The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

An anonymous reader writes: It was March, 1985 when Richard M. Stallman published the GNU Manifesto in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools. Thirty years on, The New Yorker has an article commemorating its creation and looking at how it has shaped software in the meantime. "Though proprietary and open-source software publishers might appear at the moment to have the upper hand, Stallman's influence with developers (among whom he is known simply by his initials, 'rms') remains immense. When I asked around about him, many people spoke of him as one might of a beloved but eccentric and prickly uncle. They would roll their eyes a bit, then hasten to add, as more than one did, 'But he's right about most things.' I told Stallman that I'd spoken with several developers who venerate his work, and who had even said that without it the course of their lives might have been altered. But they don't seem to do what you say, I observed; they all have iPhones. 'I don't understand that either,' he said. 'If they don't realize that they need to defend their freedom, soon they won't have any.'"

Comments

Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe after another thirty years, hmm?

It occurs to me that ignoramuses might believe this comment to be off-topic. So, Slashdolts, here is your relevant quote from the Manifesto.

In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.

And of course I should qualify it. In case you were wondering, that's the GNU Manifesto.

Have a nice day, idiots.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I knew RMS was an evil pinko socialist commie, but this is a whole new level of wilful treason against our great nation! How dare he think beyond the next financial quarter!

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[AmiMoJo]

Well done, you managed to find the one (not entirely serious) off hand comment that seems a bit extreme in a manifesto that was, at the time, way out there. The very fact that the rest of it is pretty much taken for granted now shows just how visionary and plain right Stallman was.

These days no-one would dream of claiming that people won't work on OS for free, or that commercial companies wouldn't contribute. No-one would question the value of having OS software exist, or the high quality it can achieve, or that it is essential to our freedom in an age of NSA/GCHQ spying. You might not agree on a philosophical level but you can't really deny that this is a document that changed the world and the nature of computing, and was able to define how OS would develop over the next three decades.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[gnujoshua]

I think those kinds of whimsical discussions of a post-scarcity society are the kind of thing you might expect to hear in the MIT AI lab in the 1980s, which is where RMS was working at the time he wrote the GNU Manifesto. I've been volunteering for or working with the FSF for over a decade now and I have never been part of serious convesations in which we discussed preparing for a post-scarcity society or repairing robots. I kind of wish we did. We are always focused on the short term and practical goals that matter today or this year. It is kind of grinding. So, it is refreshing to lighten up a bit and think in terms of how the work we are doing today might be helpful to the **very** long term goals of humanity, even if it is just whimiscal conjecture and for fun.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Actually, yes. Unfortunately, Orbital blew their test unit. So we have to wait a bit more.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

OS = Operating System
OSS = Open Source Software

Why would you intentionally write "OS software"?

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The venture, called Planetary Resources Inc., revealed little in a press release this week except to say that it would "overlay two critical sectors—space exploration and natural resources—to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP" and "help ensure humanity's prosperity." The company is formally unveiling its plans at an event Tuesday in Seattle."

ehh, what's you point?

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Rakarra]

I don't think there's any need to prepare for a post-scarcity society, because there will never be such a thing as post-scarcity society.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

These days no-one would dream of claiming that people won't work on OS for free, or that commercial companies wouldn't contribute.

Open Source software has been embraced but the Free Software philosophy sits by the wayside. Even the most popular Free Software project is not about the Free Software philosophy and actively supports "tivoization" and sandwiching the project between a proprietary hardware/driver layer and a proprietary OS services/runtime layer and applications.

We have a Free Software operating system (even if only because it uses 25 year old FSF license rather than being about software freedom) but that is not enough, people continue to pay for and even pirate proprietary software because in so many cases free software does not get the job done. Nobody will use Free Software if you just continue banging on about software freedom like has been done for the past 30 years, face the fact that nobody cares about that and instead make it simply a side-effect, a value-add and an extra benefit of good software, if it isnt good software then whether it is free or not is irrelevant.

RMS keeps saying that people should care about software freedom first and quality or fit-for-purpose later, well that isn't what people use computers for, it isnt an ideological vehicle, it is a tool. You can give me an ethically built hammer but if it doesn't drive nails in then I'm not going to use it.

Re:Any asteroid prospectors yet?

