I were being paid to do it and directing all my efforts at that. However I'm not, so it happens on my terms. I do only projects I like, only when I like to do them.
So unless we want to see large classes of software relegated to that sort of status, we either have to allow for non-free software, or to figure out a way that people can make money on all free software. Also please not by "make money" I don't mean "make a token amount of cash through a few donations." I mean "Make enough money to support themselves and their family in a manner befitting of their skill and education." A hobby can't become a job just because people toss you a couple hundred dollars now and again. It's got to be something you can support yourself on.
Thus far, I've heard no solutions and can't come up with any myself. So we have to deal with the reality that not all software can be free software.
It's the code that is free, not the user.
I assume you're contrasting BSD or similarly permissive licenses with the GPL. BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).
Mandriva comes in two flavors: One, and Free. The Free version is just what it sounds like: 100% free software. No proprietary browser plugins, drivers, apps, etc.
Indeed. And we are equally permitted to choose our preferred "degrees of freedom".
Which is why there is nothing shameful about using proprietary drivers from nVidia (to use a particularly useful and pertinent example) on our Linux or BSD machines, since they are simply providing commercial support for a truly "free" platform. If one wants to sit on a high horse and pontificate about the purity of our freedom, that is fine, but if we don't want to be treated as lepers, it makes sense to meet commercial interests halfway.
I like the concept of cardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcardware
to post a card to the maker, that you enjoy the free software.
Yes, yes. But the third part, even if voluntary and completely in the libertarian sense, is what brings government involvement to any degree. It's the entity that enforces contracts (a product of some voluntary associations) and also via copyright and patents which are abstract concepts in the Constition.
So, even by that definition, Stallman's concept is giving you more freedom by a) having less or no EULAs and b) less copyright concerns. I believe in this sense, the term "Freedom" is in context of being unencumbered of restrictive obligations of running code. I know when I install Ubuntu without seeing 100 Eulas pop up or asking me for my CD key plus various other nag screen I feel a little more unencumbered by BS. For the developer, it frees them from, well, developing the wheel over and over again. Seeing that all sides of the Open Source equation is a completely voluntary system, and not some communist dictatorship giving property to the masses, it works perfectly fine within the term freedom.
Freedom also allows you sell yourself into indentured servitude (perhaps called car/home/student loans today). However, if a spiritual philosophy came along, shunning pure materialism, converting people voluntarily to its way of thinking and they ended up happier: wouldn't it, too, fit into the freedom paradigm. Couldn't we judge one way of life in some ways ultimately freer than the other?
Anyway, fortunately for us and FTA, Stallman, as always, defined his freedom specifically:
1. To run the program as you wish.
2. To study the source code, and change it so the program does what you wish.
3. To redistribute exact copies when you wish.
4. To distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish.
I will grant the GNU license isn't free in itself, but one is free to take it (or not).
You've managed to eloquently summarize what has been bouncing around in my brain for a while --- I am greatly indebted to you. Kind of like when someone finally tells you what is the name of that tune which you can't get out of your head.
Which is pretty much what free software is all about.
The arguments against binary blobs are perfectly valid and unrelated to crackpot fanatism. If nVidia goes down tomorrow or just drops support for your specific card, all your hardware will stop working in few months with the next kernel update. This is why I bought Intel hardware. It might not be the best, but I know I will be able to use the hardware and all of its features until it physically breaks. Stallman, unfortunately, is in the crackpot zone, where if you are not with him and refuse to use any proprietary software even if it is your only choice, you are against him. Even just allowing your users to use proprietary software if they so wish will win you a big GNU fatwa. Is that free software? Free as in gulag?
"While Linux Torvalds gets most of the plaudits nowadays for the Linux kernel, it was Stallman who originally posted plans for a new, and free, operating system."
You can have it both ways. That's why the CDDL and MPL exist. "Return your changes to our code, but you can use it with anything you like under any license.
They are, as far as I'm concerned, the best OSS licenses out there.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
you're saying that the first developers on that code are end users but the people who use that code and software after them [Mac for example] are not and that is a mistake. Mac as an example is based largely on BSD'ed code- it can not be altered nor improved by anyone other than Apple- they are in effect much freer to do with that code than you. You are *not free* to build upon that code as Apple has done, if Apple's code has a flaw you can not fix it, you can not alter its behavior- it belongs to them the same as if it were MS's proprietary code, this is no more freedom than anarchy is, the original developer's ability to alter certain code and then *restrict* anyone else's use of that code is not freedom for anyone other than the first to touch that BSD'ed code, for everyone else it is indistinguishable from proprietary code.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Software can not be truly free until hardware is free.
rewriting history since 2109
In Germany, we have 3 different words for "free" when used as in beer, and a law defining what each word means, when used in business. There is "gratis", "kostenlos" (no cost), and some other term I forgot. Then of course there is the word "frei" (free) too. I noticed, that translating to German, and then translating all terms back to English, (both with dict.leo.org) gives me a pretty nice thesaurus. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Well that's more or less my (unstated) point. What I said was that BSD makes the end user free, while GPL makes the code free.
The problem with the BSD model is that each end user is free to make the code non-free, and spoil it for everyone else downstream (which is the situation you describe).
The GPL model forces the code to be free forever. The users' freedoms take a back-seat - specifically those users who want to proprietarise the code, but also the users who want to port to BSD model lose out, as collateral. The GPL view is, oh well, at least the code is, and will always be, free.
So yes, I agree with you.
s/end\ users/distributors/g
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions.
That might have been true 25 years ago, but today you can just call it "freedom software".
(with the added bonus that if it's not freedom software it's terrorist software -- a pretty good description of the crap a convicted monopolist pushes).
Why not GIVE the English language a term for free-libre eg. "liber". Languages are fluid things... and "liber" fits :
liber
liberate
liberation
Yes, liber has some (uncommon) meanings in English already, but plenty of other words have multiple meanings eg. the word "free" itself! It's certainly not a step backwards, and there's a chance it could add something valuable to English in the longer term.
Grrr... how many times it has to be said:
s/end\ users/distributors/g
There is no restriction on the end user in the GPL, none, nada, zero.
Apple is not a end user, Apple is a distributor of software.
I can't believe this is still not understood by some ./ers.
RMS is equivocating on purpose. Whenever confronted he claims the gratis interpretation of free, but when you read his speeches, he often hints at gratis, which is why he has never fixed the name of his foundation.
In contrast the OSS movement started by removing this ambiguity.
RMS is always so adamant that we call it "Free Software" and not "Open Source Software". Problem is, whether Free Software is a better name for it or not, it's got hideous problems. The main one being this (from TFA):
You just can't use the term "free software" around normal people - they don't get it. They use the term "free software" themselves all the time, to mean Internet Explorer and Stupid Window Theme Pack For Windows 30 Day Trial and other garbage. Like it or not, the term is overloaded, and RMS's definition is not the default.
I prefer the term "open source". It's far less ambiguous (the ambiguity between "open source" and RMS-free is a much more subtle distinction than the ambiguity between "free software" and RMS-free). People either know what it means, or don't know what it means (and I can explain). Much better than people assuming it means something it doesn't.
