Slashdot Mirror
Ask Richard Stallman Anything
Richard Stallman (RMS) founded the GNU Project in 1984, the Free Software Foundation in 1985, and remains one of the most important and outspoken advocates for software freedom. RMS now spends much of his time fighting excessive extension of copyright laws, digital rights management, and software patents. He's agreed to answer your questions about GNU/Linux, free software, and anything else you like, but please limit yourself to one question per post.
What does RMS and other Slashdot readers think about Microsoft's recent offerings to come closer to open source model? Microsoft has Codeplex for open source code and they have made vivid and vast improvements to the Linux kernel and software stack. Is it good that open source is now working closer with Microsoft than ever before?
Seriously, did you eat your toe cheese on stage?
Your monkish lifestyle would leave most people who work in software screaming for a Lear Jet and you have stated "I've always lived cheaply ... like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do." Growing up in the United States, I have been served the koolaid of Capitalism several times and I have been taught that the inherent competition and struggle for money in all aspects of our lives make us the greatest country ever. I've read a lot of your comments on intellectual property reform and I can't help but feel that it just isn't compatible with capitalism. Have you ever had problems rectifying your stance on intellectual property with capitalism? Do you see any problems at all with no copyright or patent laws inside a capitalistic society?
I feel like you have this admirable and altruistic quality where money isn't the ultimate driving force and when you speak to people who base their entire lives around money, there's a fundamental disconnect that is overlooked.
My work here is dung.
What does RMS think about the current situation with open source software where most people think open source just means free? They hardly care about the philosophical aspect of free software but just want something that's free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_1OybdteY
Do you remember attending this hacker's convention? What was it like interacting with all of those notable guys back in the early days?
A problem with software and operating systems is what I call the "aggregation problem," which is that what we have now is an aggregate of past solutions to problems that may no longer exist. The stuff piles up, increasing complexity and decreasing the uniformity and effectiveness of the interface. At what point do software projects call for a top-down redesign? How can free software do this where industry cannot?
Talk about kicking a dead horse.
So far the questions are either trolls or completely redundant. Hopefully they will improve.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Are you a troll ?
if your code is free software, then I can buy it from you, modifiy it to remove the DRM and redistribute it, so although DRMs are not "as such" incompatible with Free Software it's pointless...
So if you want to sell your own open source application, look at the business models that do apply (service, consortium, fremium, begging, ease of installation, etc..)
do not try to pretend it's free and then slap traitor ware on it.
Neither. It's a troll, but it's not very clever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't you think he's answered this one enough times already?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Interviews with you comprised a big percentage of the documentary Revolution OS.
If it were to be remade today, and the financial aspects ignored, what do you think would be different? If you were producing such a documentary today, what would you focus on?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Really.. for some people you seem to be some God, and software is the religion.
What do you think of the hero worship?
Do you not find it a little hypocritical that you support free software, as it allows all the well known benefits like people collaborating, adding features, fixing bugs, using your code in unexpected ways, and producing generally awesome stuff; but, at the same time support deliberately breaking software designs (e.g. that of gcc), and making it hard to integrate them, edit them, and use them as a third party[1]?
Doesn't that make gcc just as bad as closed source software, as you're going out of your way to make it difficult to do all the great things that free and open software allows?
[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/59296
What can we do to incentivize hardware manufacturers to be less "evil"? I have an iPhone, and Apple has screwed me over; this is my story: http://www.anderson-net.com/~nathan/apple-broke-my-phone (also see http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/23/apples-stick-in-the-mud-routine-is-getting-old). I know, I know...you can say "I told you so" if you want to.
As a customer of theirs, I'm sure I'm well in the minority in terms of how I use my devices, and as long as most of their customers have no problem with how they do business and they continue to rake in money hand-over-fist, Apple losing me as a customer is a mere drop in the bucket for them. If the loss of my money and goodwill as a prior customer is not enough, and other people continue to desire and to buy their products, how can we communicate to companies like Apple that the "open" way is a better way, and do so in a language they can understand and respond to?
-- Nathan
That is the sorry reality of the bazaar Raymond praised in his book: a pile of old festering hacks, endlessly copied and pasted by a clueless generation of IT "professionals" who wouldn't recognize sound IT architecture if you hit them over the head with it. It is hard to believe today, but under this embarrassing mess lies the ruins of the beautiful cathedral of Unix, deservedly famous for its simplicity of design, its economy of features, and its elegance of execution. (Sic transit gloria mundi, etc.)
Does Kamp have a point? How do you refute his example and his drawn conclusion from it? Have you issued a rebuttal yet?
My work here is dung.
There is a collection of the FSF's thoughts on various free and non-free licenses available, including the BSD license:
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs, since it prevents patent treachery.
There is also an article I found on this exact subject, where Stallman says the following:
Freedom means having control of your own life; “Freedom of choice” is a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions. Thus, I say I advocate “freedom” — not “freedom of choice”. This always leads to the question of “which freedom?” In the area of software, I want a society in which users are free to run software, free study and change its source code and make their changed versions run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions. In other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn’t exist. Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not allowing people to give up freedom. In other words, it requires inalienable rights. I do not want a society in which people had those freedoms only until they gave them up. I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me. It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of mine. I hope, though, that at least you will understand better what my position is.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
What's your opinion regarding the level of freedom provided by various Android devices? In particular, Google's Nexus line, CyanogenMod, and other devices that have been rooted and/or unlocked to varying degrees.
What free software project is using a license that doesn't actually match with it's mission - or hinders free software in other ways? In other words, if you could *magically* switch the license of one project - which would you choose and why?
Examples: Move Mesa to GPLv3, Move Linux from GPLv2 to v3, Make andriod GPLv3, GCC - from GPLv3 to Apache.
How do you see GCC progressing in the future? Several things you argued against (converting to C++, allowing non-GPLed code access to the internals of gcc) are occurring, and gcc is getting major competition from the BSD-licensed clang and LLVM.
Just how random do you like your numbers?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Okay, that's a better question than mine.
Oh arse
When passing this question on to Mr. Stallman, try replacing "open source" with "free software". He prefers the term "free software", despite that the Debian Free Software Guidelines are nearly identical to the OSI Open Source Definition.
So since 2009, when FSF's essay on Microsoft got a major update, is it good that free software communities have begun to work closer with Microsoft than ever before?
Shouldn't we push more for Open Specifications vs Open Source Code.
If a hardware manufacturer just releases the specification we could create a program to interface with it. If say Microsoft was fully open about its Office Document Specification we could program a 100% compatible system for it.
