2 RMS Books Hit Version 2.0

jrepin writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has just released in tandem the second edition of its president and founder Richard Stallman's selected essays, Free Software, Free Society, and his semi-autobiography, Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution."

Comments

Free as in BSD

[carlhaagen]

Because a license that ties the hands of the developer is not equal to freedom. Freedom is not freedom unless it involves both end-user AND developer.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Squiddie]

It's only restricting your freedom if you want to restrict the users' freedoms. Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from. Weird, huh?

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

You just go on thinking of what's best for *you*. I'll continue thinking of what's best for many.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU. Loser.

Re:Free as in BSD

[u17]

I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

Re:Free as in BSD

[tchernobog]

Troll. If you think that a license does not suit you, do not use it, use another one. Nobody is taking away your freedom as a developer to choose the license you prefer, or to write your own implementation. But as a developer myself, I don't see why you should benefit from my code, my hard work and my creativeness, close-source it, and invest maybe some marketing resources in it to drive me out of the market.

Fantasy? No. Personal experience. A loss of several thousands of euro from my part. So, keep your BSD license, I'll keep my GPL, thanks.

Re:Free as in BSD

[ThunderBird89]

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Re:Free as in BSD

[McDee]

And some people have this funny belief that true freedom applies to everybody. If I write code under a free license then everyone should be free to do with it as they will, no restrictions. Otherwise it isn't free: in "protection from" Vs. "freedom to" the freer one is the one with the word "free" in it. Doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.

Re:Free as in BSD

[perpenso]

I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

Actually some GPL types don't respect the wishes of others as well, or possibly legal obligations.

Regarding the actions by some GPL types who take dual licensed code and remove the non-GPL license in an attempt to make the code GPL only:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/9/1/153822

Re:Free as in BSD

[Squiddie]

You are also not free to sell yourself into slavery, but you don't complain about that lack of freedom. Your freedom as a developer only extends the where a user's freedom begins. If you want to close up source, then use your own code. Nobody is forcing the GPL on you.

Re:Free as in BSD

[mark-t]

The idea behind the GPL is to utilize the standard copyright practice where any derivative works are subject to the same copyright restrictions imposed by the creator. By having the requirement be that the source code remain available, the project is guaranteed to remain free as long as any interest in the project is retained, and regardless of who continues the project.

With BSD, the source code remains free only as long as interest in the source code itself is retained. If interest in the source code dies out and the project is distributed only in binary form for a while, it may become impossible to obtain the source code at a later time, and future developers would no longer have the freedom to make changes to it as readily.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think RMS would say that wanting the freedom to offer others the opportunity to waive their freedoms is antisocial.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Lundse]

Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.

Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

...except for RMS, of course. You seem to be forgetting that using one of _his_ licenses requires copyright assignment to _his_ organization. Convenient.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that scientific studies prove closed-source developers have more sex than GPL developers?

Re:Free as in BSD

[Squiddie]

That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Goaway]

You know, that could just be because people who use the GPL can freely use any BSD code they want, but people who want to use the BSD license are blocked from using GPL code.

Re:Free as in BSD

[beelsebob]

Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from.

And this is exactly what makes GPL non-free. It's a great moral to live by, and I fully support it's use, but it's not freedom. Freedom involves letting people chose for themselves.

Re:Free as in BSD

[beelsebob]

Did you know that scientific studies prove that BSDed code is closed-source. Wait no... that's not right.

Re:Free as in BSD

[beelsebob]

Closed source advocates never complain about the GPL, it's only GPL advocates that complain about closed source ;)

Re:Free as in BSD

[beelsebob]

Okay, that's fine – don't give your code away for free, use the GPL... But don't claim you're protecting freedom when you're doing it.

Re:Free as in BSD

[DavidinAla]

You're 100 percent right, of course, but because people would rather reflexively defend what they already believe in -- which is their beloved, but restrictive GPL -- you will be attacked. It's not trolling (as you're currently modded as I write this) to say that the GPL has the effect of forcing everyone else to behave with code as the license's authors want. The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code. The fact that the "free software" advocates can't understand that they are trying to control others is one of the supreme ironies in IT today.

Re:Free as in BSD

[causality]

That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.

I want to warn you that you are probably wasting your time, unless of course your goal was to demonstrate how unreasonable people can be.

This is like far too many arguments over what approach should be taken or what people should do for what amount to personal decisions. The people arguing against you in this thread are like little lemmings marching in lock-step to the beat of a general failed sentiment: it's never good enough for them to use what they believe in, and to not use what they don't believe in, because by God the other guy has to be converted too.

Insecure people just cannot stand the idea that others might have different needs, philosophies, tastes, and preferences and that these may lead to different decisions. They feel threatened by that, like their own preference loses legitimacy each time someone else doesn't share it. That's why I call them lemmings, for this is a rejection of individuality.

No one is going to force them to use GPL software. That isn't good enough. They don't want to use GPL software; therefore the very existence of GPL software bothers them. Other developers have decided, of their own free will, to use the GPL as a license for their software. This is software that no one has to use. The fact that someone somewhere might use it bothers them.

They can disguise their insecurity by saying "but the GPL has this-and-that" but it's all bullshit. I suspect they're trying to convince themselves that their insistence is valid and amounts to anything other than a religious intolerance. No one has to use the GPL. I personally think the GPL is a great license and maximizes everyone's freedom as much as is practical and sustainable, but let's say someone doesn't think so. Then their concerns for the GPL's impact on freedom are 100% mitigated by their total freedom to not use it. What, then, would be the complaint? What injustice has been perpetrated? Absolutely none, they just want to bitch about how terrible it is that the entire world doesn't just see everything their way.

That's what you are dealing with here. You can demonstrate how absurd it is but you are unlikely to change it.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

a) That's not true at all.
b) Even if it was true, that would only apply if you were using one of the FSF's licences, but the GP was about how no-one's forcing you to use the FSF's licences in the first place.

Re:Free as in BSD

[darkwing_bmf]

There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using the software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Squiddie]

I love how you think that everything has to turn a profit. Your whole premise is false, since there are plenty of companies making millions from such software. Still, the belief that everything is made to be consumed and paid for is idiotic, especially in the world of software. Software can still be had for free, even if it is proprietary software. They call this piracy, yet no amount of DRM works and people still pay for things. I suspect that if everything was free software, your average guy would still pay for the software and the support, while large corporations would have to hire someone to maintain their stuff anyways. Software that is meant to be free should be extended to everyone, including the people who can't pay. I thought the point of markets was to meet human need, not the other way around.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anon E. Muss]

I'm tired of this sad trolling.