It's amazing that GNU is 25 years old now. In 1984 I was using a TRS-80, and the latest thing I knew about proprietary versus nonproprietary software was that Radio Shack had given up on the idea that customers would only be able to buy software from Radio Shack -- they had finally come around to the point of view that it was OK for third-party software houses to sell applications that would run on their OS. How many people are as far ahead of their time as Stallman was in 1984?
There are plenty of obstacles remaining, but I think it's impressive as hell how much you can do with free software today, and how easy it is to do it. My mother in law, who's in her 80s, installed Ubuntu on her computer this year, with just a little help from me over the phone. She actually had more trouble installing java (which she needed for her favorite online Scrabble app) than she did installing the OS. My neighbor came over for a beer yesterday and asked to see my Linux box. His main reaction to Gnome was, "Wow, I didn't expect anything so professional looking." When he contemplated the idea of using Linux in his home office, the main concern I couldn't answer satisfactorily was whether or not it would work with his multifunction fax machine/copier. So, okay, no, he probably won't run Linux in the foreseeable future. But it's amazing to me that the big obstacles are now confined to issues as peripheral as that. Heck, you'd probably have a lot of the same concerns if you were contemplating switching to MacOS from Windows.
Intellectually, I think Stallman was very clever with his invention of the GPL framework. No matter how many BSD-versus-GPL flamewars there are on slashdot, I think any impartial observer has to admit that the general approach (using copyright for a purpose diametrically opposed to most people's idea of the purpose of copyright) was pretty novel in 1984, and it's been wildly successful, even in other contexts. Wikipedia is a good example. The fact that WP is GFDL licensed is what makes people comfortable contributing to it.
Find free books.
Then what's the difference between this and the GPL?
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
I understand your point, and I fully understand the issues. I'm just using terminology differently than you. I'm deciding to continue using the term "end user" as a blanket term encompassing all recipients of the software.
Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms.
If you have a better term...? (Perhaps "recipient" is a better blanket term for "end users" + "distributors").
I'm the same guy you explained it to last time...
OMG. This is no joke: I thought Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond were the same guy, for the last YEARS! I never thought that there would be two crazy bearded men loving weapons and GNU!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a .doc file, you should refuse to open it and insist that they send you a PDF or ODT file instead.
I don't see what's so important about returning .doc files unopened unless a popular piece of copylefted free software with three O's in the name fails to open it.
s/end\ users/distributors/g
I can't believe this is still not understood by some ./ers.
Maybe that's because all you're typing is a series of random punctuation and a couple words, some nonsense from some programming language or editor I don't know.
Have you thought about, hm, ENGLISH? Maybe?
Comment of the year
"Umsonst " as in "this haircut is for free" and it also means "of or to no purpose" such as when you go into town on a public holiday or a Sunday and can't buy anything because the shops are closed.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
"I'm the same guy you explained it to last time..."
hehe, sorry about that.
You say:
"Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms."
and then say that user and distributor are not the right terms?
"I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it"
Distribution is not usage. The GPL does not regulate at all the use of software.
When you distribute it, your are a distributor, you can be both a user and distributor at the same time, you usage is still not restricted, but the GPL applies to what you distribute.
The disagreement/misunderstanding we have is caused by you considering "distribution" as being a "use" of software, while I (and the GPL) do not.
1. To run the program as you wish.
2. To study the source code, and change it so the program does what you wish.
3. To redistribute exact copies when you wish.
4. To distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish.
The problem is that he also has an implied:
5. You can't run anything EXCEPT Free Software.
rule, and that's the one everybody disagrees with. I mean, the first four as well and good, especially since I can take and leave them as I please, but that fifth one is a pain in the ass. That's the rule that makes it "wrong" for me to use Ubuntu because some of the drivers have "binary blobs" in them. Or makes me give up my Tivo.
Comment of the year
That's been my big problem with the who movement lately. I don't understand how a group of people can espouse freedom and then go out of their way to put every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free. When are we going to get a free software movement that says "We will work for unlimited interoperability so our users are free to use any and all software and hardware, open source proprietary, to best accomplish their needs."
Microsoft for all the demonizing they get around here has been doing a lot less work to control my options in both senses of the word free.
(I know Windows costs money, but it's usually subsidized or pirated anyway, so in my personal domain the cost is 0. Professionally speaking is a whole other story on all fronts for a number of reasons.)
End user is a legal term and not something you're meant to redefine on a whim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_user
Read and understand. Then stop failing at communicating.
When you use the code, you're an end user.
When you give the code to someone else, you're a distributor.
It's not complex.
So when a developer uses *his* freedom and develops in Flash, he ends up taking away everybody else's freedom because now they must use Flash as well if they want to see this site.
But who loses freedom when a developer uses his freedom and develops in Flash and tests in Gnash? Or when someone writes a document in Microsoft Word and proofreads it in AbiWord or OOo Writer before sending it out?
I posted a more verbose explanation twice.
It;s the first time i use the s/xxx/xxx/g syntax in a post but I saw it used often here so I assumed it was understood by most.
But as they say:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
It means: replace "end users" by "distributors" in the parent post.
and ./ers means slashdoters :)
Aaargh. Posting to undo stupid moderation misclick.
That means that for the hardware to run, there must be firmware available, either on a flash cell (which increases the cost of the hardware) or in the driver (which now has a free software complication).
I've seen 2 GB USB memory cards for 5 USD retail, and I'd imagine that FPGA firmware would fit in a much smaller, cheaper flash chip. So aren't there specialty hardware makers willing to increase MSRP of a peripheral by $5 to cover the cost of proudly putting a penguin on the box?
Unfortunately that term results in "Who's libre?" responses.
... shaved and took a shower. ;-)
C|N>K
Stallman reminds me a lot of George Bush; if you disagree with his position on something, you're accused of being against freedom.
Probably people just ignore gibberish when I see it, since there's no point in trying to discuss things with people who (apparently) can't even speak English. That's what I do at least.
But typing gibberish, then complaining that people don't understand the gibberish, that's just crazy.
As to the actual subject, I think the biggest problem Stallman's biggest problem is his 1984-esque doublespeak of the language:
"Yes, this code is more Free than that BSD code."
"Oh great! Can I ship it on this device I just invented, the Fleevo?"
"No."
"Can I distribute a modified version?"
"No."
Something that prides itself on being "free" can't have restrictions on it! We're not morons; we know when people are trying to blindside us by selectively changing the meaning of words, and I think a lot of people aren't going to stand for it. Either make it free, or call it something else. I don't like doublespeak.
Comment of the year
Freedom is an abstract for one whose domain stops at his doorstep. His goods come from door-to-door salesmen and little else. This is the metaphorical state of the average computer consumer.
It could easily have escaped your notice, but Linux in general seems to lack much of a paid sales force. How then, is Linux to breach the confines of this prison of the computing masses?