Having access to Source Code has limited appeal to me. Everyone codes differently and as software gets older it will undoubtedly get to a point where it needs a fresh rewrite. If you release the specs then it allows the freedom of a new system to be made without all the legacy code that most people are afraid to touch.
The argument if the program is Open Source then it is Open Spec, isn't a good one. For example I had to maintain some FORTRAN Code. Then I needed to parse a data file the program made. I had the source... However the Data File wouldn't read when I recompiled the code on a different system. As the Datafile dumped the endianness of the memory into the file. In order for me to parse the file I had to get access to the specification of the original hardware to show me the difference in endianness of the old system with the new one.
Writing code is easy. Remaking code is easy too. Knowing the specification of the program now that is hard. So if there was a bigger push to Open Specification vs Open Source Code, I feel we would have far more software freedom in the world.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose" This includes the freedom to use a program to kill or torture people. Don't you think it is time to include a clause that forbid this kind of "freedom"?
I'm pretty sure he'd say no. The license of GlovePIE software is non-free because it includes a restriction against the sort of military use you envision.
This is my first of two questions about free software business models.
Several kinds of software have historically depended on the business model of restricting distribution. One is video games. Video games consist of far more than a computer program; they also consist of so-called "assets", such as textures, meshes, maps, audio, and other kinds of non-program works for which you don't want people using the term "content". In a world where all software is distributed under a free software license, how would the development of new video games be financed? The model of selling support, which Red Hat has successfully applied to business software, might work for massively multiplayer online games but wouldn't work so well for anything else because a single-player game doesn't need much support after the sale once it's running.
If you are looking to donate to the FSF, you can do so through dreamhost until december and they will donate 4x the donation.
Previous post about it: http://bryanquigley.com/converting/dreamhost-customer-free-software-foundation-supporter
You're a fan of science fiction and speak Spanish and French. Do you know of any good Spanish and French sci-fi that English speakers should look into? The field seems to be dominated by English writers and I've been making an effort to reach out to foreign authors and looking for translations. And if you don't know of any, who are your current favorite sci-fi authors? Any unknown sleepers that you've found that people should read?
I just read "Roadside Picnic" and it was so good, I was surprised I had not heard of it until recently.
My work here is dung.
It has been very nearly 30 years since the founding of the GNU Foundation. In all that time, what is your biggest regret?
Do you like Japanese imports?
Several kinds of software have historically depended on the business model of restricting distribution. One is tax form preparation software. In a world where all software is distributed under a free software license, how would continuing updates to tax software be financed? Converting the annual changes to the tax codes in dozens of jurisdictions to a machine-readable expert system is time-consuming and requires the effort of people who are experts in both tax law and software engineering. Perhaps the key is that software distributed under a free software license comes with "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY", as opposed to the fact that the big publishers of individual income tax software in the United States (Intuit and H&R Block) stake their corporate reputations on the accuracy and timeliness of these translations.
Hey, do you like Gnus? Thanks
A lot of these questions are answered on the philosophy section of his page.
Basically, RMS derives everything from the four freedoms: the freedom (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. If you accept those freedoms, it makes sense to avoid the BSD licenses, because they allow middle-men to deprive end-users of some of these rights. Of course, not everyone thinks those freedoms are important.
Secondly, monetizing is actually easier under the GPL. If that is your goal, you can follow the example of this guy, or QT, or MySQL, and dual-license your code. Those who are willing to preserve the freedoms can have it for free. Those who aren't, can pay. I can't think of any BSD products that have been able to make money like this (maybe there are some).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And just because I couldn't help but feed the troll...
Nothing about the GPL keps you from monetizing *your* code, it only keeps you from monetizing *my* code in a manner that doesn't benefit me as well. If you want to monetize my code, pay up. The price is that you release your own modifications on the same (or more generous) terms. If you don't like those terms you're welcome to contact me directly to negotiate others.
As for games - it's called content. Just because you have to release the source (aka "the engine") doesn't mean you have to release the art/music/maps/etc (aka "the game")
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I've read that your personal machine uses a Loonson processor. Is there any particular reason you chose this architechture over x86, aside from avoiding the proprietary IP cores?
I make hardware RNGs, which give 2.5849625 bits of entropy per use in theory (actual performance dependent on usage).
Although GNU and the FSF's views are often thought to be exactly the same as yours, they are not. GNU and the FSF are many other people and although they overall have the same aims, individuals associated to each organisation may deviate slightly from your views.
The FSF right now is pretty indepenent from you. John Sullivan is actively leading it, but there are other very public members of the FSF. It has become independent from you, even if you're still the president of the FSF. Unlike its beginnings, the FSF is also no longer primarily concerned with creating free software, but rather it is now involved in campaigning for free software. Social activists mostly aligned with your views have replaced the hacker majority in the FSF.
GNU has no such clear independence. You have the final say on aything that happens in GNU, such as for example usinng bzr as a DVCS for Emacs, a choice of dubious tactical advantage that has generated much discontent. You have nevertheless vetoed any dissent on this topic. Your health is apparently deteriorating, and I hesitate to think what will become of GNU when you die.
Is there any clear path for the future governance of GNU you in the same way that the FSF has done this?
Do you think that music should be copyleft licensed?
I am a musician and supporter of the free software movement. I feel compelled to release my musical creations under copyleft licenses and feel the moral implications of non-rivalrous digital sharing apply to my work. I have heard the argument that we should think of "creative" and "practical" works separately; that creative works are meant to be an expression of their creator and thus society doesn't benefit from allowing others to modify that expression. But doesn't this assume too clear a distinction between creative and practical? Can't code be expressive, and music utilitarian? And even when music is purely personal expression, won't society benefit from individuals being able to meld a work to meet their own tastes? The subjectivity of music's value means modifications are particularly valid. In the end, I feel like soceity would benefit if all digital works, creative and otherwise, were copyleft.
See also Mr. Stallman's essay on Android.
In retrospect, wouldn't free and open source software have been better off if the FSF had actively been promoting the use of the (New) BSD and MIT licenses? Or better yet, the use of unlicensed software?
They say that best way to save drowning people is to strike them on the head first, for them to pass out and no to interfere.
Question: were you ever tempted to try other methods of convincing instead of pure evangelism, i.e.
a) beauty appeal (Apple)
b) inertia (Microsoft)
c) 'benevolent' dictatorship (Linus)
If not, why? Are you happy with what you achieved or do you think you could have achieved more by being less respectful to others?