[david_thornley]

Parts of the economy will be post-scarcity, in that anybody can get what they need, or all they can use of certain things. Some goods and services will become post-scarcity. Some things will always remain scarce, such as oceanfront property (wherever that happens to be at the time). Other things will be invented, and become scarce until the economy comes up with cheap ways to produce them. Right now, we could set up what we'd have called a post-scarcity economy a hundred and fifty years ago, and the problems would be political rather than economic.

Convenience

[ledow]

Convenience trumps ideals more often than not.

Though I consider myself an open-source programmer, and an open-source advocate, it's not for the same reasons as Stallman. It's not because of some fantastical ideal (even though I'm right behind things like Freedom of Information Acts etc. I consider them an entirely separate matter, and FoI kind of implies open-source at the highest ends of government, but we have neither FoI nor OS at those points anyway), it's because it makes things easier and my code isn't in any way "precious" that I need to lock it away.

So when I go on forums, I apply my "IT guy" persona to things and thus you get automatic sharing anyway. How do you fix that problem? How did you configure that system to do that? What software did you use? Where's the script you wrote to do X? We share this information in the same way that we share code, and IT is quite an open profession in my experience. I can ring up old colleagues and get scripts and documentation that cost them HOURS of work sent over and nobody will make a big fuss about it. In fact, they're usually happy to help and the agreement is reciprocal anyway.

That, to me, is the essence of open-source, not some cataclysmic Big Brother event stopper. The fact is that, where it matters, we never have had the code, or even the data, or even acknowledgement of the existence of the data anyway. And it's perfectly possible to run any system without reliance on a particular company and with auditable source and for free. The "dream" has been achieved but now people want to move the goalposts.

I agree that we shouldn't rest on our laurels, but OS by its nature develops on its own anyway. The guys with iPhones? Maybe they like using iPhones and there's no OS equivalent that works how they want? Or maybe they are aware of the contradiction but want a fashion item. The beauty is that their choice is just that - theirs.

The options are out there. They could run Android, even a "clean" non-Google version, at any point. The goal should be for the option to exist, not to FORCE everyone onto open-source against their will. To me, that just reeks of the same problem we were trying to avoid.

And the options exist, therefore we're done.

Re:Convenience

[sg_oneill]

You mean MineeUSA? Thats who we're talking about right? The guy who publically stated that he wants those who "harm" pedophiles killed? The guy who rants on about how women should be raped and then forced to marry their rapist? The guy who constantly sent death threats to members of the debian womens group?

This is your evidence that SJWs have killed open source? The face that an open rape advocate got banned from a womens group.

Good work retard!

Re:Convenience

[Raumkraut]

Though I consider myself an open-source programmer, and an open-source advocate, it's not for the same reasons as Stallman.

FYI, Stallman would never describe himself as an "open-source advocate".

"Open Source" is a software-development methodology - that software is better if more people can access the source code. The primary concern is toward the interests of developers.
"Free Software", as advocated by RMS, is a philosophical position - that everyone should have certain rights over the software they use. The primary concern is toward the interests of the end-user.

I believe that RMS takes the position that Free Software is a moral and ethical issue: That it is immoral and unethical to deny a person knowledge of, and control over, the software which they use. At an extreme, consider what rights people today have to so much as audit the code in their car, their insulin pump, or their implanted heart defibrillator (spoiler: they have no such rights).

Re:Convenience

[ledow]

I see very little ever coming from RMS that does not imply or pertain to open-source. If you have certain rights over the software, we're out of the field of proprietary, out of the field of freeware, out of every category EXCEPT open-source. The freedoms he wants are only given by open-source.

Thus, such distinctions only contribute to confusion and buzzwordmanship. I might distinguish liberal licences (e.g. BSD) from less liberal (e.g. GPL) from even less liberal (e.g. MS "open access" source agreements where you can't actually DO anything interesting with the code but might be able to see it) but actually they are all (to some extent) open-source, if not all "Free". The boundary. however, is overlapping if it exists at all and I think we all know that by "Open Source" we really tend towards the licences where you can DO SOMETHING with the code anyway.

So I find all the "not Linux, but GNU/Linux", "not Open, but instead Free" junk to just be unnecessary press facetime.