By any damn means available. Failing to fire his musket ball, for debates over its pedigree, leads to a dead revolutionary. If piggybacking on, beside or in nebulous coincidence with enabling proprietary products advances the elements of freedom, it also advances the concepts of freedom.
The broader domain of human freedom has been a work in progress for thousands of years longer than its minor offspring, software freedom. In that light, it would seem disingenuous for anyone owning goods produced in the Peoples' Republic of China to decry software written in Redmond, WA on the basis of such software's impingement on freedom.
Unfortunately, many of my fellow Germans understand "frei" as "Freibier", so one again ends up with people who think it is umsonst :-(
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
Let's just say: freebre.
Freebre software.
You can take our lives, but you will never take our FREEEEEBREE SOFTWARE!!!
You can't handle the truth.
As someone that grew up with computers, I can understand Stallman's vision. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. He would like to think there are 1.5 kinds of people in the world: those that write code and those that haven't gotten around to writing code. His sense of "freedom" is important to both parts of that, assuming that is all there is to humanity.
I think it is much closer to say there are three groups: those that write code, those that should not be writing code but are trying and those that will never, ever write code. Call the last group "users". What RMS misses completely is the last group is probably the most important. They are utterly at the mercy of the first two groups, and they are continually being disappointed by the second.
The ability to design computer software is an art and it is not one that is easily taught to people that just don't get it. Writing clear, functional, concise code that implements a design is much easier to teach but in the world of open source and free software these two roles are usually combined. And, from looking at a lot of code in the open source world, much of it is from the folks that aren't doing a good job of design and probably shouldn't be writing code either.
The future is not one where everyone is a programmer. The world is bigger than that. There are a lot of people that have no desire to ever be anything more than a user and for them being handed a piece of software that is intuitively easy to use, relatively bug-free and gets the job done for them is what they want. From both proprietary and open source software development users are continually handed non-intuitive, buggy software that accomplishes something less than 100% of the job. And, collectively speaking, our users deserve better than that.
Probably the biggest problem I see with open source is the lack of critical review. Without this someone that turns out garbage code will continue to do so forever. Unless they stumble upon their own code and have to maintain it for years. Even then, it takes a stern taskmaster to reinforce the idea that if it isn't maintainable, it wasn't worth writing in the first place. And that if all the users can't use it how they want to, it isn't doing the job either. Yes, I do mean all the users and all of what they want it to do.
Where is the professional society that builds up talented but rudderless newcomers? Where does someone that wants to be turning out a "professional" quality product go for help? Universities? No, I don't think so. Most commercial establishments are just as driven to produce something "good enough" that they just have a hope of maintainability and usability. Sometimes they get lucky, but most of the time they do not. And we wonder why software development gets a bad reputation?
RMS would like us to each be able to fix the bugs we find and extend usability to take something that does 50% of the job we need done and fix it so it does 100% for us. Nice idea, but it comes from a flawed premise - a sort of universality of programming ability. The reality is major talent will be always rare and it is up to these folks to help out and guide those with ability but undeveloped talent. And then there are the users. These will always be in the majority and they cannot help but rely on the people with ability and talent to do what they cannot do. I do not think the mantle of this responsibility can so easily be passed off on the users.
You can include MPL or CDDL licensed files in a proprietary application. Instead of the boundary being at the process level, it's at the source file level. If Foo.c is MPL and Bar.c is proprietary, you can include them in the same application; you only have to distribute changes to Foo.c. Sort of like the LGPL in the sense that it's modular, but without the stupid and arbitrary restrictions.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Not sure why people refuse to understand that freedom requires restrictions. Lack of restrictions is called Anarchy. To maximize everyone's freedoms requires restrictions. It's the difference between being free to punch someone in the face and being free to not get punched in the face.
well if you're going to make that argument, there's the public domain which is by your definition "the most free of all." However, as was explained by the poster responding to yours before mine, some restrictions are neccessary for freedom to be meaningful. An anarchy is indeed "freer" than a libertarian government but only because anarchy does not protect the right against being killed, robbed etc. just as the GPL protects the endusers' rights by the golden rule- give others the same rights you've been given. The freedom to murder in an anarchy is a meaningless "right" as is the freedom to restrict another user's ability to use the same code you have.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"Probably people just ignore gibberish when I see it"
"I think the biggest problem Stallman's biggest problem is his 1984-esque doublespeak of the language:"
"there's no point in trying to discuss things with people who (apparently) can't even speak English. That's what I do at least."
your's footing yourself in the shoot :)
That's the rule that makes it "wrong" for me to use Ubuntu because some of the drivers have "binary blobs" in them.
There is no such rule, nor is it wrong (with or without quotation marks) to use Ubuntu. You are railing against a problem that doesn't exist. No one is preventing you from using Ubunutu
No hard feelings. Really. If you want, I'll send you a CD of Ubuntu. For free.
The way I've always seen it is that to have a middle (that hopefully, you and I are in), you need two sides. MS and Co. are on one. GNU is on the other. Without the countering balance, there wouldn't be a middle. For a continuum to exist, there have to be two extremes. If one of the two extremes disappears in the continuum, the previously moderate position will now be the extreme position.
Don't completely agree with GNU. But damn glad it's there. It allows my position to be the moderate by having stretched the continuum.
There is no such rule, nor is it wrong (with or without quotation marks) to use Ubuntu.
According to you, not according to Stallman. (You know, the one we're all talking about?)
Comment of the year
BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).
You can't make BSD code "non-free". You can add your own code, and make the resultant product "non-free", but the original BSD-licensed code, will remain BSD licensed.
The big difference between the BSD and GPL, is with the BSD you're stating what you want to do with your code, but with the GPL you're stating what you want to do with other people's code.
That's the rule that makes it "wrong" for me to use Ubuntu because some of the drivers have "binary blobs" in them.
There is no such rule, nor is it wrong (with or without quotation marks) to use Ubuntu. You are railing against a problem that doesn't exist. No one is preventing you from using Ubunutu
No hard feelings. Really. If you want, I'll send you a CD of Ubuntu. For free.
While there may not be such a "rule" per se, RMS does promote running only free software, and I believe that this is what the grandparent was referring to. I've seen him speak before, and he does make a point of encouraging people to use only free software and those distros that contain only free software.
So you care what Stallman thinks, and don't care what I think. That's fine with me. My point is why do you care what either of us think? It doesn't impact you in any way.
No, I don't care what you think and I don't care what Stallman thinks. I use Windows by choice and like it; you probably think I'm some sort of baby-eating monster.
Comment of the year
Sure, it'll be piece by piece, but there still needs to be a unified vision of an ideal to work towards, otherwise nobody will know what exactly is happening "piece by piece", and FLOSS wouldn't be a community driven force in the software industry, it would just be a strange phenomenon. In a way, RMS is the Steve Jobs of OSS. And people still buy Apple products even if they think Steve Jobs is crazy.
Twinstiq, game news
the word "liberty" is much more direct and understandable.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Open had a meaning before Open Source Software.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Why not GIVE the English language a term for free-libre eg.