During a Q&A Session a while back you were asked about people and movements near and dear to your heart and you said "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did." I love World War II history and I also find myself in a love-hate situation with Churchill. Could you go into further detail about what specifics lead you to single out these two over leaders like Lincoln, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or even historical figures who have enabled information itself like Turing, Shannon, etc?
My work here is dung.
Hey RMS I enjoyed listening to your "recent" interview on hacker public radio (its a podcast, or more accurately a syndication of podcasts, or something like that)
Anyway you talked a little about your wide ranging tastes in music and I've always wondered if you (or anyone else) has analyzed taste in specific genre of music vs taste is specific genre of programming. Like people who like psy-trance really like functional programming languages. Or wider range, like the most genre of music you like, the more genre of programming you like (which seems obvious?).
Only half way kidding around, if I'm trying to learn Scala, for example, what music should I listen to for inspiration?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
GNU is supposed to be a free operating system as well as a group of people working towards building this OS. To a casual observer, however, GNU does not appear very active. Some of the most prominent and supposedly GNU packages, such as Gimp, Gnome, GTK+, and R are mostly GNU in name only. The hackers working on these projects have very little interaction with other hackers working on GNU projects and they very frequently espouse views contrary to GNU's philosophical aims. Thus to an outside observer, GNU does not appear to be a cohesive group of people working towards a common goal. Many GNU mailing lists being private further the public perception that GNU is not even actively producing software anymore.
What can be done to remedy this situation? How can we strengthen GNU, make it reach out again to the people it's supposed to be freeing?
In all due seriousness, I heartily support your efforts...but a little fun is always a good thing!
https://xkcd.com/225/
If memory serves, you got your SB at MIT in 1973. Is there anyone else in the class of 1973 whose work you respect? Or anyone who was on campus at the time, student/faculty/staff?
I agree with you that the source code is not a complete specification of a program's behavior by itself, but the source code combined with the target platform's ABI is closer to complete. To get around this endianness problem when running the program, you could emulate the original target platform. To get around it when porting the program to a new machine, you could run the program's unit test suite in parallel on the emulated and native systems and then add explicit handling of these implicit assumptions, such as htonl() for endianness, wherever the test results do not match. This way, the source code itself becomes a more complete specification.
What is your opinion on the 'walled garden' that Microsoft, Apple, and the collective of OEMs (software and hardware) that go along with MS, have force fed to businesses and mainstream users over the past 20 years and is there any real longevity/long term viability in the walled garden business model? I ask because of the lack of resistance from SW/HW vendors to MS's 'Surface' UI being instated across both the mobile devices and desktop/server (Windows Server 2012 also forces this UI).
(insert my standard question for all tech type people)
Give me your best hack. Specifically something YOU did personally not hire / grad student.
Hardware, software only (yes yes the GPL is cool but I'm looking for code or schematic or at least a description of something made out of source or solder)
I can't put words in your mouth but the ideal answer would be something like "I'm particularly proud of the O(n) memory garbage collection routine in emacs implemented around '89 and how it worked was very roughly ..." or "I really like my homemade fully automatic automotive relay based routing system for my OH scale model railroad sorting yard" or "I built my own legal limit ham radio amplifier" almost certainly a different topic of course, but something of this form of answer.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
This brings up a good point. Let me rephrase the question.
Mr Stallman, you are regarded as a founding father of the free software movement, and your opinion on free software carries a lot of weight. Because of this you are put under a harsh spot light, and every little thing you do is magnified. For example, your comments about Steve Jobs immediately after his death were broadcast quite widely. To some people the timing showed a lack of taste and were seen as disrespectful. Because of your status in the free software movement your statement was used by some to smear the larger community. How do you feel about this kind of attention? Have you given it much thought, and what kind of insight can you share about the situation you are in when your private and public mannerisms are misconstrued to be part of a larger group's views and outlooks?
allots (2783683) and quartersa (2783685) are both astroturfing accounts, posting the minute the story goes live. Usually there's only one of them by story, but they have no shame :)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
IIRC at least once, some lin... er... GNU/Linux distro packagers modified some referral codes kept in the source of a program, overriding the upstream authors' choice, which would deprive them from the donations of the modified package.
This seems technically compatible with the freedom allowed by GPL, what do you think of such a practice, anyway?
Ciao!
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Where exactly DO babies come from?
load "$",8,1
Why do you eat the skin off the bottoms of your feet?
It seems to me that companies who make a living off free software mostly make money from contract and support work, not from selling the software itself, which also seems to work best if the software is very complex, see e.g. AdaCore. But what about traditional, desktop `end-consumer' software? When I asked this on some newsgroup a while ago, somebody suggested to use an extremely obscure programming language (security through obscurity), so nobody else than me would understand the source anyway.
Do you have a better suggestion than writing everything in Brainf**ck? How can a small developer who makes software for everyone (as opposed to "b2b") make money with free software?
Albeit slowly, the hurd kernel seems to come to something at a steady pace. Can we begin to expect a release of the GNU operating system as you envisioned it at the begining?
I was able to assits to one of your talks when you were in Costa Rica. At that moment I was floored (in a good way) by all the stuff you mentioned, specially everything related to FOSS. It started an internal debate inside my head that is still quite active.
Shortly after you made some sexists remarks at GCDS; as a father of a baby girl I found that to be disgusting. And it makes me wonder, what's your view on female Computer Scientists?
Too poorly defined.
Some drunk's automatic transmission in his car has GPLed software and he crashes into a bus full of nuns and orphans. Charge him with copyright violation? Or charge the car mfgr? WTF.
So you have to define a weird license about intent, or something.
Chemotherapy of a terminally ill cancer patient... torture aka license violation or no?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What ever happened with the stolen bag and laptop? Did you get something back? Did you LOSE data (that is, was something not backed up)? Are you mad with the organizers / country that hosted the event?
I don't have a sig.
Have you ever considered taking a leaf out of Ghandi's book when fighting software patents, and organise something disruptive to the US Patent Office or courts? An Anti-Software-Patent day for example, where software developers send large numbers of humorous software patent applications to overload the Patent office staff for the day?
...you're asking this to the main author of GNU Emacs, that has been in development for more than 35 years and is right now in version 24, right?
That's my question.
Seriously, what's up with your hair?
(it kinda freaks me out when I see photos of rms)
Favorite type of parrot?
Mr. Stallman the free software movement have as its name implies focused on free software. But there's a lot of other areas where the same principles can apply. For example literature, music and movies are in a similar field. But interesting areas could also include things like electronics and hardware design, or even medicine. What's your opinions on a free software-like movement surrounding areas like those?