Then why are you on /. ?

GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL.

The GPL advocates are definitely more subtle about it -- they usually don't stage frontal assaults on BSD. They don't have to. GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition. Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling. Like many "hot button" social issues, it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion, and even when you do, few minds are ever changed.

Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

I believe free software (whether as in speech or beer) is a gift, and the person giving the gift has an absolute right to impose whatever conditions they want on recipients. People who can't/won't accept the conditions must decline the gift. Taking the gift and not abiding by the conditions is not a morally acceptable alternative.

I also believe that giving gifts doesn't create immunity from criticism. People who don't like the conditions attached to a gift have an absolute right to complain. If enough people agree that the conditions are unreasonable, pressure from the community may convince the giver to modify their terms. If few people agree, pressure from the community may convince the complainer to sit down and shut up.

Re:Free as in BSD

[icebraining]

The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying

Wrong. I have friend who own a company which makes money by taking GPL licensed code and adapting to a specific business needs. How is that not making money from modifying it?

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

User freedom is valued more then distributor freedom with the GPL, that doesn't make it non-free any more then valuing people's freedom not to fight vs to fight in law makes us non-free.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

So whining about people exercising the particular freedom they deem so important?

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition.

The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.

Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling.

Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because the four freedoms as defined by the FSF are pretty damn reasonable, just the particular implementation with persistence is seen as a problem (even though it allows all of the freedoms as defined).

Re:Free as in BSD

[perpenso]

By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...

No, that's a quite erroneous interpretation.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Pav]

He's protecting the freedom of the software... that's why it's called free SOFTWARE.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?

OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Goaway]

Again in English?

Re:Free as in BSD

[Americano]

GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license

BSD advocates are doing exactly what GPL advocates do: complaining about less-permissive licensing schemes.

GPL supporters regularly and loudly complain about less-permissive licensing schemes (see: Apple's iOS App Store, Microsoft, any other company that has not embraced the One True Way).

The attitude seems to be, "Everybody who is less permissive than us sucks because we can't use their shit, but anybody who's more permissive than us? Oh well, thanks for the code, LOL!" I have no sympathy for GPL advocates on this score, and it's not trolling. If the end-user's freedom is what the GPL is all about, shouldn't GPL advocates be criticizing BSD and other permissive licenses for not defending the same freedoms they criticize closed source software for not defending?

I'd think that GPL advocates, given their stated ideals of preserving "user freedom" as a valuable societal resource, would stick to their stated principles in all cases, but it seems like they're willing to throw out the whole "end-user freedom" thing as long as they can still see the source code and use it.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

Some BSD-only advocates seem to have a problem with their code being incorporated into particularly licensed (GPL) products. Their main criticism against this practice is that it prevents it's inclusion in software with more restricted licensing. I.e. they believe that the ability of being incorporated into more restrictive software is very important to this group, yet they complain when people they don't agree with do it.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Smallpond]

There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using someone else's software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.

FTFY

Re:Free as in BSD

[Smallpond]

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Except that you are totally wrong

Re:Free as in BSD

[oakgrove]

Not true at all

Re:Free as in BSD

[Runaway1956]

"because by God the other guy has to be converted too."

You've put a couple years of metaphysics study into this post . . .

Re:Free as in BSD

[Runaway1956]

"want to make a living writing software"

I want a damned pegasus, but I've never seen one. I want my own Abrams tank, too. And, a Landrover fitted as an APC. A person can "want" all they care to, that doesn't "entitle" them. And, that's what your post boils down to. "I should be ENTITLED to sit around playing with code, and be given the best that the world has to offer for my efforts!"

There's not much of a call to make. In general (but not in all cases) people who oppose the GPL think that they are special, and ONLY THEY should be permitted to work with their code. It's up to you - use GPL, or find some pretty BSD'd code to play with. Rules are, if you play in the GPL toybox, you have to share with all the other kids.

Re:Free as in BSD

[darkwing_bmf]

I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.

Re:Free as in BSD

[darkwing_bmf]

Yeah it applies to the FSF license and no, nobody is forcing you to use it just like no one is forcing you to cut off your toes. But that doesn't make either idea good.

Re:Free as in BSD

[causality]

I didn't say everything has to turn a profit. I just said you couldn't earn a profit by using GPL software, which is also the main complaint against using GPL software. It's a good license for academics. It's not a good license for earning a living.

The existence of GPL software has not put Microsoft and other software companies out of business. If it had, I would consider your point valid though I'd still disagree with the premise that there's anything wrong with free software.

You still refuse to address this one point though. You say "[the GPL is] not a good license for earning a living." Okay. If you think so, then the next time you write software, release it under a commercial license. Problem solved. Again, where is the complaint? I want to see your answer to this, though if you suddenly go silent (like you did when you chose not to reply to this post) the reason will be easy to discern.

Re:Free as in BSD

[tomhudson]

...except for RMS, of course. You seem to be forgetting that using one of _his_ licenses requires copyright assignment to _his_ organization. Convenient.

Not true. Anyone is free to write code, license it under the GPL, the LGPL, or the AGLP, and retain copyright.

And it's GNU/RMS, you insensitive clod!

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

How is something that is this blatantly false (as evidenced by my sibling poster's link) get modded up? Wow.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

You are also not free to sell yourself into slavery, but you don't complain about that lack of freedom.

Don't be so idiotic as to equate slavery to the ability to add proprietary modifications to existing open source code. Moreover it's not as though it changes the freedom of the original source code in any way. GPL is an effort to control all derived works, that is not freedom.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

where is the complaint?

if it truly were a 'it's up to you' scenario there would be no complaint, but of course it isn't, you get FSF reps protesting at companies' events (like ATi's) trying to push them into doing things the FSF's way, they don't have a 'it's up to you' outlook at all.

Re:Free as in BSD

[palegray.net]

OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature.

Wait, you're trying to tell me that the people that perpetrate such incidents (attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only) aren't responsible for their own actions, or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions? If so, you've lost all credibility, and I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

(attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only)

Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.

or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions?

People who are legal experts interpreting a license in the light that most of the community advocating it paint in? They aren't just wrong, they are Hitler!

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

That would be "aren't legal experts of course".