Because the "free as in freedom" definition in English is easy to determine from context, except when people like Stallman deliberately make it confusing. Just like when politicians use names like "The PATRIOT act".
The problem is not the language, the problem is abusing the language.
>The term 'free' is an unfortunate consequence of there being no more specific word in English.
Why does this remind me of 'free hat' from South Park?
proud caffeine whore
If he meant that, he would've written it on the license itself. But to me, the fact that he explicitly allows distribution and use of GPL software alongside closed source software is a clear signal that he respects your right to use it, even if he thinks it's monumentally stupid for you to do so.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Free and open source software - hell, ANYTHING open source and free - is not about "freedom" per se. It's about cooperation rather than competition. It's about that dirty economic word socialism versus Mother Nature's status quo capitalism.
In Germany ... free ... beer ?!
Sign me up!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Actually, I'd say the term "free" is a deliberate consequence of free-software enthusiasts' marketing attempts. They could call it share-alike software or something else more exact, but they wanted a term associated with wild horses frolicking through the plains and Thomas Jefferson signing the Declaration of Independence. It kinda makes it sound like RMS's codebase crossed the ocean to flee religious persecution.
"Free as in speech" seems like a particularly bad analogy here anyway. "Free speech" typically refers to freedom from government interference or censorship; closed-source software isn't by definition any more or less free from government interference than GNU software, so WTF? Shouldn't we be saying "free-as-in-common-grazing-areas-in-pastoral-societies," since that seems to be the typical analogy for free software?
Please provide an example of this happening. The end user is under no obligation to "accept the terms" of the GPL (despite the fact that many software distributors stupidly force users to do just that when installing GPL software). Freedom 0 specifically grants the user unlimited freedom to use the software as (s)he sees fit. Any restrictions placed on the use of GPL software is a direct violation of the GPL.
The GPL governs the distribution of software, and prevents developers and distributors from restricting the way a person uses the software. Claims that the GPL restricts use is the great straw man of the proprietary vendors' anti-free software FUD campaign.
The fact that your nVidea drivers might break the next time you do a kernel update is beyond the control of those who provide the free components of your system. If nVidea wants their hardware to work with anybody's hardware or software, they need to either release working drivers themselves, or release the specifications so others may develop them. I can't imagine how you arrived at the conclusion that the FSF is in some way placing "every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free."
That's what they've been doing for 25 years. Any lack of interoperability you've been experiencing is likely due to a lack of published specifications for that proprietary hardware and software you just referred to.
So you slag the people who provide free software and blame them of the lack of interoperability you experience when you mix it with closed-source propriety hardware and software, and you also don't pay for the proprietary stuff, violating the terms of their user agreements (which, unlike the GPL, do restrict your right to use the software).
Why are you complaining again?
I don't care why you're posting AC
One of my friends works for a company in Raleigh that gives all its employees Fridays off to work on open source projects of their choice. This keeps them at the cutting edge of new developments and allows their company's name to get a lot of publicity among OS circles.
If nVidia goes down tomorrow or just drops support for your specific card, all your hardware will stop working in few months with the next kernel update. This is why I bought Intel hardware. It might not be the best, but I know I will be able to use the hardware and all of its features until it physically breaks.
In theory yes, but in my experience the Intel drivers can be quite lacking. They do support XRandR 1.2 which is great (although, again in my experience, switching external VGA on or off can either bring down X or make the computer completely unresponsive unless accessed via SSH), but I've been unable to get tearing-free video playback or 3D so far with them. And the 3D performance in general is abysmal - I don't expect to play recent games, but the hardware should be able to handle modern desktop compositing (Compiz/KDE4) just fine, which it doesn't, at least not with decent frame rates. Hell, KWin doesn't work at all.
Ironically it seems the chipset on my laptop (GM965/X3100) offers currently much worse performance than earlier chipsets, which packed a lot less punch. Granted, I haven't yet tried a GEMified kernel with the 2.5.x series of drivers, which should improve performance. This is not to say I don't appreciate the freedom aspect - actually that was why I chose a laptop with an Intel chipset in the first place - but it doesn't always guarantee that "I will be able to use the hardware and all of its features".
the misuse of the word "free" is deliberate on stallman's part i can assure you, just as he insists on calling DRM "Digital Restrictions Management"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Your post was fine until you got to the GNU gulag at the end. Neither RMS nor GNU support aggression towards those who choose to use proprietary software, they just advocate a world without proprietary software.
Nick
it's an unrealistic view of the business world where relationships aren't so cut and dry. but i don't expect fsf types to ever get this.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The problem is that he also has an implied:
5. You can't run anything EXCEPT Free Software.
rule, and that's the one everybody disagrees with
Well gee, the guy who's spent the last twenty-five years leading the Free Software movement has some politics that you disagree with.
It's not like anybody is actually forcing you to stop using proprietary software. The only person who might stop you from using Ubuntu because of binary blobs are the owners of said blobs. They could sue Ubuntu for massive statutory damages for wilful infringement.
Nick
the misuse of the word "free" is deliberate on stallman's part i can assure you, just as he insists on calling DRM "Digital Restrictions Management"
Which is what it is.
The grand parent post contained just such an example. If I keep my kernel up to date, it's possible my nVidia drivers to stop working after a while because Linus refuses to stabilise the kernel driver API. This makes it harder to use hardware for which only proprietary drivers are available. That's restricting my freedom.
Of course, even proprietary operating systems don't remain compatible for ever, but in general, point releases don't screw things up.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I see that as different goals. Totally unrestricted code is made to save everyone the effort of reimplementing that, even commercial developers. GPL code is made only to benefit the GPL community.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It gives freedom to the users of your code which includes the freedom to make a version that does not include the freedom. Of course those forks only make their changes proprietary since anyone can still get the original from you. It adds freedom to your code but doesn't require others to add freedom to their changes.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Linus seems like a strange choice to hold up as an example of someone limiting your rights in the name of free software. He always struck me as the ultimate pragmatist, someone who favours using the best tool for the job, regardless of whether it is proprietary or free software.
Never the less, do you have to apply every kernel patch? I can see security updates and bug fixes, but changes to the driver API? Especially if they break your nVidia drivers. Wouldn't you look at what the patch does, see that it is incompatible with your hardware and choose not to run it?
Really, it goes back to where the problem actually lies, and that is with the proprietary nVidia drivers. Complain to them. You gave them money for their graphics card. Have you ever given a penny to Linus or any of the other kernel developers?
They are doing nothing to curtail your freedom to use the software they so generously provided any way you see fit, and if it doesn't suit your exact needs, you can pay someone to change it.
That's freedom.
I don't care why you're posting AC
If it helps, think of "free software" as software that is not subject to the arbitrary whim of one vendor.
If Redmond tells you to upgrade, you upgrade or assume the risks of using unsupported software. With free software, you always have the option of buying support from someone else, or supporting it yourself.