Which would you rather be?
Being an activist creates lifestyle and emotional issues that are different from just having a job and a hobby. Can you recommend any helpful books or websites that give advice on dealing with those issues?
I cannot help to think that security, open software, and online privacy are all interconnected. There's a fine line between information we knowingly and unknowingly make public. What are you thoughts on personal privacy in the age of Social Networks and Internet tracking?
simple (as long as you own the copyright to *all* the code in your program, and the following is allowed by any libraries that you link to).
* release the source code under the GPL
* compile a second version of your program plus what every DRM you want, and charge money for it.
* use trademarks to stop anyone compiling the GPL version and distributing it (unless they change the name).
Ahoy! I've heard that in the past you've refused to participate on podcasts and such unless the hosts mandate that other guests in the discussion always use "Gnu/Linux" (when speaking of the OS) and "Linux" (when speaking of the kernel) during the discussion. If this is true, why take such a hardline stance and refuse to participate when instead you could participate and correct/explain other's usage of the terms? Even if you didn't convince the other speakers, wouldn't you have had the opportunity to reach a wider audience, and spread your ideas (as well as the correct usage of Gnu/Linux & Linux) to that audience?
The box said "Requires Windows XP or better"... so I installed Ubuntu!
It's well known that not everybody shares the same enthusiasm for open software, and sometimes this enthusiasm borders on a religious fervor that alienates people by being confrontational and borders on "my free software philosophy is right and yours is wrong".
This can cause people to start tuning out the entire viewpoint and stop listening -- it certainly has for me.
So, why should we care? And why must software be open to your standards?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There are two kinds of people, those who use proprietary software but are ignorant of the freedoms they give up as a result and those who willfully forego those freedoms in exchange for the convenience. I count myself in the latter camp. In some ways I feel badly about it but in other ways it seems impractical. I don't want to spend large chunks of time battling configuration problems and bugs or miss out on all the wildly cool proprietary software that's available. I simply don't have your kind of monkish-like fortitude to use only free software.
What do you say to someone like me?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Dear RMS,
You've stated quite frequently that you don't own a cell phone, since you are concerned that almost all (or possibly "all") of them contain proprietary firmware, which poses privacy concerns (among other threats to your freedom). Given the ubiquity of these devices and their relevance to modern society, what can free software (and hardware) engineers do to make you use one? The same question also applies, more generally, to future miniaturized computation (e.g. nanobots in the bloodstream) that, like cell phones but even more so, could offer significant utility to its users.
Thank you for defending our freedom when most of us fall prey to convenience.
- A.
You came to Rochester Institute of Technology in 2010 when I was graduating and I was really glad to see you, because the other choice for commencement speaker was Bill Clinton (ok so it took me 4 years extra to graduate, I was waiting just for you)
My question is, was this performance a one-time event, or do you frequently don the black robe and DEC halo, standing in front of groups of students to bless them and their laptops, on a regular basis? Is there a calendar? When are you coming to Rochester again?
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
There is a provision in the US Copyright Act allowing one to use a small subset of code under fair use. Slashdotters might look at it from the point of view of sampling non-free, closed source into their own code and claim that their sample is so small it must qualify as fair use.
You wrote the GPL so that proprietary companies couldn't lock free code. My question is related to the reverse approach, where a proprietary company "samples" some free code and claims fair use. While you certainly consider this unethical, what protection could you think of to prevent such events? Would you want to prevent such events?
JigJag
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
I was able to assits to one of your talks while you were in Costa Rica. I was literally floored (in a good) by the amount of ideas discussed and specially everything related to FOSS. Shortly after you made some sexists remarks at GCDS; as a father of a baby girl I was pretty upset about it. And it makes me wonder, what are your views on female Computer Scientists?
It seems to me that in the early days of the FSF the main role was writing software. A huge chunk of that code is what makes up modern day free operating systems. A lot of it is class leading software (bash, gcc, emacs, etc). In the past few years it seems that the FSF is far more involved in campaigning than coding. Is this an accurate view of the situation? Is this intentional, and if so why? Should the FSF be trying to create a class leading web browser, for example.
What parts of distributions you believe should be called GNU/Linux should be replaced so they are no longer GNU and can be plain Linux, just as you have never insisted *BSD be called GNU/*BSD? The Linux kernel itself is _not_ GNU, and *BSD also uses gcc. Most users make little use of bash or fileutils and many used KDE.
How can we reverse the trend of more and more devices only running code signed by the manufacturer?
That every new PC, which almost invariably comes with Windows 8, will run only Microsoft operating systems by default is very scary. Sure, you can disable that in current versions, but what about the next version?
I personally am dreaming of either quantum computing or a major breakthrough in the hidden subgroup problem to destroy RSA, DSA, and ECDSA, but won't hold my breath...
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
In the marketplace, it seems that consumers generally prefer the convenience of proprietary devices like the iPhone and the Kindle over free alternatives like a GNU/Linux laptop. Freedom does not seem to be winning in the marketplace. Why do you think that is?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Who, other than yourself and the FSF, do you consider to be effective advocates for software freedom? Please name individuals if you can.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I find it absolutely hilarious that RMAss shuns the term Linux and insists on the term GNU/Linux. The main reason why a Linux OS (read Distro) makes for a powerful and appealing experience is the capabilities of the Linux kernel even if that is hidden from the end user. I wouldn't want a BSD kernel with GNU software ports running on my desktop or server.
Can GPL really consisdered free? It has restriction where you can use the code and what you can link it against and is license that has those kinds of restrictions actually free?
Should some form of internet access (besides public terminals) be available to all? How would you fund it?
Greetings!
I have always wanted to see (or rather "hear") you appear with George Noory or Ian Punnett on C2C. Have you considered it? I think it would be fascinating, and would probably steer millions of people towards free software, even if it was just to try Open/Libre Office to save a few (hundred) bucks. Hell, it may just inspire some to start programming.
Thanks for your time, and all that you've accomplished.
"The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
As a long time slashdot reader without an account, i created one just to say thank you for everything you done over the years. Keep up the good fight.
I have noticed that the entire hurd micro-kernel architecture suffers from a lot of drawbacks. After all, as long as it doesn't crash, you don't need to worry about parts crashing. Do you think it might be a good idea to scrap hurd and build a new, linux-like kernel?
Mr. Stallman,
On 28 June 2003 you wrote:
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
On 5 June 2006, you wrote:
"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."