If you are advocating rights over the software you use, you are implying open-source and the ability to manipulate that source (at least for yourself). It's part and parcel of the same thing. Even if it's in the "we need a way for a user to do X on machine Y and all methods are proprietary", you're basically implying that someone needs to do X on Y in an open-source way to allow the user to do that (e.g. get GRUB bootloaders running on exotic proprietary hardware, etc.).

The ability to audit is also linked directly to the ability and right to see the source.

Thus, let's not try to break the issue down further. You want to be able to see everything the machine does? Then you need open-source, top-to-bottom.

The methodology is the ONLY practical way (maybe only way at all) to implement the philosophy.

Such pedantry is EXACTLY what's confusing people, and tying the word "Free" (which people read without the capital "F") into open-source, where it has little place (most open-source is free in both senses, but it certainly doesn't run to all).

Re:Convenience

[Marginal Coward]

"Free Software", as advocated by RMS, is a philosophical position - that everyone should have certain rights over the software they use. The primary concern is toward the interests of the end-user.

In contrast, I've always thought that the primary concern was towards the interests of the software. Think of the software you write as something you want to grow and evolve beyond what you can do for it yourself. The GPL with Copyleft nicely serves your (parental) interests as the author, and the interests of the software as an entity in its own right to grow and evolve.

Now, consider the interests of the end user. The user would want maximum freedom - to use it, to change it, to distribute the source code, or to distribute or sell it in either source or compiled form. However, if he distributes it in compiled form, he maximizes his own interests, but not the interests of the original author and the interests of the software as an entity to grow and evolve.

There's an old saying, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." For example, we restrict the freedom of criminals by putting them in jail in order to allow those who might be their victims to live more freely. So, freedom is a balance. It's important to recognize that although "Free Software" maximizes a particular type of freedom, it limits freedom of other types. It represents a particular vision of Utopia that not everyone shares.

Re:Convenience

[TuringTest]

Convenience trumps ideals more often than not.

Ideals are not there to achieve convenience. They exist to steer us away from convenience, to avoid short-term gains that would push us into some long term dead-ends.

So ideals are not useful because we live by them on a day to day basis, but because they warn us when we deviate too far from them. Of course, having a few idealists that *do* live by their principles is a useful reminder for the rest of us that agree with them, but are nonetheless swayed by convenience.

Re:Convenience

[TapeCutter]

The "dream" has been achieved but now people want to move the goalposts.

Indeed, I installed Epic's UDK recently purely out of curiosity. All the tools you need to make high quality 3D graphical applications with an emphasis on games. Automatically installs the free versions of visual studio, (yet another great example of free tools from a commercial software house). The only "catch" is that they will take 5% of your revenue if/when your app/game exceeds $3k per quarter. I recall the days of CD distributors that would charge up to 60% of revenue just to print and ship the media. All the hard problems of creating tools to create apps are gone, and yes it mainly due to the open nature of the profession as a whole, not the rants of one noteable pioneer.

Of course large companies like MS/Epic/NVidia/IBM are not giving their tools away out of the goodness of their heart, their aim is to hook devs early in the process and milk them when they succeed. Unlike the recording industry who have a similar business model, the "talent" gets to keep the cream, the company risks nothing, it's a win-win that has become the norm in our industry, rather than the exception.

My personal favorite however is a true OSS hero, sqlite, the licence is a prayer that puts it into the public domain, it is the world's #1 RDBMS by install count. Another is a "maths toy" called "fractint" from the late 80's(?), the license said something like "Got money, want admiration". These two licenses sum up the attitude of most devs that I have worked with over the years. But hey, if a mechanic mate won't help me with my car, I certainly not going to help him with his computer

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you define "open source software" as "the source code is visible". I think open source is not quite that. Open source implies the public development of software. Software developed the open source way is intended to be the most effective way to make technically proficient software i.e. you don't develop open source software in private by yourself or in private within your personal team that's just private software and not open source software.

Open source is not free software because the Open Source Initiative exists as a disagreement of the politics of Stallman's free software; open source is apolitical to the existence of proprietary software. Free software is inherently a political issue. Free software exists as the ethical solution to the ethical problem of proprietary software.