Re:Free as in BSD

[darkwing_bmf]

The only complaint is some people call GPL free. Other than that there's nothing to complain about.

Re:Free as in BSD

[hajus]

I'm not seeing the point of putting both licenses on the same code. They don't seem compatible like that. With one license you achieve a stock of code that moves in an out of proprietary and sharable. The other license keeps the code forever sharable/modifiable with no exception. I can't see a way to make them work in tangent unless the code only follows gpl rules, and then the bsd license becomes redundant for that segment of code.

Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of this?

Re:Free as in BSD

[palegray.net]

No, no, no... I'm not addressing that possibility at all. I was specifically addressing your assertion that if only BSD advocates would stop doing [insert whatever here], then we'd see fewer incidents where people do the sort of thing perpenso was describing. So please address that point, specifically your apparent view that people aren't responsible for their own actions.

Re:Free as in BSD

[perpenso]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license

Re:Free as in BSD

[tlhIngan]

(attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only)

Or it could be, you know, a mistake... People mess up with licenses all the time, if they correct it and don't repeat the same mistake twice I generally don't tend to paint it as malice. Clearly you seem to have different standards.

What ever happened to those wireless drivers again? I think OpenBSD wrote it, and it's BSD, and the Linux Wireless folks took it (at OpenBSD's urging) then promptly removed the BSD license and slapped on GPL licenses.

So now, the authors can't take back patches.

Not that it really matters. I've seen an alarming number of companies start having to set up "Open Source Licensing" processes to ensure they can comply with licenses like the GPLv3 - and start requiring this process for every piece of open-source software - whether it's for internal use only, or to be used with the product.

And previously these processes were only for commercially-licensed software.

Re:Free as in BSD

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code.

No it doesn't. I would for example like to put it under the GPL, but the license forbids me from doing that. I'd also like to claim it as my own work, but you don't allow that either.

All of you BSD=true freedom people should eat your own dogfood and put your work under the public domain if it's true freedom you're after. Until you do you need to realise that you only like a different set of restrictions than those of us that prefer the GPL. Which we incidentally thinks promotes more freedom than your particular set of restrictions.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

What ever happened to those wireless drivers again? I think OpenBSD wrote it, and it's BSD, and the Linux Wireless folks took it (at OpenBSD's urging) then promptly removed the BSD license and slapped on GPL licenses.

I'm pretty sure that the violation got fixed and some developers learned that the BSD comes with more strings for people distributing source then people who only distribute binaries. Why?

I've seen an alarming number of companies start having to set up "Open Source Licensing" processes to ensure they can comply with licenses like the GPLv3 - and start requiring this process for every piece of open-source software - whether it's for internal use only, or to be used with the product.

That is certainly better then the ad-hock we have seen before. It's probably more the general maturing of FLOSS then the GPLv3 which only gets somewhat complicated if you do signed binaries or are in the business of software patent licensing, otherwise it is actually simpler then v2, you can just point upstream for the source (or don't remove the mechanism for fetching the webapp).

Depending on the process it might make it easier for the company to contribute back to BSD-style licensed products as well. After all, without a process in place developers might not have even been inclined to even bring the possibility up. If so, that is certainly a net win for us all.

Re:Free as in BSD

[arose]

I was specifically addressing your assertion that if only BSD advocates would stop doing [insert whatever here], then we'd see fewer incidents where people do the sort of thing perpenso was describing.

Better awareness of potential licensing issues is quite likely to reduce the amount of mistakes. It took a while before the repeated "if you use GPL code you need to distribute the source" to really sink in. As it stands what we mostly hear about the BSD license is "not like the GPL", "GPL compatible" and "free to redistribute under more restrictive terms". I can certainly see where the confusion over how exactly to incorporate BSD licensed code into other source-distributed projects can arise.

The counterintuitive aspect of placing more restrictions on distributed-with-source then on distributed-binary-only really needs to be brought up along with those three.

So please address that point, specifically your apparent view that people aren't responsible for their own actions.

Specifically, I didn't make that point, just that greater awareness of the finer points of the BSD licenses would help avoid honest mistakes. I believe that assigning blame is such situations is a waste of energy.

Re:Free as in BSD

[TuringTest]

If they have a problem with people exercising the freedoms they granted them, why did they give that freedom in the first place?

Re:Free as in BSD

[LingNoi]

You want to release some software under BSD, go right ahead but don't bitch about what others are doing. Since GPL is more popular is seems like you're on the losing side, so sorry about that.

Re:Free as in BSD

[ByOhTek]

Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of GPL zealots.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom does not apply to inanimate objects or concepts. Only sentient beings can have freedom. For example, I have the freedom to tell you to shove that FREE SOFTWARE straight up your fucking ass. Don't you EVER tell me what software is or isn't good for me or anyone else, asshole.

Re:Free as in BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Since GPL is more popular is seems like you're on the losing side, so sorry about that.

That's a cocksuckers argument. Christianity is also more popular but that doesn't make it the "winning side". Open a history book, you ignorant ass, and you'll find stupidity is popular worldwide. Troll on, DingBoi.

Re:Free as in BSD

[causality]

Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of [insert any term here] zealots.

Fixed that for you.

Or did you think I defended and excused this behavior when it happens to be done by people who agree with me? Zealots who otherwise agree with me only make my position look less reasonable so it's actually worse in that case. This is so hard to understand that by default you would assume the opposite?

Re:Free as in BSD

[darkwing_bmf]

How does your clarification imply more freedom? I have nothing against people claiming the software they write is theirs. I do have a complaint against people who write software, say it's theirs and also claim it's freedom while distributing it with a restrictive license. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me, not the license.

Save 10 percent?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with that? You'd think the text would be available free online.

Re:Save 10 percent?

[Squiddie]

It is, actually. In a freedom-respectin' PDF form too!

Re:Save 10 percent?

[Adayse]

Yes me too. I thought that it would be free online. I guess he is just making a point and maybe expecting $ to boot. I'm a little curious what RMS thinks about IP in general and his place in the world but not buy his book curious.

Re:Save 10 percent?

[shutdown -p now]

Given that this is Stallman, I would expect nothing less than the original LaTeX source. PDF is horrible from format shifting perspective (I guess RMS really doesn't want you to read this on Kindle ~)

Hm...

[oldhack]

The Prophet (the Source Be with Him) is needing some benjamins?