This makes me curious: do you think physical intimacy between minors and adults should be legalized?
If not, why not. If so, under what conditions? Consent from the child? Also the adult(s)? What would the law look like?
The GNU project's initial goal of producing a free Unix-like system has long been met. While of course maintenance and enhancement of the necessary components of GNU continues, what should be the project's strategic goal now?
Dr. Stallman,
The GNU Operating System has made the world a better place, and it has undoubtedly enriched the quality of my life. Your philosophy has captured my imagination for over a decade. I fondly remember installing my first GNU/Linux distro back in 1996. Thank you.
My question: During your talks, you emphasize the importance of sharing in the free software movement. As users become familiar with free software, you explain that they can edit parts they don't like, commit changes, and improve the code over time. It's a wonderful model, but it's somewhat alienating if you don't code. I was a programmer many years ago, but after a series of career changes I'm now a lawyer in my early '30s. I'm too busy and tired from work to code, and I wouldn't even know where to start. I believe in free software and want to help, but I just can't contribute code. What can "normal" people do if they want to help free software (other than donate to the FSF)?
He's an altruistic person who devotes his time to a cause and community he believes in. On the other hand, what are your achievements besides being a shill that is told what to say?
The four freedoms are fundamental to software. These are the four freedoms every user should have. If someone gives you a binary that you can't change and recompile, they've deprived you of that freedom. This is the RMS philosophy.
The BSD license allows someone to take your software, make changes, and deprive someone else of their freedom. That's why RMS doesn't like it. He's opposed to proprietary software in general.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do you still write code? Anything interesting lately?
I saw you several years ago at the University of Chicago, but missed your two days in Williamstown, MA a few years back. I keep checking to see if you'll be speaking nearby but you always seem to be out of the country. Will you be speaking within a few hundred miles of Chicago in the upcoming year?
Are you married to the beard? It makes you easy to pigeon hole as a cross between Karl Marx and John Brown (read: an intolerant revolutionary).
No: appearance shouldn't affect the message. Yes: it, in fact, does.
kirk or picard?
We need more people working on hurd, which is outdated and 32 bit only. What are we going to do? What can we do to make people interested in a pure GNU microkernel????
RMS, I am a PhD student in computing and I have run up against an interesting problem. I consider FOSS to be at the core of my personal philosophy. To me it is not just a pragmatic issue, but an ethical one. Therefore, in my research, I use all FOSS software. Now, the problem arises when trying to justify my use of FOSS to colleagues and supervisors. I have tried to make the case that it is an ethical issue, and have argued the merits of freedom and academia, however, I invariably am told "that's not an academic argument". This is incredibly frustrating and annoying to me as, in academic research, we are constantly being restricted by "research ethics" (e.g. the ethical treatment of subjects, plagiarism, etc.) and I am more than willing to bet that if a researcher objected to a methodology based on "religious principles" they would be excused. But my "open source ethics" dilemma doesn't seem to apply. Any advice? Thanks! tsquar3d
Can you explain why you don't own a cell phone? Can you describe a hypothetical cell phone that you would be willing to own? Do you think such a phone will ever be created?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Mr. Stallman,
do you see a release date for Hurd 1.0?
Dear mr. Stallman,
Do you think it would be of benefit to lobby for a law to mandate factories putting warning stickers "Warning! this is not a general purpose computing device!" on all computers that are sold to end users that have been tampered with so as to remove the 4 freedoms?
I think the law changes much more slowly than technology, therefore it's probably best to have a protective law in place before manufacturers try to "slowly boil the frog" and force first this new UEFI and later maybe even more onerous locked-down computer devices on us, all the while pretending they are similar or equal in value to the consumer as the regular "general purpose computers" we are used to buying today.
Here in the EU you can only sell chocolate labelled "chocolate" if it fulfils certain quality criteria, e.g. cocoa content, otherwise it should be labelled "cocoa fantasy" (Dutch example: Koetjesreep).
It would be very nice for all of us, not just the nerds, to be able to go to a computer shop and see quickly whether the device we want to buy is a "computer" (i.e. what we call general purpose computers today) or it has a label "fantasy computer", where the fantasy is that you own and control the device you paid for.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Do you welcome the personal attacks by folks who disagree with your beliefs? I enjoy seeing them, and imagine a smoke filled room of crooks deciding they can't disagree logically with your position, so they'll make fun of your beard instead. In other words, they have decided you won and its all down to PR damage control and delaying tactics at best. I like this. Well it would be nice if they were more civilized, but I'm content with the winning part anyway.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Being a promoter of freedom to share and modify, your opinion that works of opinion and art should *not* be allowed to be modified is particularly interesting, some would say even hypocrite. However, I have little information on your reasons for that position, besides of your opinion that such modifications do not contribute to the benefit of society, as opposed to the modification of educational or utility works, such as software or textbooks. However, the culture of remix and the right to respond point otherwise. Which measures would be required, in your opinion, to ensure that your works of opinion and art were modifiable?
I am currently looking for a job and in interviews I keep asking what operating systems and software I'd be using. Somehow I'm starting to get a feeling I will never get employed if I keep saying I absolutely refuse to use any non-free software, even when I try to tell them why. So, what's you opinion, is it ok to use non-free software for work if I never use it for personal things, never even log into personal webmail using the work computer?
Recently, the drivers for the Raspberry Pi's graphical drivers were released as free software. However, only the part that interfaces with the chip was released, and several blobs (contained within the chip's firmware) are still to be released. Other competitors, like the Cubieboard, claim to have freer drivers, but I am unsure on how much is truly free and how much is proprietary. What is your position on these devices? Do you consider them free enough to use, or will you wait until more of the code is released as free software?
Who is best pony?
What's your perspective on the role of freedom in the Makerbot revolution? What is needed to ensure the appropriate freedoms are safeguarded in the context of that movement? What differences do you see between freedom in that context and in the software context?
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
As a result of the Pi using it, the BCM2835 is now the only ARM System-on-a-Chip that has functional, open source drivers, that were provided by the vendor and not produced by reverse engineering.
This represents something of a sea-change in thinking for Broadcom, who have a reputation for poor Linux support.
As the lines between physical goods and ideas are blurred, with the advent of 3D printers and other manufacturing techniques, do you think the Free Software Foundation should extend its mission to include physical goods?