You are confused because you refuse to see that free software as a political statement that says "users deserve freedom" and that open source is totally apolitical to that freedom. The things you see are the practical conclusions that look the same. There is a real difference is in the basic goals and values.

Re:Convenience

[TuringTest]

In contrast, I've always thought that the primary concern was towards the interests of the software.

I agree with your view, but that terminology is anthropomorphizing an inanimate object, which IMHO makes it difficult to understand the benefits of that approach. If GPL achieves "what's best for the project", few people will care.

I've been recently describing what's good about the GPL by highlighting the knowledge about the software.

Compared to other FLOSS licenses, the GPL/copyleft ones, are the ones which best protect users interest to learn how the software-as-a project-works. Permissive licenses which allow users to close the source of their forks provide more individual freedom, at the cost of losing the knowledge about those published forks; with copyleft, that knowledge is preserved.

As you see, the logic of my explanation is the same (you maintain everything in the project), but providing a concrete reason why users of the software should care about keeping it evolving in the public sphere.

Re:Convenience

[TapeCutter]

Your story has as much to do with open source as the brand of car that this creep drives. Freedom of association cuts both ways, deal with it.

Re: Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

All this is despicable stuff, but why should it matter the software author's viewpoints? I thought the open source world was supposed to be a meritocracy, where people where judged by the quality of their code, not external factors...

Re:Convenience

[Marginal Coward]

There certainly are pros and cons to various FLOSS licenses, and as you illustrate, the GPL/copyleft licenses serve a particular need. What bugs me about "Free Software" as an idealogy is that it's supposed to be about preserving our "freedom". We can all be in favor of, in the abstract, so that's a pretty strong selling point (and therefore, BTW, a pretty good source of demagoguery by RMS.) But when it becomes concrete, we need to think a little harder about exactly which sorts of freedom are gained and lost in each case.

In my own case, I've used a lot of small pieces of dusty old Fortran code that I've transliterated into C, compiled, and sold as part of a proprietary software product. The licensing terms of the Fortran code are unclear because it was published in the 1970s in IEEE journal papers before anybody worried about what the license terms of such things might be. I assume the authors published it for people to use however they like, including in the way that I use it. In my own case, I enjoy the freedom to transform such code and sell it as part of a proprietary product. And the people who are free to buy the product evidently think they're getting a fair deal or they wouldn't buy it.

One particular function I need was once translated by someone else from Fortran to C and then licensed under the GPL, so I couldn't use it. It's unclear to me if the person who did that had any legal basis for doing so because the original Fortran code had no license. In any case, I translated my own version to C independently and moved on using that. Later, the other person's code was relicensed under the LGPL, so I could then use it. But it was too late.

I've run into many such cases where I was not "free" to use GPL code in the way I wanted, and the people who buy my product therefore were not "free" to use it either. However, at least they were free to create their own complex application out of the various GPL-licensed pieces that I couldn't provide to them myself. I doubt that anyone has done so.

Re:Convenience

[breech1]

I see very little ever coming from RMS that does not imply or pertain to open-source.

That's because there's close relationships between "free (as in freedom) software" and "open-source." Neither is a proper sub-set of the other though.

If you have certain rights over the software, we're out of the field of proprietary, out of the field of freeware, out of every category EXCEPT open-source. The freedoms he wants are only given by open-source.

NO! The freedoms he wants are not given by open-source. RMS is incredibly consistent about the freedoms he values: he wants to be able to modify any software in any way he sees fit and have those changes made available for others. That implies having access to the source *and* distributing changes to the source. Open source does not guarantee this as you can make changes to the source code and keep the changes to yourself. (This leads into long and drawn out discussions on GPL vs BSD and other licenses.)

If you want to say that RMS's position is pedantic, that's fine. Just understand that RMS has slightly different values than open source advocates and he works to keep those values. RMS views open source as dangerous to the freedom to have all changes made available because open source does not make any guarantee about it. Others, like ESR, aren't quite as concerned about that as long as some version of the source is available. Thus, you get open source. Free and open source software are not exactly the same thing though.

Re: Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

well, in all fairness, the code was shitty as well.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

"Got money, want admiration"
Definitely sums up most developers - no self-actualization, fat and happy.