Re:Hm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more along the lines of he's getting tired of nobody listening to him any more. Of course you can hardly fault people for that, he hasn't said anything worth listening to in almost a decade or more. If the best that Stallman can do to try and remain relevant is continue to whine about people not calling it "GNU/Linux" then he should probably put his fat, smelly self out to pasture.

Re:Hm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that he's spent the last five years cooped up in a house filled with trash and Pepsi bottles, growing his beard and watching TV obsessively while occasionally dispatching words of wisdom to his followers.

Wait - maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Re:Hm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought his work on the GPL V3, his statements against software patents, and his concerns about non GPL Java VMs and .Net were within the last 10 years and pretty spot on. His recent concerns about cell-phone tracking seemed prescient, too.

Re:Hm...

[Concerned Onlooker]

"he hasn't said anything worth listening to in almost a decade or more."

On the contrary. He has been consistent in his view the whole way. The fact that it isn't new to you does not mean it is not still worth listening to.

Where are the free PDF versions?

[perpenso]

Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[wondershit]

Here and here.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[perpenso]

Here and here.

Good. The main pages didn't seem to mention these free version. They seemed to obfuscate the issue with the free to anonymously pay cash comment:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[VortexCortex]

Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)

So, what you're asking is basically: "Where's all the free beer?"

I agree. The thought has crossed my mind many a time; Some of us are less picky than others...

Sure, It's awesome when something is free as "in freedom",
but even more so when it's also free as "in beer".

I frequently enjoy the freedoms of free software, but where's all the beer it has been in?
HELLO! The beer is still drinkable! Just because it's got a bit of FLOSS in it
doesn't mean all of us would turn our nose up at it... so wasteful.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[gl4ss]

well, doesn't matter if it's harry potter 9, it's going to be available online if someone likes it.

but this is a plea for money, they need/want people to order the book for cash, for show of support and all that. i mean, they have a wholesalers contact on that page. when the fuck did fsf start doing wholesale discounts and review copies and signing tour agenting for rms? i mean, you get volume discounts from MS. so what the fuck guys, what the fuck? punch back to 1996 or so and I'm using linux because can't justify the cash for expensive computer that would get dated fast.. but eh, 2011 now and rms done nothing but spammed for the past 20 years. and I end up using windows. because I like programs to be programs and shit to work - and all the good OSS stuff is available on windows and a lot of the shit too.

I mean even bill gates did more personal work that I enjoyed for free and I didn't get his book because it seemed stupid, by someone who's already checked out of the game. it's 2011 and rms done nothing for past 20 years so uh oh, not getting this one. get quoted often enough and I'll read it for free and MAYBE buy it.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms. They tell you when and where you can drink it. If the distributor goes belly up or stops making the beer, you don't know how to make it yourself and lose it forever . . . so wasteful. So this free beer is fine and all, but where is the freedom? I think that's the point. Free as in beer is a preferable short term solution. But RMS was looking in the long run, and in the long run, he has been right every goddam time.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[Ironchew]

I love the trolling, keep it up.
But you didn't mention Apple or Steve Jobs nearly as much as you should have. ;)

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[VortexCortex]

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms. They tell you when and where you can drink it. If the distributor goes belly up or stops making the beer, you don't know how to make it yourself and lose it forever . . . so wasteful. So this free beer is fine and all, but where is the freedom? I think that's the point. Free as in beer is a preferable short term solution. But RMS was looking in the long run, and in the long run, he has been right every goddam time.

Just an interesting note: I'm a coder and home-brewer... I work on open source software and share beer recipes with my friends at the local beer-club... People bring odd beers as well as their own creations, we taste them, many are good, others end up in the swill bucket. Fortunately my local home-brew supply store sponsors the meeting place for us (at their store), and there is always another beer-club to join, free beer to drink, and recipes to be had. (It's essential to keep a detailed log so that if the beer turns out well received, it can be reproduced).

Like software, beer takes resources to make. It takes a rare individual to freely share the product of their hard work, but the rewards and camaraderie are more than payment enough for some... donations are always appreciated as well (in both camps).

You see: Free as in beer means something WAY different to me than all you other small minded folk who know nothing of beer -- I make beer. Free as in beer to me means free to SHARE it. I can take just about any of the free beer I get at a beer club, culture its yeast strain & use the ingredient list to create more of the same.... So, it's really a failure in the saying... It should be "Free as in Lunch"? -- no... because I'm also a good cook, and can reproduce foods by taste and by recipe..... What about free as in promotional? (that's more like it)

(From your comments I take it you drink the crappy store bought mass produced beer that tastes like water? If not, check your local brew club for some of the best beer in town).

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[arose]

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms.

Surely you meant: Yes, but the beer is only distributable if you print the recipe on the bottle.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[maxume]

Right, because prior to digital media there was a rich tradition of giving copies of books to people (and if we are reading as aggressively as you want to, the 'lend' in the next bit takes care of the fact that libraries generally lend out books for free).

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[gerddie]

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[JamesP]

Cue the "PDF is a not truly free format" complaint

Considering it's Stallman he probably wrote them in Emacs in a specially compiled version of Slackware maybe with a GNU Hurd kernel.

Of course, X is never used, nor a wireless card and email is sent using Mutt or Alpine

If anyone needs the citation: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134336/focus=134979

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[Adayse]

Here and here.

Thanks. Good reading, at least the first one about RMS. RMS is wise. I particularly like his Eric Raymond observations. The last chapter about the book license and publishing deal contains the exciting bits.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget PDF. Where are the epub versions?

Re:Where are the free PDF versions?

[jbolden]

RMS has done nothing for the last 20 years. Oh lets see, found the Gnome project, get Debian off the ground, lead the fight to make the GPL the most common license in existence.....

The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK

[perpenso]

The PDF's don't seem free, merely anonymous cash is OK so we won't do kindle.

From TFA:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK

[Squiddie]

No, they are really free as in free beer out there. Just Google it. The first result of 'Free as in Freedom 2.0 PDF' is the download from the FSF. So go download it.

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK

[perpenso]

No, they are really free as in free beer out there. Just Google it. The first result of 'Free as in Freedom 2.0 PDF' is the download from the FSF. So go download it.

That's good. Another commenter was kind enough to provide links: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2135728&cid=36063704

The FSF seems to be obfuscating the fact that free versions are available. ;-)

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The purchase page (http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/) contains direct links to both PDF files, so I don't think they're trying to hide it per sé (if so, why provide the links right on the same page as the order button), just badly designed.