If you could go back in time and speak to the founding fathers of our country, what advice or admonishments would you offer with regard to intellectual property, copyright, patents, and making information freely available, in order to best head off the problems we've faced in these areas since? Do you feel it is the responsibility of government to legislate our way out of these problems, or are there more natural ways to combat them leveraging basic human nature (survival, greed, etc.)?
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
I've noticed that you have often seen a problem on the horizon, been vociferous in warning people about it, and derided as a kook. Then what you are warning about starts happening, and the fact that you tried to warn people about it goes down the memory hole. Then it happens again, and again.
Without wanting to stir up discussion about the specifics, you're inarguably an unconventional person. Do you think that if you were a bit more conventional, you might be more effective in the early stages of your criticism? Have you identified any other problems stopping your initial warnings from being taken seriously, and if so, what steps are you taking to resolve these problems?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
This is a serious, though exasperated question, born of years of frustration with the leader of ideals I subscribe to:
Why in all of the universe don't you bother to look basically presentable and behave in a basically likeable way? Do you really not realize that you are the Free Software movement's greatest liability because of your shitty appearance and behaviour? How does this basic fact of humanity manage to evade you for all these years?
It's been clear to many of us for a while now that there's a de facto war going on between the free information people (us) and those we have come to call the MAFIAA (in general, all who seek to unfairly capture economic rent by means of patent and copyright legislation). However, the state of the battlefield seems to be a matter of some confusion. Some people have said that the storm of new information-restricting legislation attempts (SOPA, ACTA and whatnot) herald a coming dystopian age of surveillance and censorship. Others have said that this phenomenon shows how desperate the MAFIAA are getting, indicating that we're winning and just need to stick it out long enough for them to run out of money. Both arguments have merit and precedent (and for that matter, the futures they project are not entirely incompatible; the former may happen, followed by the latter). So in your experienced opinion, which side is really winning right now? Do the MAFIAA have us cornered, or vice versa, or is it still way up in the air?
Google for kickstarter GPL and/or just go look for "pissed off penguins", a GPL angry birds clone.
Are more direct clones what the free software community wants, especially now that EA and companies affiliated with EA are suing other developers left and right for making these clones? See, for example, Tetris v. Xio (EA is Tetris's exclusive licensee on mobile platforms) and EA v. Zynga (over a Sims clone).
The organisation that makes the tax code, also puts out the software that will allow an individual to file a return.
Lobbying for this would be as hard as lobbying against software patents. Incumbent tax software publishers would call it communist and an interference with the free market.
Here is a slightly philosophical question.
When using Free Software, a lot of time is spent in trying to find the right software or in writing it. The software store model, where controlled devices offer cheap software, allows the market place for software to work efficiently. Programmers have an incentive to write good software because there is a lot of competition. With a market like that, when you choose to use closed software, you often get functionality faster.
A simple definition of freedom might be: being able to do what you want to do. If I need to write software to do what I want to do, that could be considered to be less free than when I have the ability to use a closed product that does what I want instantly.
Talking about freedom in this way, is quite different from the way the Free Software movement looks at it. In Free Software, freedom is linked to more control. In closed software the emphasis is on more convenience and more spare time. Do see the balance between control and convenience as black and white?
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Dear Dr. Stallman,
In this Slashdot feature “Stallman is quoted here saying that game engines should be free, but approves of the notion that graphics, music, and stories could all be separate and treated differently (i.e., "Non-Free.")”. However, this feature does not give a citation from you for that. To add to the confusion in a post to the Creative Commons Community mailing list, Rob Myers said:
So I'm a little confused. Do you approve of people using non-free licences for cultural works, including the CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa, CC-by-nd, and CC-by-nc-nd licences? If so, when?
This is especially important given the fact that in the process for formulating the latest version of the Creative Commons licences (4.0), there has been some requests to deprecate the non-commercial (nc) and/or no-derivatives (nd) options (which I doubt will happen, but is nonetheless some thing some people feel strongly about).
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
Recently I was telling part of the story of my first Arisia, where I ran into you debating a bookseller (I believe it was the guy who runs Pandemonium but, I am not sure on that) http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3240153&cid=41927547
Since then I remembered what the conversation was about, and he was trying to really nail you down on how authors and other content producers would get paid in a post-copyright world. As i remember, by the time I came to the show, you guys were seriously in the weeds with details of how a micropayment system could work to allow people to "tip" the producers of content that they like, in real time as they use it.
That was probably close to a decade ago.... I am curious as to where those debates are going for you now that time and technology have evolved? Is that still a hypothetical rat hole that you go down, or has something else, either implemented or imagined, caught your eye?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
What mistakes did you make in the fight for free software? Did anything you support backfire and cause more harm than good?
Not the only one, actually. The CubieBoard and other chips that use the Allwinner A10 system-on-a-chip have source code for their graphics drivers.
Hello,
People state, quite correctly, that you have worked a lot for freedom. But another thing you're famous for is the beard.
So basically, I look somewhat like a Roman emperor at the moment, and I'm wondering if you can give any tips on how to start looking a bit more respectable. Any general tips for the growth phase? How much work is it when done?
How many centimetres are required for the sudden and unexpected increase in programming ability?
The nmap security scanner's licence is the GPL version 2, along with an opening comment where they give their interpretation. It seems that this interpretation is draconic, and among other things requires programs that parse the output of nmap to be licensed under the GPL or a compatible licence as well. This seems to stand against the Free Software Definition, which among other things specifies that one has "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose".
If we (or the courts) is going to accept nmap's interpretation of the GPL, then we can expect all hell to break lose, because that will mean that the output of such programs such as GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), GNU awk, GNU sed, and many other GPLed programs of the GNU project or otherwise, must be under a GPL-compatible licence, while in fact, the GNU project approved of using them to build free software and proprietary software that was not.
Do you approve of the nmap interpretation, or do you think nmap are misusing the GPL as a way to apply the free software figleaf to their work, without complying with the spirit of free software?
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
Yes, he does approve of non-free licenses when a work is not utilitary. Textbooks and software, in his opinion, are utilitary and allowing their modification benefits society. Works of art and opinion, again in his opinion, should not be modified because that brings no benefit to society and distorts the viewpoint of the author. That is why he uses CC-BY-ND for his own essays instead of a free-as-in-freedom license, a move considered by many free-culturists as hypocrite.
Do you think it is correct for Debian to classify lots of GNU documentation as "non-free"?
I volunteer at a club that runs a technical museum, providing an open laboratory for school children. It offers them the chance to repeat some fundamental physics experiments that are crucial to our world view. We're using mostly Free Software, but there are some niches where we have to rely on non-free stuff. I have noticed that using some proprietary commercial tools, we are able to work far better and easier than when using their free counterparts.