There are many concepts of freedom. This is a legitimate one.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
People are probably less cognizant of what is free and not free until they don't have it. Gnewsense 1.0 was launched on November 2nd, 2006 and Sun announced that they would open Java 11 days later. Not that there's a direct correlation, but Gnewsense launched 1.0 without a decent JDK. I wasn't even aware of the "Java trap" before this. Or that mplayer was not free. Or difficulties in playing Youtube videos (although gnash helps a bit - funded by John Gilmore!) That GLX was unfree was known by some for a while, but it didn't really penetrate the open source community for a while - it was ripped out of Gnewsense in January 2008. SGI made an announcement in September that opened their end up, but there are still some legal minefields so it's not in Gnewsense yet.
Anyhow, I can't think of much I can't do on this that I want to. No good JDK was really the biggest thing, and now that's taken care of. I don't have time to play World of Warcraft or the like nowadays.
It doesn't surprise me that Germans have a specific word for "free beer". It's like eskimos and words for "snow".
Sorry, ignore my last comment, I misread your post.
It doesn't surprise me that Germans have three words for describing "free beer". It's like eskimos and words for "snow".
Yeah, "Digital Rights Management" is not wrong. It manages your right to use your computer, just like a prison cell manages your right to go wherever you want to.
Circumcision is child abuse.
That said, kernel APIs, as well as all sorts of other things, change quite often. Sometimes the APIs have been broken deliberately(somewhere around 2.6.13 or so can't remember exactly when, Morton put code into the APIs to block any modules which didn't have a GPL compatible license), sometimes they've been broken to massively improve system performance(both of these types of changes are of course perfectly within the rights of the kernel developers).
Generally speaking the kernel is very stable(in the sense that it doesn't crash much) and very unstable(in the sense that how it works can change dramatically between point releases) at the same time. It's also somewhat difficult, unless you want to maintain your own kernel patch set, to avoid these changes in APIs without keeping your kernel at an older version, which has a number of consequences.
Backwards compatibility in Linux is basically based around the idea that if the software is open source you can always go into the old software and fix it to work with the new system. This is great for the enhancement of individual software(bad code can be eliminated entirely), but not so great for the overal ecosystem(otherwise perfectly functional software requires a lot more updates than would be the case with more stable APIs).
Of course the fundamental issue with free software is and always has been the fact that 99.9999% of people don't care about most of the freedoms because they can't modify the software themselves, and, with certain exceptions, paying someone to fix it is more expensive than buying a product which does what you want in the first place.
This is not correct. Mandriva offers both a totally Free/Open Source version, and a complete with third part driver version.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
True, but the GPL doesn't help you with patents either. It can(at least in version 3) technically restrict you from distributing anything which is patent encumbered, but it doesn't magically make the patents go away.
It's like eskimos and words for "snow".
Ah, that tired myth: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004003.html
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
He's lost most of his relevance. Move on.
Because Stallman is busy trying to push his viewpoint down everyone else's throat. Hence the article.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Seems to me the easiest way to make Stallman happy is to not even use a computer at all. Or a cellphone, or a TV with an on-screen menu, or your car... etc.
If you use Linux, he'll gripe the drivers are binary blobs. If you remove the drivers, he'll gripe the firmware on the network card is proprietary, if you buy a crazy open-source network card, the BIOS on the motherboard is closed source. If you fix all that, oops can't use your cellphone: it's closed source too. And the chip in your car that controls fuel mixture? Closed source.
There's no way to make him completely happy while living like a normal human being.
Comment of the year
"Freedom is the right to be left alone, and the obligation to leave others alone, unless there is voluntary association between all relevant parties."
Which, in my opinion, is a problem of the "free software movement" vs. the "open source" guys. The open source guys seem cool that people choose to use proprietary stuff if they wish. As long as you can use what you want, fine with them. The problem is with zealots claiming that there is no freedom unless everyone is using GNU-something. That's not freedom.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
FWIW, I'd give that a +1 Funny :). Been in your shoes, bud.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
So, in that matter, having a dictator and beeing free in the sense of not having to make decisions is free as well?
I had a quick look at the CDDL and I don't see any stipulation that you need to make it possible for end-users to recompile the software with a modified version of the code covered by the CDDL. This is the second main purpose of the LGPL: you are obligated to permit updated versions of the LGPL library (assuming they're ABI compatible) to be substituted for the version shipped by the distributor. This can be useful if the distributor is no longer supporting the product and there's important bugfixes or performance improvements for an LGPL library it makes use of, for example.
The CDDL only appears to achieve the primary purpose of the LGPL, i.e. ensuring any improvements to the code make it upstream so everyone can benefit. If that's your goal then it's probably a good license to use, but it's not quite equivalent. Even though it's using "Free" code, you may not be able to make any changes to that "Free" code within the proprietary application.
I agree. Unfortunately, there's no good adjective form of "liberty."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Yes, as I said: "stupid and arbitrary restrictions." The particulars of the LGPL serve as more of a hassle than anything. One case in a thousand it might be useful, many more than that it's an annoyance.
(Admittedly I overstate its stupidity, as I suppose it's nice that one-in-a-thousand times, but as it's GNU-backed, it really does immediately go in the "distrust and shun" category for me. I do not approve of the GNU licensing scheme at all, though the LGPL is less cretinous than the GPL.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
My perspective here is coloured by memories of my frustration with Linux, X11 and a badly-supported SIS graphics card in 1997. I was actually grateful when it died, justifying the purchase of a Riva TNT, which worked faultlessly from day one, and probably still does. I still have it in a box here (changes in architecture always force me to upgrade graphics cards before I need to).
My point is that with that level of commitment to Linux support in the face of a comparitively meagre commercial return, it isn't unreasonable to expect their support to continue. To decry their efforts in the name of some philosophical ideal is simply churlish. It would be more graceful to say "thanks" to nVidia for providing drivers that have allowed the linux community to grow.
I don't know how that got posted as anonymous.
I'm posting this in the hope that it helps.
Of course, I'm not RMS, but I *do* try to follow what he writes. And I feel confident in saying that there is no rule that makes it morally wrong for you to use anything. You are the end user.
If you choose to use proprietary software it is unfortunate. Unfortunate because you deprive yourself of freedom. RMS *does* say you "shouldn't" run proprietary software, but that is for your benefit (in the long term).
What he characterizes as morally wrong, is writing and distributing non-free software. It is the act of depriving *others* that is morally wrong. What you do to yourself is your own business.
People get very confused because they see "immoral" on one hand and "shouldn't" on the other and assume that the two are connected. I really don't believe they are connected at all. An example might be that one considers it immoral to sell cigarettes to children. Children shouldn't smoke, but it is not immoral for a child to smoke. It's just unfortunate if the child choses to do so.
So, it is not "wrong" that you choose Ubuntu over something like gnuSense. It is simply unfortunate that you have chosen to use proprietary binary blobs (or other proprietary software that you can easily install from Ubuntu).
Now, having said all that, I don't agree with this position. I don't believe it is immoral to write or distribute proprietary software. However, I agree with him that free software is much better for everyone, so we should avoid proprietary software. And in fact, I believe it enough that I quit writing proprietary software.