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK

[exomondo]

"This malicious device," says Stallman

It's this sort of rubbish that detracts from the real issues, he would have much more respect if he didn't resort to this kind of childish shit.

Diff

[Meneth]

I'd like a textual diff between the first and second editions. Any ideas on how to get/make them?

Re:Diff

[Anonymous Coward]

Have only come across this, have not tried it.

http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/diffpdf_portable

YES!

[ZankerH]

Enough with the natty penguins and the wishy-washy "open source" pragmatism. We want the angry, righteous, jealous old testament god of Free Software.

Re:YES!

[JamesP]

This is not the right place for that type of complaint, Slashdot probably doesn't work properly on Lynx.

You also have a hard time commenting on it with wget/curl =P

It even takes html markup, I mean, that's for the brainwashed masses that use proprietary software, and put up with preposterous stuff as using an x86 processor!

Special offer, order today!

[Anonymous Coward]

And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.

When does his book in support of child rape hit?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children

A charitable contribution would be better ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Special offer, order today! And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.

Actually a charitable contribution would be better. Order today and we will donate a bar of soap to a hacker in your name.

Re:A charitable contribution would be better ...

[Anonymous Coward]

At an average of one shower a month, your donation could make a huge difference in the the life of a sweaty neckbeard. A single bar of soap is so little for us, but means so much to the hacker that receives it.

Won't you please make a donation today?

Call now, operators are standing by.

Free Software, Free Society was an excellent book

[Omnifarious]

I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.

And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.

Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.

My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.

Altruism can be oppressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Many religious fanatics use that same rational: they know what's best for everyone else.

I'm sure the two posters above this one don't see it that way.

...which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Let's say that's true - I don't think it is. That assumes the altruist has perfect knowledge.

What's the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

RMS is NOT doing what he's doing for altruistic reasons. He's doing it because Xerox pissed him off decades ago for not giving away their printer software so that he could write his little printer notification program - to tell him when jobs are done. That's all.

RMS should get the Guinness World Record for longest temper tantrum.

The best part:

[larry bagina]

These were typeset with the FREE TeX and uses the FREE Computer Modern Roman fonts. The previous edition was typeset with FrameMaker and uses Adobe's Sabon fonts.

I had a free (as in torrent) copy of the previous version, but I couldn't read it knowing that it had been typeset with non-FREE software.

Re:The best part:

[Anonymous Coward]

Free but not GPL.

Re:The best part:

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you're a real hit at parties.*

* By parties I mean the ones you hold with your hand and your penis.

Re:The best part:

[Anonymous Coward]

NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Re:The best part:

[mrbobjoe]

The text has been online at faifzilla, that's how I read it. And printed out the whole thing. Going to pick up a 2.0 copy for real this time, though.

Important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I fork his books?

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo

[Anonymous Coward]

The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.

Right, it's much better for those other people to simply not work on your code. GPL: more freedom through fewer choices.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. But to add to the discussion, I would like to note that if you want to put emphasis on continued freedom, then you should not just license under the GPL, but under GPL vN or any later version, and increment the N as new versions appear. Otherwise, as in the case of Linux, once new legal loopholes arise, allowing a licensee to bypass the four freedoms, your current GPL license will not offer protection against them.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo

[larry bagina]

The colophon claims the latex files are available on /faif, but I didn't see them.

You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[perpenso]

... The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom ...

No. The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom. You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it. Your network effect argument fails in two ways. First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on. The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code. You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort. Secondly, the network effect takes nothing away from you. For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold, and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x. There is no evidence to suggest that mac os x has diminished interest in or contributions to freebsd, quite the contrary actually. Mac os x elevated the awareness of and confidence in freebsd.

Please use the GPL all you care to, that is of course your right. However don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs. Rather accept the reality of the restrictions of the GPL and argue that their altruistic nature justifies them.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[VortexCortex]

The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever. If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?

You act like there's no real-world examples of BSD vs GPL. Your Apple vs Unix vs Linux example disproves your argument! It's not like we have no examples of how BSD can just be gobbled up into a proprietary software, and how GPL software doesn't allow such a thing, and how well each different community is doing as a result... (Note: Even TiVO has to give their changes back to the communtiy, thus enabling ME to make my own TiVO with the same codebase if I wish -- ergo, GPL2 isn't poisonous for hardware makers).

GPL'd GNU/Linux gets better when it gets used by big players in the software space -- BSD? Well, It just gets used as a base, and is left as it was before hand... Additionally, devs can be sniped from the BSD projects and go to work for the proprietary vendor, further weakening the BSD community project.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[Pav]

BSDers are hard to understand - they're like neighbours who complain of the obligation that borrowing tools and/or asking for help will place upon them. It might seem strange, but if you use peoples resources to build a patio they'll probably expect to be invited over for a barbecue (yes, even if that toolbox was "doing nothing" before you used it). What seems like an imposition to you makes others feel part of a community.

They may even feel more annoyed if your patio blocks their afternoon sun so everyone visits you instead. Oh yeah... but it's not THEIR afternoon sun - you just captured it better.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[perpenso]

The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever.

From the consumer's point of view that is the case. They aren't buying Macs to type "vi letter-to-grandma.txt ; lp letter-to-grandma.txt", they don't even know they had that option. ;-)

... If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?

Actually Linux does not really compete in the smartphone space. The Linux based phones failed and Android phones are no more Linux than Mac OS X is FreeBSD. Android could replace the Linux kernel and few users would know or care, as Apple could replace FreeBSD and few Mac users would know or care. Hell, many Android devs are quick to say that Android is not really Linux.

You act like there's no real-world examples of BSD vs GPL. Your Apple vs Unix vs Linux example disproves your argument! It's not like we have no examples of how BSD can just be gobbled up into a proprietary software, and how GPL software doesn't allow such a thing, ...

The point you are missing is that when this happens nothing is taken away from the original BSD users and developers. The proprietary code would most likely have come into existence through some other path and retained its proprietary nature. For example if there were no BSD option Apple would *not* have built their user experience on top of Linux and release Mac OS X as a gpl'd Linux distribution. They would have continue with the internal project that was a modern replacement for the classic Mac OS (the project name escapes me, copland maybe) or they would have bought BeOS, or something else. Apple is replacing gcc after all.