What would you suggest to do in such a case? Do you think it's better to compromise on freedom and work more efficiently, thus providing a more interesting experience to our visitors, or to divert our (very, very limited) funds and manpower to improving the Free Software tools out there, thus neglecting our core mission but ultimately benefiting a different community?
Hi csolisr,
Thanks for the message. Can you cite all that?
Regarding using CC-By-ND for essays of opinion - I don't think it is necessary (I'm not a lawyer naturally). For example, I've written an essay titled The Case for Drug Legalisation (and other essays) and published it under CC-by along with the DocBook/XML source, so it can be of maximal use. Even if we take it into account, I don't think someone has the artistic licence to build upon it a completely different essay (say “The Case against Drug Legalisation”) and claim that I have written it. I don't mind people doing something like that, while giving me credit and a link to the original essay, but they still need to indicate that the original essay had a different them, or else it is defamation and misappropriation.
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
Have you ever experienced what most would call "anti-semitism"?
H+ Digital Series
It's all about biologically implanted software/hardware and malware. I've watched a handful of episodes and it looks like it was made to be an advertisement for Free software (Know what's running in your own head!).
Or maybe that's too much on the pragmatic side and I should ask Eric S. Raymond.
The other side of the argument would be yes, but if the software derived from something BSD licensed then you still have that BSD licensed source code. It doesn't go away because someone makes a copy.
When will Microsoft publish the source code of its software under the GNU GPL?
Are you pleased with the current progress of adoption of FOSS software? There is no question that it is better than it was in the early 1990s, but over the past 5 years, we seem to been sliding back to a more closed-source non-free world. Facebook sets up a huge walled gardens with no visibility to the code inside. Android (probably the most popular linux distribution around) is "open source" but is certainly not free. The SDK is released under a BSD license, with no obligation to make changes public, so no one really knows what's running on their phone above the kernel layer.
But more fundamentally, it seems that we are sliding back into a crazed money-making internet culture that is less about experimentation, excellent engineering, and sharing, and more about selling out to the first venture capitalist that comes your way.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
When you drink beer do you only drink free as in speech beer where the recipe is published under a free license? If so, do you have a recommendation of free beverages? If you don't drink beer then please feel free to M-x replace-string RET beer RET something-that-you-drink RET.
Should copyright be abolished?
Some have argued that the GPL needs copyright. They claim that getting rid of copyright would ruin copyleft.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
How much rep could a reprap rap if a reprap could rap rep?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Mr. Stallman, thank you for all the hard work you have done to promote computing freedom. I know that many people consider your views to be excessively dogmatic, but more often than not, your ideas and predictions turn out to be correct. Thank you for steadfastly holding to your principles while most people opt for convenience, as you have made the world a better place.
It appears to me that Apple, of all companies, has ironically played the biggest role in ending the use of DRM in the music download industry. As I see it, the music companies were so afraid of Apple's rise in market share that they decided to sell everything DRM-free rather than let Apple control the distribution channel with its FairPlay scheme. As a result, it is now the norm that music tracks purchased online are unencrypted and carry at most a watermark.
I acknowledge that Apple is horribly hostile to computing freedom in so many ways. It's therefore ironic that their dominance with the iTunes Music Store has led to the end of DRM in the music download industry, purely through capitalistic means and without preaching or legislation. My question, then, is this: Could it be possible to promote computing freedom by gaming the market (playing companies off each other) rather than preaching on a soapbox?
Pirate Parties have recently started to become a considerable political force in northern Europe. Do you support them? Could you suggest a better name for them? What advice would you have for their political strategy?
Good or bad?
Specifically with regard to automated and robotic replacements for human labor (now down to about $15,000 per year for a robot that can work for 3 shifts), do you think it's reasonable to presume a crisis of the capitalist model due to nearly complete automation?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Or perception of evolution. How much has advanced the perception of the public (the "normal people") about free software vs propietary one in all this years, at least from your own point of view? And, it kept improving or is going back regarding using private internet services or environments controlled by single companies?
Hi, I am an engineer not a lawyer. I find the increasing number of "free software" licenses completely overwhelming. There have been times where it has been easier for me to tell the team, "Since we can't tell whether or not this license works for us, let's just write it ourselves." Legal complexities have definitely stifled our innovation. Any thoughts on the implications of rampant growth in YAFSL (yet another free software license)? Thanks.
"What does RMS and other Slashdot readers think about Microsoft's recent offerings to come closer to open source model?"
AccountKiller
Serious question here. You've been warning people about the need to protect and preserve essential freedoms from being lost for literally decades now to very little avail. Your stories intended to be glimpses into a bad future where we no longer have the four freedoms are becoming more and more prophetic seeming by the day. And yet, there is very little change to prevent the dystopia you warned of from coming to pass.
How do you handle the frustration, anger, disappointment and personal attacks?
Also, thank you for seeing the need and establishing the GPL and GNU to fight for our future freedoms!
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
One thing I've always admired about you (but found difficult to emulate myself) is your steadfast consistency and refusal to compromise your principals.
With that said, are there any times when you look back and failed to do this - or perhaps wished you had been less hardline?
Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
What is your view on the Replicant Project? Is it on the right track or something you could imagine yourself using? or are there important parts of the puzzle still missing? or another similar project you have more faith in (e.g firefox os)?
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
Thanks for the message. Can you cite all that?
Indeed, I have my sources available:
I call bullshit. Every single leader that pushes for a controversial or minority issue will suffer character assassination.
When it's not personal appearance it will be personality, if he is successful, he will be made out to look like "a pompous prick", if he is good looking he will be a "womanizer" or "dumb model", If he is not from your country he will be "foreign" and "weird", etc.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Do you think that the Illuminati control Facebook?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Dear Richard Stallman, do you think that the benefits of porting Steam to GNU/Linux, such as getting more people to switch to a free OS, outweigh the negative effects, such as having DRM on GNU/Linux?
I don't even have a question. I just want to say THANKS! Thanks for standing up for FREEDOM! Thanks for being open for questions. Thanks for not compromising your principles.
-- tonybaldwin.me
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
With a basic income, much of the argument for copyright fades away (if it ever made sense), because everyone would be able to spend their time creating free software and free content if they so desired. Or people could put their time into other "volunteer" efforts whether with local charities or even just trying to be good parents, good friends, and good neighbors, which could overall make the world a much happier place.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Thank you Richard for your massive contributions to the software world.
