Slashdot Mirror
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."
The Prophet (the Source Be with Him) is needing some benjamins?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
It is, actually. In a freedom-respectin' PDF form too!
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?
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.
Here and here.
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.
42.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.
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.
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
Closed source advocates never complain about the GPL, it's only GPL advocates that complain about closed source ;)
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.
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
... 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.
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.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
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.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
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).
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
Twinstiq, game news
He's protecting the freedom of the software... that's why it's called free SOFTWARE.
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.
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.
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.
Not true at all
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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 ~)
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!
how long until
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.
Stefan Axelsson