Re:Convenience

[drinkypoo]

I think you define "open source software" as "the source code is visible". I think open source is not quite that. Open source implies the public development of software.

Nope. Though Wikipedia credits the OSI for inventing the term, its use in computer software predates the supposed event by years. Guess which camp controls that Wikipedia article?

Open Source means that if you get the binary, you get the source code. That's it, period, end of story. It had that meaning before the OSI was even dreamt of. There are specific licenses which have specific language which grants you, the licensor, certain rights. Some of these are OSI-approved licenses, but they are not the only open source licenses. Thankfully, OSI's counsel advised them not to attempt to trademark the generic term "Open Source" way back in the way-back when they might have successfully achieved such a thing, and we are all still free to believe whatever we want to believe.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys with iPhones? Maybe they like using iPhones and there's no OS equivalent that works how they want? Or maybe they are aware of the contradiction but want a fashion item. The beauty is that their choice is just that - theirs.

Exactly. Part of freedom, is the ability to make choices for yourself. Maybe they choose to use a device that isn't as free, because that isn't as important to them as other features of the device.

If you lock yourself into using only things that are 100% free (as in speech), how are you more free than someone who has a choice of 100% of all the offerings available?

Re:Convenience

[geminidomino]

That's because there's close relationships between "free (as in freedom) software" and "open-source." Neither is a proper sub-set of the other though.

Bolded part has me curious. What sort "free software" would not fall under the looser defintion of "open source" at the same time?

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

If Richard Stallman read this his head would probably explode. He makes a stern point to not confuse "Open Source" with "Free Software" and is extremely bitter that the two get confused and that he gets referred to as an open source advocate.

"Free" as in "freedom", and all that.

Re:Convenience

[Raumkraut]

If you lock yourself into using only things that are 100% free (as in speech), how are you more free than someone who has a choice of 100% of all the offerings available?

If you "lock yourself into" using something, you are necessarily less free than someone who doesn't. The difference is that by definition you cannot "lock yourself into" truly Free things, as you are always Free to unlock yourself, should you choose to.

However, becoming reliant on, or merely handing over your information to, a third-party black-box service effectively means that you can never be totally free of that third-party's influence.

Re:Convenience

[breech1]

That's because there's close relationships between "free (as in freedom) software" and "open-source." Neither is a proper sub-set of the other though.

Bolded part has me curious. What sort "free software" would not fall under the looser defintion of "open source" at the same time?

My recollection is that there's some edge case non-GPL stuff that FSF is ok with, but OSI had issues with, but I don't recall exact examples, and my google-fu is failing. I did find this from the FSF: The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free.

So for the most part the free software stuff should fall under open source, but the FSF clearly feel that there's some subtle cases out there.

Re:Convenience

[UnknownSoldier]

Straw man argument.

1. No one is forcing you to choose _that_ GPL software.
2. Closed source (Non-GPL) software is ALSO forcing _their_ license upon you. I am FORCED _not_ to be allowed to distribute it, etc.

Your argument is completely and totally bogus.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is a non-free License that rules by FORCE upon others.

Incorrect premise. The rest of your post thus falls. Try again. (And consider using less caps next time.)

Re:Convenience

[TuringTest]

There's a frequent misunderstanding when people talk about freedom with respect to the GPL. The concept of "freedom" is itself not well defined, and historically there are at least two competing and somewhat opposing definitions, "positive" freedom (which is about maximizing the amount of things people are able to do) and "negative" freedom (not interfering with things that others want to do). The GPL is primarily concerned about the former, and your complaints are about the latter.

The goal of the GPL is that everybody can use the software for any purpose, and learn how any changes and modifications work; this is seen as a requirement to increase the amount of things that can be done with the software, guaranteeing that it can be adapted to any hardware or platform, with no commercial secrets getting in the way.

In order to achieve this goal, the GPL doesn't come "free" (as in "gratis", i.e. no cost): it has a cost that you must pay if you want to use it; but for anyone willing to pay it, there are no further restrictions imposed by anyone, for any modified version. In your case you *could* have merged your application code with the GPL library* for any purpose**, but you should be willing to pay the cost, which is to release your own source code when you republish the software. So, your negative freedom is reduced (you are forbidden from keeping your version of the software hidden and publish just the binaries), but the positive freedom of the system is increased - overall there are more people who know how to use your modifications and adapt them for other uses, which couldn't happen if you kept your modifications secret.