... and how well each different community is doing as a result... (Note: Even TiVO has to give their changes back to the communtiy, thus enabling ME to make my own TiVO with the same codebase if I wish -- ergo, GPL2 isn't poisonous for hardware makers).

You leave out little details like vendors requiring code to be signed and with GPLv2 they are under no obligation to allow you to sign code. So your ability to deploy your code on your hardware is sometimes nonexistent. Hence the GPLv3, which is being avoided by some hardware vendors. Things are no where near as simple as you are suggesting.

GPL'd GNU/Linux gets better when it gets used by big players in the software space -- BSD? Well, It just gets used as a base, and is left as it was before hand... Additionally, devs can be sniped from the BSD projects and go to work for the proprietary vendor, further weakening the BSD community project.

Untrue. Apple contributes fixes and it has contributed new code to FOSS. For example the HFS+ filesystem. Its also sponsoring the development of the clang compiler, the gcc replacement. FreeBSD is also getting greater awareness and credibility. All FreeBSD is not getting is the Mac OS X user interface experience.

GPL devs can be lured to the "dark side" too, or get fed up with the politics, or grow bored, or get a life, ... Some project founders aspire to "cashing in" and keep their projects dual licensed to keep that option open.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[Microlith]

The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom.

It does if the person who distributed software to me decided to close the source.

You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it.

Did I get the source?

The GPL ensures the first, by answering the second.

don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs

The BSD path has different freedom, one that can constrict and be denied wholly to people down the line. And yes, charity is an apt word. GPL'd software definitely has a price.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, the support of freedom has both passive and active aspects. The passive part is simply to refrain from infringing on others' freedom. The BSD licenses to that just fine. The active part is to try to prevent acts which infringe on others' freedom. BSD makes no attempt to do that, but the GPL does make that attempt, to the extent that it can be done within the scope of a software license.

"greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs" - that's really splitting hairs. Both GPL and BSD devs are being entirely charitable by almost any definition. As for "greater freedom", ask "freedom for who?" Devs maybe, but certainly not users, at least the users of a proprietary fork (e.g. FreeBSD->OS-X). It seems weird to call something "more free" because it grants the "freedom" to withhold freedom from others.

I'm not the GP poster, but yes, I would indeed deny that BSD is either more free or more charitable than GPL. I think they are both about as free and charitably as you can get.

Users, developers, and software

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Someone to whom I would give credit if I could remember his/her name suggested that the opposite of free software is enslaved software. In this view, it is the software and not the user or developer whose freedom is guaranteed by the GPL.

Pretty sure that's not what rms meant to say, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.

Re:Users, developers, and software

[ByOhTek]

When the software can think and feel, I'll give a damn about it's rights. Until then it's the users/developers taht matter.

Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Search GNU
Replace \textsc{gnu}

Would look so much better....

Act now

[Dunbal]

and you will receive free pubic hairs from the man himself, but only with the first 100 copies.

Re:Act now

[Anonymous Coward]

General Pubic Licensed?

'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[unity100]

With no exception, ALL of the major groundbreakers in the history of societal freedoms and liberties, were considered fringe and even prosecuted in their time.

Today, thankfully, we dont have much prosecution. but labeling, despising, outcasting pioneers continue.

Stallman is no different. what he is bringing forth will underlie the basis of the society tomorrow.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF was founded in 1985. 26 years ago. How soon will the tidal wave of change happen, again?

Stallman was fringe in 1985, he's fringe today, and he'll remain fringe 25 years from now, because the public at large doesn't give a shit about access to source code they neither understand nor have the capability to modify.

Also, he does no favors for the mainstreaming of his image or public perception by presenting as a sweaty, hairy asperger's case who eats shit he picks off his toes. If you show up in public looking like a hot, hairy, slovenly mess, then don't be surprised when people treat you that way.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, it already did happen. Nowadays most programmers won't touch closed-source libraries with a ten foot pole.
People used to be fine with weird undocumented file formats, now it's insane to even suggest it and whole governments throw your solutiion away when its file formats are undocumented.
Vendor lock-in is prosecuted by the courts and in some cases made illegal by the law to even try.
Many many more people are aware of the dangers of DRM and wary of throwing money into the gutter.
There are projects for Free hardware, Free operating systems, all the way up to CAD applications and math programs.
What change exactly are you waiting for?
Seems most of them already happened.

As for access to source code, entire companies do nothing but adapt free software programs written by others (or maybe themselves, incidentially) for some other persons that are paying them, all day long, every day. So obviously the people do care about access to the source code, if only indirectly by the bills they'll receive being smaller.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[jeremyp]

Hm, it already did happen. Nowadays most programmers won't touch closed-source libraries with a ten foot pole.

Win32, .Net? Cocoa Touch?

A fair proportion of all programmers probably deal with those closed source libraries every day.

People used to be fine with weird undocumented file formats, now it's insane to even suggest it and whole governments throw your solutiion away when its file formats are undocumented.

Most people are still fine with undocumented file formats.

Vendor lock-in is prosecuted by the courts and in some cases made illegal by the law to even try.

Citation needed.

Many many more people are aware of the dangers of DRM and wary of throwing money into the gutter.

And yet people still buy Kindles and iPods.

There are projects for Free hardware, Free operating systems, all the way up to CAD applications and math programs.

But for the most part they are not getting any traction.

What change exactly are you waiting for?

It was claimed that Stallman is instigating societal change, not a change merely within the software industry. Most people I know have never even heard of him. Most people I know don't give a flying fuck about being able to read and modify the source code. Most of them aren't computer programmers. They just want their computers and phones and tablets to work.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[fat_mike]

That sounds like something that a "never left academia" professor spouted in class and you bought into it because he has big beard and programmed by moving wires from terminal to terminal, in the snow, uphill both ways.

If you want to eat and buy non-DRM media and toilet paper and toothpaste then you program what you get paid for. If you want to "not touch closed-source libraries" and not use "undocumented file formats (p.s. you're retarded) such as DOCX and XLSX and PDF and TXT (you're retarded)" and not eat and have to use your hand to wipe your butt, your nose and scrub your teeth, by all means continue Oh Free Software Commando.

Me I like having options and choices and toothpaste and gasoline for my world killing Explorer that I have because I use it as it was designed (F150 with an enclosed bed) and wiping my butt with mothertrucking QUINTIPLET PLY TOILET PAPER and brushing my teeth with an incredibile SonicCare (bet that person didn't care if the libraries were open or closed) and sneezing snot into a nice soft kleenex and you're retarded!

http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux+desktop&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all - Change seems to be not uphill, in the snow.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nowadays most programmers won't touch closed-source libraries with a ten foot pole.