My question is:
Did you ever get that printer in the AI lab working?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
There are an increasing number of manufacturers who ship GPL software on their devices (including the Linux kernel and in some cases GNU software) and then either don't release the source code to the GPL parts or release it weeks/months after the release of the device after much prodding from the community (and then proceed to do the same thing all over again when they release the next firmware update).
Or they release source code but do not properly follow the requirements for the GPL (e.g. not releasing complete compilable source or not releasing essential configuration files and build scripts that specific exactly which options the on-device binaries were compiled with)
Some of these companies have claimed that delays are perfectly acceptable and in compliance with the license. (IMO they are certainly not in compliance with the spirit of the license, even if they may technically be in compliance with the letter of the license)
What do you believe that the free software community and the FSF can (and should) be doing to fight against manufacturers who continue to violate the GPL (and the GPL as applied to GNU/FSF software in particular) in this way?
I was very worried to read that you fell ill at a conference in Barcelona this past year (http://www.fsf.org/news/richard-stallman-speech-in-barcelona-canceled) and paramedics had to be called. How's it going? Are you doing anything special since then to improve your health and fitness that you'd like to share?
I don't think that really makes sense. You've still helped someone who wanted to deprive someone else of liberty.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Let's say hypothetically, the situation of IP law gets far worse in the future, and software companies find a way to successfully use "Intellectual Property" and the legal system to shut down Free Software projects. To make it interesting, let's assume these entities start shutting down Free Software projects left and right. Assuming that things get that bad, what would happen to Free Software as a whole, and what could the Free Software ecosystem do in order to protect itself from malicious litigation?
What do you feel about claims that the restrictive and "viral" nature of GPL harms open source?
I'm sure plenty of people here actually want to know this: When the Mayan calendar runs out/flips over/restarts next month, how will this affect the calendar in EMACS?
Richard, I know of all of the essays you've written but have never come across any detailed writings about your experiences in putting together the GNU project and writing different tools. Have you ever thought about describing your experiences and publishing those writings? I'd be very interested in learning more about specific experiences you've had and specific problems you've encountered. Getting a perspective of what you were thinking when you encountered various problems and the thought process you used to solve these problems could be useful to other people when similar problems are encountered. Your general philosophy is well documented but I'm sure there are many technical problems you've been able to solve that many people don't know about or would like to know more about. Thank you for your contributions to Free Software!
Does America's new first-to-file patent system hinder small FOSS projects? My thinking is: I have a cool idea for a free software project, but I want to get community involvement, so I write up a prototype and release it under GPL, but a big company sees what I'm working on and patents the idea before I can because they have money and lawyers. Are there funds or something to support obtaining patents or patent licenses for new GPL projects?
Simple. you could write the license that includes access to source code and charge a fee for it. No DRM is required. If you had DRM, it would just get cracked anyway.. It's really pointless to bother with.
I teach a class to non-hacker non-lawyers which includes a little bit on free software / open source / copyleft. I keep wanting to illustrate the difference between a "liberal" license like the BSD license and a copyleft license like GPL by showing what Apple did with BSD to get iOS and what Google did with Linux to get Android. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to disentangle a clean story.
Is there a clean story? If so, how can I find it? Or is Apple's being as liberal as they want with BSD and Google's pushing the to limits of copyleft (or beyond) with Android making it truly too messy to use as an illustrative case?
How many women has your work for the open source community gotten you? At a party, when everyone's all like, "So, you're the stud who wrote GCC in graduate school at MIT", you must walk away with at least a few Maxim centerfold-ers. You feel me?
Where do you see all of the common free Unixes in a decade from now?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
You still believe you can replace Linux with Hurd? Is it better drop Hurd project since Linux is good and works well?
When is the 2012 presidential election? Who are the two people running? And please, be specific.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
What is the future of Guile? What is the future of elisp? Will the Emacs/elisp environment keep on evolving -- or has its day past?
I'd like to give it a go. :D
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
How do you feel about the new GNU emacs package manager? I understand there was some concern that a package manager could act as an end-run around your goal to keep emacs a pure GPL project.
Under what legal theory do you think a court would conclude a program that links to a GPL'd dynamic library is a derived work of that library?
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
If you had to choose between a world with current form of copyright law (where sharing is strongly discouraged but licences like GPL can exploit it) and a world where copyright is abolished completely (sharing is much more common, but GPL is not enforcable and vendor lock-ins can exist), what would your choice be?
If you could reform copyright any way you want, what changes would you make?
Why look like a tramp and behave like an asshole?
I've never seen RMS behaving like an asshole. On the other hand, you calling him asshole is pretty assholish. My i ask why are you behaving like asshole?
What are your thoughts on open source games? Right now there aren't any good open source games because it simply isn't profitable.
Hi csolisr,
Thanks for the links and the reply. I guess Dr. Stallman need not answer this question now.
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
Dear mr. Stallman, Thank you very much for all your efforts since so many years to promote the "free software". How could we imagine extending the "free software philosophy" (expression should clearly be adapted) to areas of the economy outside the IT industry? Thank you,
I am from India. I observer that whenever you visit India (which is about once every year or so), it is followed by Mr. Bill Gates visiting the government of India and giving more aid via his charities. Does this disturb you? Also, mostly you visit the southern Indian state of Kerala which has a strong open source / fs movement. How is it that this state has so much reliancet on free software? Any lessons for other developing regions that are emerging from a non-computerised era? OK
Sometimes you hear about celebrities who get marriage proposals or women asking them to sign their boobs or the like - has anything like that happened to you?
It was Microsoft/Apple that popularized PC in homes. Apple brought touch technology to the market and then everyone started making touch OS and UI including free and proprietary software. Most hardware comes first for the proprietary platforms and free software then picks it up e.g. 3G dongles, game controllers, modems etc. How can we see that free software making up a trend which others follow. As an example Firefox browser pioneered the new browser wars for secure, speedy and extensible browsers and now users have a good choice for that.
What to do with CDs that contain only non-free software (like operating systems, games or drivers)? Some are old, others come with hardware.
“On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license” -- Richard Stallman — a personal article on a problem with NC non-ND licenses.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html ; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html and links
One of the four essential freedoms, you say, is the freedom to examine and modify source code. You claim that if the user has no way of examining the source code then a potential for abuse is created. However, could not a trusted third party verify that the code is not malign? You are essentially saying that developers should be forced by law to release source code, even if the code is benign.
I've gone on much longer than I initially intended. Thanks for your time :).
by Cyphase ( 907627 )