The expectation is that by adding contributions from many users to the pool of knowledge, the whole society sees an increase in the amount of possibilities to use the software ("positive freedom"); it's the same principle that motivated the patent system in the Renaissance. The "release what you know" cost is intended to publish knowledge that otherwise would not be shared, and thus cumulatively improve the whole system. Now, there are valid concerns that the upfront cost may instead work as a disincentive to participate in the system (both with patents and copyleft software), but that argument doesn't make less free.

* Assuming the original license and copyright law allowed it. (This is why the FSF recommends using only GPL-compatible licenses).
**(Including selling it, although with FLOSS software this typically only works once for each release).

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the TiVo hole is one example of where software that is (was) open source can be made un-free, due to patents. I can't think of an example for the converse situation, though. I guess it would have to be software that you could freely modify per the license, but lacked the ability to do so because it's just one big binary blob.

Re:Convenience

[HiThere]

That's almost, but not quite it. Another part of the answer is that people discount future expenses, and the further into the future they are the more they discount them.

And do note that this is largely sensible. Our knowledge of the future isn't very good, so any projected future reward or cost is uncertain, and the further into the future it is, the more uncertain.

P.S.: That we currently have the option to change to FOSSish phones doesn't mean that the option will continue to exist. And I said "FOSSish" because actual FOSS phones are illegal. If they existed you could use a GNU radio to drive the phone on any frequency you chose. (Well, ok, not *any*, but a large number of frequencies, many of which are illegal, frequently for very good reasons.)

Re:Convenience

[HiThere]

Well, back in the day I bought a C++ development system that cam with source code libraries, but which had a license that made it a violation of copyright to distribute the source code. That was Open Source but clearly not Free Software. (I've stil got a CD with Faircom source code on it, which would be readable on an MSWind95 system, so that was once Open Source, but there was no right to redistribute even a compiled copy without a separate license. So it also clearly wasn't Free Software, and you can argue about whether or not it's still Open Source.

Re:Convenience

[HiThere]

Idiot or troll?

Re: Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

All this is despicable stuff, but why should it matter the software author's viewpoints? I thought the open source world was supposed to be a meritocracy, where people where judged by the quality of their code, not external factors...

Yup. Nothing says "meritocracy" like sending death threats to people because of an external factor, in this case being a woman.

Re:Convenience

[RR]

That's because there's close relationships between "free (as in freedom) software" and "open-source." Neither is a proper sub-set of the other though.

Bolded part has me curious. What sort "free software" would not fall under the looser defintion of "open source" at the same time?

I can think of a couple edge cases.

First, software that you make for yourself and don't let others use. Not even through services. Google and Facebook are considered non-free in that regard. But if you make it for yourself, then you're exercising your freedom and not hurting anybody else.

Second, software that is isolated in a coprocessor and cannot be modified. Then it can be considered part of the hardware, and Free Hardware is not a priority of the Free Software Foundation. That's the approach being taken for the GTA04 OpenMoko phone.

Re:Convenience

[Rakarra]

IIRC, the TiVo hole is one example of where software that is (was) open source can be made un-free, due to patents

While they're concerned about patents as well, the TiVo hole was where hardware would accept free software, but only if it came from a specific source (IE, TiVo). GPL3 is mostly about ensuring that not only do you have the right to modify and distribute code, but that the underlying hardware needs to allow modified code to be run.

Re:Convenience

[geminidomino]

First, software that you make for yourself and don't let others use. Not even through services. Google and Facebook are considered non-free in that regard

Right, but that's not what I'm asking about. If they're considered non-free, they don't fit the criteria of "free software" but not "open source software." I get how something can be "open source" but not "FIAF", I was looking for examples of the opposite.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've run into many such cases where I was not "free" to use GPL code in the way I wanted

Oh, what a shame. Write your own code, then. You can use that however you want.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Though Wikipedia credits the OSI for inventing the term [wikipedia.org], its use in computer software predates the supposed event by years.

Okay, show a single example of the use of the term "Open Source" to refer to a license before OSI adopted it in 1998. Good luck!