Anyway, I really hope that helps. Perhaps you agree with my assesment, or perhaps not. But at least I hope it allows you to look at the issue from another perspective.
So the war against terror should've taken place in Bush's own backyard?
This is blinging
Slashdot is clearly not as geeky as I thought when the first visible post on a story is by someone who does not understand what is meant by free in this context, and it then gets moderated "interesting".
What is really weird is that the comment is made by someone who has made nearly 600 comments on Slashdot and who uses the phrase "open source".
I think as have all been trolled. Other recent comments by the same poster include:
Blaming the current financial crisis on over regulation and Keynsianism of all things.
They're crafted with a very specific aim in mind: freedom. The LGPL is a compromise. It's just not congruent with your aims, which appear to be far more "stupid and arbitrary" then either the GPL or the LGPL.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
For example, some people might be extremely annoyed by people who swing fists right to the end of their noses and then stop, because that is a startling thing to have happen to one. So those people would prefer that the conflict of rights be resolved with a much greater restriction on the right of the arm-swinger, in order to protect their right not to be prevented from doing X by threat of startlement.
Since not everybody is going to agree on how to resolve these conflicts, but we've still got to resolve them in a consistent manner across at least a geographical region, you will very quickly wind up having groups of people who meet to form a consensus of how to resolve them (legislatures), and further agree to withhold some benefit from or cause some harm to those who do not follow the consensus (executive and judiciary). That is, governments in miniature will tend to form spontaneously.
This is actually a pretty decent analogy for the software case. If everybody agreed on some particular way to restrict certain rights in favor of others (everybody use the GPL, or everybody use the BSD license, etc), then none of these things would be a problem. You wouldn't have hardware and proprietary software failing to work with GPL software because it'd be the only game in town. The restrictions of the GPL simply wouldn't come into play at all.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Actually, it's more like it manages what a copyright holder is giving you the right to do with the works they own and have a right to control by law. It's not like prison, it's like you renting a car and having to seat a representative of the car rental company when you drive it to ensure your not going to abuse it.
The biggest problem with DRM is the realization that your renting and not buying because you don't get the impression of the rights you would have if you outright owned something.
Technically, anarchy is the absence of the state. You could still have mutually agreed upon restrictions and sanctions without a state. Pirate ships in the Carribean are a good example because they explicitly operated outside the law of states.
Actually, the road blocks he is talking about is having the drivers and such so the install just works.
Right or wrong, having to fiddle with installing drivers and such in a distribution meant for the unwashed masses because someone wants to be a stickler does present a road block to people who want to use the software. It is more or less saying that if someone wants to use this software that supports so much hardware, they can't have the freedom to use the hardware they want without headaches. It also makes it harder to work with manufacturers of hardware because it imposes limitations on them that they may not be able to contractually honor due to third parties.
In the past, this has lead to more posts and rants about Linux and FOSS software not working or not being ready for the desktop or how it makes all their hardware slow then it has about Nvidia (or some other company) not opening their specs or something. And to the person looking to give FOSS a try, you end up with an overall image that Linux or BSD just isn't ready for the big time. This is fine if you want a hobby OS that the basic idiots of Microsoft land can't use. I know more then one Geek who got sick and tired of jumping through hoops with linux and drivers that aren't in the kernel not because the hardware is to new but because of some ideological value. If the people want it, let them have it.
Really? Optimal freedom for everyone, users and developers alike, is "stupid and arbitrary"?
My aim is to have my code used by as many people as possible while still being usable in whatever form a developer wants to use it in. The aim of the GPL is to jam a philosophy down the throat of anyone who wants to develop with their code (the LGPL less so, but I won't use it because it can be relicensed to GPL). Who's aiming to preserve freedom (instead of Stallman's fucked-up "Freedom") here?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
with the GPL you're stating what you want to do with other people's code.
Not at all. The GPL states what other people can do with my code that I wrote. It is not a giveaway, it is not a free-for-all, it is not public domain. You want X, I want Y. If you're not willing to Y, then I'm not willing to X. It's a license, that's how it works.
"This is not 'Nam, Donnie. This is bowling. There are rules."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
[citation needed]
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
You obviously haven't read the EULA.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
A representative in the car I think is much more like FOSS because even with another person in the car you are not restricted from doing what ever you want, it is just that other people are going to know what you are doing. Police are the same way; they don't restrict you from doing anything, but they have the right to question your behavior and have the power to challenge your judgment. Again, that sounds much more like the community auditing of FOSS.
Proprietary software is like buying a car whose hood is welded shut for your safety and to protect your warranty which really only results in a necessity for the car to be replaced every time they identify a defect. Add to that a locking gas cap where only certified gas stations get the key, and you can't fill it up yourself. You get one radio station with a fixed volume with corporate approved content, but in their defense it is usually pretty good and what "most drivers want to listen to" anyway. And of course this is all easily justified as the company is simply exercising its freedom to protect its good name and the quality assurance of the vehicle.
These apple and orange rights, to me, sounds like debating my right to stab you when I am really really angry. Artificially manipulating the market giving a handicap to certain businesses so they can keep doing business in an outdated way doesn't help anyway. I look forward to a day where alienating customers with preemptive punishment won't just be considered "business as usual". But I can understand if it might take awhile, this being a country whose people are more concerned with the features of their iPhone than their service providers collusion to violate FISA.
Richard Nixon would be jealous.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
The difference is that there is choice. Few more features for a little less freedom on some respects, and giving that choice to the customer is one thing. Brutally crippled buggy software that spends more time monitoring your every action and reporting its finding back to the company in the name of piracy rather than actually doing anything useful meanwhile holding a near perfect monopoly over a particular function or industry through an abuse of the copyright / trademark / patent system crushing anything even remotely competitive begs justifiable homicide of the CEO / radically militant evangelical support for FOSS.
I agree RMS is quite 'out there' on the whole FOSS fundamentalism thing, but with some of the stuff companies have tried or have gotten away with, I can sympathize with a lack of open-mindedness to moderate solutions like those of nVidia.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
I think while that is the future, we are just so far from that position, and peoples acceptance of things that should really put people in prison that brings out the radical voice. People accuse RMS of being radical, meanwhile Microsoft is talking about plans to develop a pay by the hour software model for HOME COMPUTERS!?!? The most disgusting part of the whole ordeal is that it has already received strong positive reviews. I mean really? Haven't we been through this song and dance with cell phone companies?!?
I am sure there are lots of people that would say "ooh, neat" and "what a great way to try many software titles" or "I love a company that gives me more choices", but all I can really say is RMS isn't nearly as crazy as everyone gives him credit for, he's just idealistic. Not his fault Ballmer would have a different vision for the world.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
I wouldn't expect an answer to that. As far as I can tell, it stems from this article by Lawrence Lessig and is apparently meaningless in the contexts in which it so frequently invoked.