Lolwut? Are you aware that the vast majority of PC software uses closed source libraries?

You must be living on a different planet if you don't believe that.

DirectX? Oh, forgot, nobody uses it.
Win32? Oh, WIndows, only has 95% of the market.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Bing Tsher E]

sneezing snot into a nice soft kleenex and you're retarded!

Don't be a moron. Everybody knows that Puffs rule. Kleenix is, like, brillo, man.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[unity100]

Win32, .Net? Cocoa Touch?

reaaaaaaalllyy.... what ARE those ? show me one popular/common program each, which has been produced by using those that a lot of people use.

A fair proportion of all programmers probably deal with those closed source libraries every day.

maybe a few libraries that they HAVE to. but really, 10-20 people who are probably using obscure libraries ? like the above ?

Most people are still fine with undocumented file formats.

quite. that is of course if you had been following the news about open document format requirements of countries, organizations here and on other tech sites with your ass instead of your eyes.

Citation needed.

where are your citations ? who are the 'most people' fine with closed document formats, and who are those 10-15 people using the closed source libraries you mentioned ?

And yet people still buy Kindles and iPods.

fucking moron. really. fucking moron. why ? because THERE IS NO RELEVANCE in between a vendor pushing/forcing a software with a device onto users, and those users choosing that software by themselves. i wont explain this. use your brain and think yourself.

and yet, despite those sales, android surpassed all other phones in north america by a large margin in just a year.

But for the most part they are not getting any traction.

citation needed. moron.

It was claimed that Stallman is instigating societal change, not a change merely within the software industry. Most people I know have never even heard of him. Most people I know don't give a flying fuck about being able to read and modify the source code. Most of them aren't computer programmers. They just want their computers and phones and tablets to work.

'most people' moron. citation needed. most people do not know about tim berners lee either, yet they use www every day.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[unity100]

yeees. and why is that ? because microsoft bought laws to push its software forcibly with each pc purchase. that is, after their monopoly started to shake.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[TuringTest]

Stallman is no different. what he is bringing forth will underlie the basis of the society tomorrow.

... or so we hope.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are obviously a moron with no clue.

Have a nice life.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[jbolden]

[quote] It was claimed that Stallman is instigating societal change, not a change merely within the software industry. Most people I know have never even heard of him. [/quote]

Changing a feeder industry is changing the society. And most people never know who instituted changes. How many drivers today know the names of the people involved in building steam engines that could handle larger explosive forces? How many drive cars based on internal combustine engines?

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Win32, .Net? Cocoa Touch?

reaaaaaaalllyy.... what ARE those ? show me one popular/common program each, which has been produced by using those that a lot of people use.

You're too clueless to be real. I call Poe.

Win32 / .Net : Microsoft Office, you may have heard of it
Cocoa Touch: literally everything on the iOS App Store

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[unity100]

ms office is product of monopoly of microsoft. (maybe, former monopoly). ios, is what apple pushes to its customers. neither of those are by choice. moreover, ms office cant be shown as 'developers are using framework x' -> ms office is microsoft's OWN product. corporate decision. same goes for ios and whatever runs on it. the exception is, people trying to make money over iphone apps, and even that is soon to be dwarfed by android app market.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow.

[unity100]

wooow. that was actually a post full of knowledge, information and wisdom !! im so glad to have been able to read that piece of gem out of your ..... ass, probably ...

Charitable, or stupid?

[HalAtWork]

I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).

First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on

No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular. His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.

You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.

If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.

For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,

Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.

and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x

But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd? If BSD was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on. As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.

Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish, he might even be able to improve fishing techniques and pass them on so that we can all fish better.

Re:Charitable, or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.

It's not like a patent at all -- you're still free to keep adding features and develop your program. If their software takes off, you can keep working on your version and watch your version take off (if you can make it as good or better). In the range of intellectual property restrictions, GPL's non-trivial licensing requirements make it much more like a patent whereas BSD is closer to public domain.

Re:Charitable, or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, FORCE a man to fish instead of just giving him fish,

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Charitable, or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way I've heard the difference described is this: BSD is free as in anarchy - you're free to do whatever you like. GPL is free as in libertarianism - you're free to do what you like, provided you don't impinge upon the freedoms of others.

Re:Charitable, or stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great help to write a book about fishing. You could start from scratch your own way and pull ahead of the others and people could respect that even if they would get a little jealous. Or you could strengthen the techniques used by others and keep the nuances to yourself and then you're an asshole. Or you could share and fucking help everyone. Nobody's forcing you to use the GPL but it tends to make you less of an asshole.

Charitable since it is an informed choice

[perpenso]

I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).

In the spirit of BSD I will share my "insights" with all, both those who share my philosophical beliefs and those who do not. ;-)

First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on

No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular ...

Which is exactly what I meant by "unforked BSD". Again, that is a quite gratuitous assumption, quite the boot strapping.

... His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have.

However the real point remains, no one is deprived of the benefits of the original work, as the OP was suggesting. As in FreeBSD users and developers are not deprived of their work by Apple's success with Mac OS X. They actually come out ahead given the increased aware of and confidence in FreeBSD.

You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.

If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? ...

Irrelevant. It may simply be a convenience. Just because a convenience can be forgone does not mean it should be.

... On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.

That seems more like a minor concession. To be truly pragmatic would be to set aside one's personal agenda in order to achieve a universal audience.

For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,

Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.

You are missing the point. A proprietary solution, or a network effect, does not diminish the value of the FOSS solution. Ie nothing is taken away from Linux users. They are perfectly able to continue on doing their own thing.

and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x

But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd?

Again, convenience. Apple looked at Linux to the extent that it was used/supported by Apple in the early days for PowerPC hardware, before OS X's launch. Since they had experience with both, they could have gone either way. They also had experience developing their own replacement to the classic Mac OS line, the name of the project escapes me at the moment. There was also the option of buying BeOS rather than NextStep. The BSD path must have offered some greater convenience.

... If BSD [FreeBSD ?] was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on ...

And if this were true, how does this undermines my point that FreeBSD users and developers have lost nothing by going the BSD route? You are saying there are no additional contributions in the GPL scenario.

...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and s

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[Omnifarious]

A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)

The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice. One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.