Maybe I am missing your point, because I still do not see where Richard Stallman or anyone else has taken steps to prevent us from using proprietary software with free (as in the four freedoms) software. They will say that my Mandriva distro with the proprietary nVidea drivers doesn't meet the definition of free, but I am still free to use a hybrid system if that suits my needs. There is plenty of choice out there, thanks in large part to the work of the FSF, and I am free to choose just the right mix of free and proprietary tools to suit my needs.
Actually, my answer would be "use NDISwrapper," another free software project that attempts to give people more control over their hardware despite a lack of published specifications or drivers for their platform. My question to you is, if your wireless card won't work because it only has proprietary drivers, how is that Stallman's fault?
Why is that a problem for you? You are still free to use GPL software - or not use it - as it suits you.
That's what I'd like to see: an example of free software designed specifically to not work with proprietary software. Can you provide more detail about that article, or perhaps a link? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't experienced it.
I know Stallman is of the opinion that only free software should be used, but I am unaware of him specifically calling upon developers to design software to not work with proprietary software.
How is that even possible? Could someone else not just fork the project and remove the offending code? Or create a project that respected the users choice?
Look at the cddb example. From its wiki page:
I use ndiswrapper because there are no free software drivers for the Broadcomm chipset in my Latitude notebook. In order to do this, I need access to the proprietary Windows drivers that came with the Dell. So the Linux install on the laptop is not an entirely "free software" environment, but that does not pose a problem for me.
If - for any reason - ndiswrapper stopped working and I was no longer able to use the Windows drivers, I could change platforms, try a different wifi card or pay someone to get ndiswrapper working again. That's the choice I have. I never paid the makers of ndiswrapper to produce their software, and they never made a commitment to me that it would always work. All they have done is give me choice where none existed before.
The same could be said for the FSF.
Now consider what would happen if the wireless stopped working while I was in Windows. I could still change to a different platform, I suppose, but that would be unlikely to solve t
I don't care why you're posting AC
I agree that getting drivers working can be a real pain, but there are distros out there that will install and configure proprietary drivers for you. My Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers. It tells you plainly during the install that these drivers are not free, and I believe you may even have to accept an EULA, but I booted in to a fully graphical environment with working 3D graphic the first time I started the system after installing it.
I am also pretty sure Ubuntu will configure NDISwrapper for you, if you have the Windows drivers on a partition of your hard drive.
I don't know. I don't do as much experimenting with new distros as some people, and maybe there are rampant examples of distros that won't play nice with NDISwrapper, or go out of their way to prevent you from installing the nVidia drivers. I just have not experienced it, and I won't lose sleep over the thought of Richard Stallman disapproving of my hybrid free/proprietary system , despite my ever-lasting gratitude for everything he has done to provide me with an alternative to proprietary software.
I don't care why you're posting AC
It means free of cost, at least, initial cost. Free beer has been used as an enticement to bring people to a place or event where they are likely to pay for something that will net more benefit to the person who paid for the beer and is now giving it away. So, it does have some subtle undertone, but it basically means what "gratis" means in many languages.
They're both wackadoos, but I'll save my Ballmer pay-by-the-hour critiques for an article about that.
If you look, Mandriva has an offering that does include the Proprietary drivers. Most distros have these and label them the "free" versions which really confuse people not in the know.
Anyways, this does lead to problems installing drivers. Somewhat self inflicted but problems. The only reason those "free" versions are there is because of Stallman and company.
BTW, I use Mandriva a lot, You didn't boot into a Fully functional 3D environment after installation, you booted into what appears to be a fully functional 3D environment. The graphic driver supplied by Mandriva is the Xorg driver that had limited functionality compared to Nvidia's binary blob.. At least as near as I can tell, the Nvidia Kernel Blob isn't included with any of the Mandriva released that I can find except the power pack and it's a selectable driver option there which means it has to be the Xorg driver in the free as in non pay versions. Of it works well enough for you, fine, if it doesn't, then grab the real deal from Nvidia itself and see how you card can really perform under linux. I should caution you that if you upgrade the Kernel with the Nvidia proprietary driver, you will have to reinstall the kernel driver and make sure you kernel headers match the new kernel version.
I know. That's what I meant when I said "my Mandriva distro does that with the nVidia drivers."
I can see where people can get confused by the different meanings of the word "free," but I don't see that as a reason to stop offering people choice. Mandriva has their Power Packs, which you get access to if you subscribe. The "free" versions are free in the sense of "gratis," not necessarily "libre" (although they could be "free as in speech" if the user chooses to set their system up that way).
I run Mandriva on my file server, and it's been a while since I installed it, so I probably mis-spoke earlier when I said they had two separate versions. I do recall there was an EULA of some sort during the installation process that was clearly labeled as pertaining to the "non-free" elements such as the nVidia drivers, and maybe things like flash. They still give you the choice of either running a completely "free software" version, or using the proprietary drivers if you choose. That's the best of both worlds, IMO.
No, the "free" versions are there for people who wish to run only free software. While maybe not important to you, it is to some people and I welcome the choice. Choice is decidedly lacking in the proprietary world.
Possible. As I said, it's been a while since I installed that particular system. I know with previous installs, I had to go the nVidia's website and download a driver. Installation was no more difficult that any installation you need to perform when plugging a USB device in to a Windows box, but I'm pretty sure with the Spring 2007 version I'm running on my file server the nvidia drivers were an option that could be selected during install. I may have had to do something after the first boot, but I don't think I had to open a text editor.
As I said, I'm running the nVidia driver. You can tell it is running on your system by restarting X. The nVidia logo will flash on your screen as it starts. And yes, I know I shouldn't be running X on a file server, but that machine performed other duties for the first few years of its life.
Btw, I really like Mandrive, too, especially their Control Center, but I have to say I don't care much for their forums or their website in general. It lacked the polish and usability I expect when I pay a subscription for something. Fortunately, mandrivausers.org provides a much better experience. I still support Mandriva because I think their distro is excellent.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Not really, it more like the rep is going to scold you and threaten you with lawsuits if you do anything they don't approve of. And yes, the police have the power to stop you from doing things. In columbus ohio, just this past new years eve, the police shot two people because they didn't put the guns they were shooting off to celebrate the new year down fast enough. They drew their guns, order the suspect to drop their weapons and when they turned to look at the police, without ever raising the guns and pointing it at them, they shot two people in two separate instances without the suspects ever being threatening to them. That's not really the freedom of the GPL offers, but it is the reality of the police.
Well, no. The hood isn't welded shut and you don't have to buy a new car. What you have to do is get the car maker to fix the problems. Almost all Proprietary software vendors offer free updates to fix problems with their products. Most of them offer support contracts that entitle you to more then just security and program fixes that they deems necessary. Almost all of the proprietary software have some sort of way to allow third parties to call the software or use elements of it in order for you to purchase third party fixes. And yes, they have the same problems where people are watching over you and if something isn't done right, they stop you and threaten lawsuits just like the FOSS software will. There will be a few more restrictions and when the car wears out, they do expect you to buy a new one but if you already have the support contract, your most likely not paying for the new version outside of that. The biggest exception is it will costs a lot more.
Let's come back to reality. In no case is either like hurting someone else's body. They aren't manipulating the market, they are choosing to no longer support the older software which is something that FOSS does all the time. And finally, you have no proof that the service provider colluded to violate FISA. If Bush is right as most people who look at it past the "OMG their spying on us", FISA wouldn't even legally apply in the situation that was claimed to have existed with the spying. This is likely why, even with all the press coverage
It seems to me you had to change the driver named in the XF86Config file from "nvidia" to "nv" when you installed the binary blob. It's been a while since I had to tweak one of those. What a pain it used to be getting X working with your video card. That was one of the reasons I started buying nVidia - they supported Linux. Since X.org has become the standard, I haven't had to do a thing to get X working on a machine.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree wrt Stallman. I understand he annoys you, and it gets tired listening to someone constantly banging the same drum, but I care deeply about the ideals of the FSF and specifically about the four freedoms, and I think they are under constant attack by powerful groups whose only desire is to put us all in cages (figuratively) so they can more easily separate us from our money.
Free software - like any other "free" thing - is easy to lose if you allow the ideas it is based on to be watered down for the sake of convenience. I feel the same way about privacy, and I'm sure I annoy a lot of people when I explain to them at length why I will not give them my private information and why they shouldn't be asking for it.
Sometimes being vocal about something you care passionately about pisses people off.
I don't care why you're posting AC
I think you right about the Nvidia-NV switch.
I value the four freedoms too. But I also see a real need in the world for alternatives and I value FOSS being open to the world as much as possible. In my opinion, Stallman has done more to stop that in the last 3-5 years then he has to promote it. Especially when MS comes out with Vista and all those TCO studies that said windows was cheaper then linux because of the retraining cost just lost it's only advantage. With those being useless because of the retraining needed for Vista, Stallman in all his glory starts a huge infight within the FOSS community over the MS-Novel deal that was mostly fabricated in his own mind just to push a rejected GPLv3 that he ended up having to give away almost all of what he wanted to change just to get it accepted with the Novel bashing.
Shit, there I go harping on him again. Anyways, I think you get the idea that I think he has outlived his usefulness. I think he shoots himself in the foot on purpose just so he can play the injured duck underdog. The entire FSF has started following him.
Ok, my examples were quite exaggerated, but I was in real disagreement with the parent. More directly, I subscribe to the legal theory that people should not be disabled from breaking the law, otherwise the law is unable to evolve with the times. In your example with the police, they did shoot after, not before (complex circumstances aside).
Forking a project to get what you want is far from enabled for every citizen, but I feel GPL encourages people to write useful software because of the (even unlikely) threat of forking. EA was under no such threat with Spore; Spore was going to sell no matter what, even if customers had to go online and get a third party 'fix'. In the end, it made no difference to customers or EA. I guess it is just idealistic to expect from a company that my money goes towards making a more useful / entertaining product for me, and if that money is going to go towards any type of crippling of the software, there needs to be overwhelming justification and demand by customers. An example of this would be requiring registered accounts linked to a serial number per unit so that only people that bought the game can join in official events / servers or to enforce rules against griefing of any kind. Bots and gold sellers ruin a games play and economy. This is why with the 'controversial' DRM type software installed with World of Warcraft is tolerated because players understand how it contributes to the overall experience. While EA was looking to protect its investment, but the reality is that some people buy games and some people pirate games, but many do both. People that only pirate games are not going to start giving money for games that can't be hacked, at least not as much in mind paying customers are going to stop buying products when they pay for something and it won't work due to some kind of anti-theft device. Maybe it is only me, but I don't like being accused of being a criminal, ESPECIALLY when I couldn't have possibly known the criteria by which I am going to be judged. The law typically accounts (or should account) for this. Yes, mistakes are make as you cited above that can not be corrected, and as the police were scrutinized publicly for their actions, so was EA. But I think the third party hack is much more like "thou shalt not get caught" than due process or other legal theory (if that makes any sense).
I just believe there must be some better way that is both profitable and utilitarian. I'll admit I have no evidence to support that statement, just idealism.
I could just love to hate AT&T, and I think people are responsible for electing a bad congress has either supported or looked the other way when it comes to anything Bush could be praised or criticized for. Personally, I don't have enough faith in their general competency to even do anything with the information to really go "OMG SPYING!1!". I was also somewhat under the impression that as long as telephone infrastructure has existed in this country, it had more or less been recorded in its near entirety. I had always put this aside in my mind as wild conspiracy theory or who cares for the above named reason and I don't think my phone conversations would be very interesting from a national security perspective. However, legislation to justify the presidents actions isn't quite the same thing as legislation to 'clarify' what the law meant; I see that as an exceedingly 'rosy' take on the issue. We already have poison fruit doctrine in this country, so only thing to worry about at this point s whether or not it gets applied appropriately, and that investigators are not sloppy about going after real criminals. I see a big gray area there between "The law just wasn't clear, but that was what it really meant" and "If Bush broke the law, he must be (or would have been) impeached".
As far as what I am expecting of the next administration, I am pretty cynical. Too many things I may have 'hoped' to see 'change' have come and pass. I think the last issue I had any energy to care about nationally just had a giant shit dropped on it named Tom Perrelli.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
While I understand your disagreement, unless your the very first persons to buy the software, DRM is actually a choice. You see, even with the Wow and EA, the people had a choice on whether to use that software or not. They chose to use it, and you even justified it to some extent by the game mechanics and economy. The problem is that some programs that you want to do more with won't let you but you already knew it was doing things with DRM first. The typical person is not treated like a criminal first because they know the DRM is there. Even with Microsoft's activation, you know it is there. And yes, I will admit that MS's activation has and does cuase problems with valid users. Those users still use MS's products though meaning that they are willing to accept the hassles.
You would agree that there are checks and balances designed to limit the powers of government or even one particular branch of government wouldn't you? Congress creates the laws, certain parts (the house) have to start any tax bills because it is more representative of the people then the senate (despite the senate originally being appointed positions). Well, if you believe that the balance stops one part of the government from getting too powerful, then you will have to believe that each branch of the government has roles it plays that can't be restricted by the other. Congress can't pass a law stating that the supreme court cannot rule something unconstitutional. That is the supreme court's constitutional requirement. The same argument goes to Bush, the limits placed on a peace time president aren't the same as a war time president. The commander in chief has a duty and obligation to collect battlefield intelligence. 911 happened on US soil, the war on terror started the war in Afghanistan and so on. The courts and even congress has recognized that the president has had the ability to collect foreign intelligence unrestricted by congress. FISA was written to address Americans and domestic spying that was discovered in the mid 1960's when the supreme court finally connected domestic phone taps to the constitutional search warrant procedure (before that, it was hit and miss). FISA didn't require a warrant for pure foreign intelligence operations but it did when US persons or areas the Government controlled would be tapped. This was fine and all but when the president went from peace time to commander in chief, he holds that the law simple cannot be applied to limit the normal powers of a commander in chief.
Anyways, what you end up with is an administration saying A only count when B is not present. You have partisan members of congress saying we didn't intend A to be that way and the president responding with t