I like these analogies just fine.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[perpenso]

A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)

The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice ...

No. The controlling condition would be to not replace the bag with the GPL labeling and terms. Since the government refuses this the rice would never get to the hungry. Replanting would only occur in the hypotheticals of the idealists. ;-)

... One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.

I like these analogies just fine.

So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[Anonymous Coward]

The US supplies bags of rice with their label, no strings attached. The receiving government repackages the rice but also adds the proviso that for the hungry to receive it to feed their families, they must sacrifice their first born son. The US has participated in this outcome. Yes, the end, hungry user has the option, and if the US forbid the attachment of such provisos, the entire family may have died of hunger instead of just their first born. In the GPL scenario, you don't want to enable such arrangements.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[Omnifarious]

So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.

When it comes to effort I'm contributing, you betcha. I want to make sure my efforts are going to something I can support and not going to help a cycle of continued helplessness and dependence. In fact, I'm quite shocked that you think helping people stay helpless and alive is better.

I rather resent you implying that my choice to not support dependence is the same as a choice to purposely kill people. I'm not the one holding the trigger or refusing food because the conditions require me to allow my people independence.

Do you prefer freedom and having to struggle for your food, or being fat, happy and enslaved? Your choice seems clear, and your choice of license makes it clear what choice you think other's should make. I will not make the choice you do, and I will not support people in making that choice.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[perpenso]

So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.

When it comes to effort I'm contributing, you betcha. I want to make sure my efforts are going to something I can support and not going to help a cycle of continued helplessness and dependence. In fact, I'm quite shocked that you think helping people stay helpless and alive is better ...

Actually the reference was not to helpless people. Che advocated instigating violence against peasants that were comfortable and safe enough that they were not interested in socialist revolution. He saw a need to increase their misery and insecurity so that they would welcome revolution. Those who died in the process were merely the price to bring about the socialist state. These ideas of Che's were written in the context of spreading socialism to central and south america.

... I rather resent you implying that my choice to not support dependence is the same as a choice to purposely kill people. I'm not the one holding the trigger or refusing food because the conditions require me to allow my people independence.

It was your silly analogy, you chose the revolt will make everything better stuff. Sorry if your chosen side didn't quite represent what you expected.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[Omnifarious]

Actually the reference was not to helpless people. Che advocated instigating violence against peasants that were comfortable and safe enough that they were not interested in socialist revolution. He saw a need to increase their misery and insecurity so that they would welcome revolution. Those who died in the process were merely the price to bring about the socialist state. These ideas of Che's were written in the context of spreading socialism to central and south america.

Peasants who are fat and happy do not need rice. I have no interest in destroying their world. And you are switching and shifting the situation to suit yourself if that's how you meant it.

It was your silly analogy, you chose the revolt will make everything better stuff. Sorry if your chosen side didn't quite represent what you expected.

My silly analogy is perfectly fine. Your re-interpretation and twisting is not. There is a big difference between witholding help and actively harming.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[vegiVamp]

>> ...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.
> That is untrue. Apple has contributed to FreeBSD. Apple has even contributed code that was formerly proprietary, HFS+ (file system) code for example.

By saying that the original statement is untrue, you are effectively claiming that *all* fixes Apple made have been pushed back to BSD. I'd like to see some evidence of that, please.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[perpenso]

>> ...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other. > That is untrue. Apple has contributed to FreeBSD. Apple has even contributed code that was formerly proprietary, HFS+ (file system) code for example.

By saying that the original statement is untrue, you are effectively claiming that *all* fixes Apple made have been pushed back to BSD. I'd like to see some evidence of that, please.

The layer of Mac OS X that uses BSD, Darwin, is itself open sourced by Apple. Not only are there fixes in there, but FreeBSD can take any code at all that they think may be useful. My understanding is that the FreeBSD folks do mine Darwin. Also, some Apple employees have been granted "committer" status for the FreeBSD source.

What Apple says:
"The Darwin layer of Mac OS X comprises the kernel, drivers, and BSD portions of the system and is based primarily on open source technologies."
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/SystemTechnology/SystemTechnology.html

What FreeBSD says:
''Mac OS X is the latest version of the operating system for Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh® line. The BSD core of this operating system, Darwin, is available as a fully functional open source operating system for x86 and PPC computers. The Aqua/Quartz graphics system and many other proprietary aspects of Mac OS X remain closed-source, however. Several Darwin developers are also FreeBSD committers, and vice-versa.."
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/article.html

Darwin stuff:
"Mac OS X includes a wide variety of open source software from FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, the GNU Project, and many more projects each its own vibrant developer community."
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1067/

Other stuff:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1067/

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice

[vegiVamp]

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo

[Anonymous Coward]

What has the licence to do with your problem?

You release your application under GPL. I have better ideas than you on how to improve it. I hire more and better people than you have, fork your app and release it under GPL.

It's all GPL. Still I sent you down the toilet and everyone switched to my app.

Books come with LaTex files?

[perpenso]

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Of course. I just thought it was amusing that they were not prominently displaying where to find the free PDFs as they want software publishers to prominently display where to find the source code. I guess to carry the joke further I should ask if the books code with a CD with the LaTex files? ;-)

Stallman's release

[Anonymous Coward]

Come read about his friend, the goat.

http://goo.gl/M2lUZ

PDFs on Kindle?

[ginbot462]

This just tangential related but ...

What are some of the strategies other slashdotters use to get PDFs onto a Kindle (besides using it in straight PDF format)?

For me, I had a code heavy book that I wanted to convert to make in more native, less having to zoom and such. I've tried Calibre (I was already using if for my digital books), however the conversion took FOREVER. And, that was after turning off a lot of the chapter stuff and the result wasn't that good. I ended up using Adobe Creator to export doc or html (sorry, forgot :), then using Calibre. Even then, it was just acceptable not superb.

Re:PDFs on Kindle?

[shutdown -p now]

Personally, I have simply bought a Kindle DX, where PDFs are actually readable as is. ~

PDF? Good god! WTF is this? 2001?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

ebooks are not going away, and just because Kindle/Amazon may impose DRM doesn't mean you cannot still release this as an ebook and take advantage of that format.

PDFs are atrocious to read on anything other than a large screen. Yes I can technically read a PDF on an ebook but I cannot *easily* read this.

DRM != sticking with shit and using inappropriate technology.

He could have just given us a damn txt file Hell I'd take the *texi files - anything but a bloody PDF.