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

In the beginning, open source simply meant "the source code is visible". Well the proponents of open source software took this term and gave it a newer and more specific definition on purpose, they intentionally repurposed this generic term to mean something more specific. Did they not know that some folks of old (like yourself) would disagree with the redefined meaning, did they not know that you would pop up in these sorts of debate insisting to use the definition of old thus diluting the marketing campaign they've orchestrated for the new meaning? What is the purpose in taking a generic term and redefining it to make it more specific?

So tell me, why do companies in this age overwhelmingly respect the OSI definition by not marketing their proprietary-visible-source software as open source? Terms I've seen include "licensed source access", "source code is available" and "shared source". This is despite the fact that open source has a wider mindshare over these other terms. Not even Microsoft uses open source to describe their own licenses that would not pass the open source licensing process.

Truecrypt is the one example that I know that is marketed as open source but doesn't pass the OSI definition. So why are there numerous references in the Internet that distinguish Truecrypt as not being OSI compliant despite their own marketing as open source?

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

The practical outcome of the two definitions are similar. A free software license will always be considered open source compliant. The difference is not outcome but the values and goals behind the outcome. The value of free software means "users must have freedom". The value of open source means that "we can develop technically proficient software".

Re: Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing says meritocracy like generalizing, shaming, and stereotyping men with logical fallacies either.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome to your feelings of course, but this is not a rational argument for choosing not to consider someone's effort in unrelated areas just because you disagree with his politics. There are lots of dirtbags out there, and different people have different people on their dirtbag lists.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is an advocate for paedophilia yet Phoronix regularly covers GNU projects.

Re:Convenience

[exomondo]

The primary concern is toward the interests of the end-user.

Kind of, the primary concern is what the end user can do with the source code. This is the reason free software isn't particularly interesting to people, because end users are not programmers and thus are almost never interested in the source code. Free as in gratis is great for end users but freedom with respect to the source code isn't particularly useful to them.

It's a great model for advancing corporate interests, they can employ or contract developers to get their needs met and can even keep those changes inhouse if they wish. But there's no real model for advancing end user interests, that's just hobbyists and volunteers or some overlap with corporate needs. That's why free software really is lacking, sure end users could contract developers to implement a feature for them or spend time learning how to do it themselves but it's generally more cost effective to just pay the fee for a proprietary program that does it, cheaper for the end user and income for the developer.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

1. No one is forcing you to choose _that_ GPL software. 2. Closed source (Non-GPL) software is ALSO forcing _their_ license upon you. I am FORCED _not_ to be allowed to distribute it, etc.

In the first point you reject his premise then in the second point you validate it by using it. So which is it?

Re: Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give examples? Have you played the game? How long did it take to download?

Or is it shitty because you don't like the author?

Re:Convenience

[drinkypoo]

Okay, show a single example of the use of the term "Open Source" to refer to a license before OSI adopted it in 1998. Good luck!

I did that already, in my link. Educate yourself. Good luck!

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you've provided some hair-splitting arguments from people who found the words previously put together in certain instances. They were not used in general parlance to refer to a licensing scheme. Some of your examples are weak enough to argue that because "open" was already in widespread use, therefore "open source" was also in widespread use. The fact that they had to hunt these examples down is telling; they didn't find lots of conversations bandying the term about, which you would expect if it were a common term.

I agree with Bruce Perens's reply to Falconwolf on the "OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers" Slashdot thread:

"Falconwolf, I really assure you: no brand 'Open Source' existed before we created it. There were one or two uses of the words together, they didn't go anywhere, and anyway 'prior art' doesn't work for trademarks as it does for patents. There is usage in another category for defense intelligence information. Did you know that 'X' is a trademark? But surely, someone used 'X' before it was filed :-)"

Re:Convenience

[david_thornley]

Stallman wrote about that. He said that, once you get past the free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech issue, "free software" is a pretty clear phrase, but that "open source" has more possible meanings and is harder to disambiguate.

Re:Convenience

[david_thornley]

RMS's position is a little more nuanced.

GPL and BSD are both Free Software licenses, although RMS strongly prefers the GPL. In either case, it is possible for someone to take them and modify them in private, not releasing changes. He has referred to that as "private software", and said that it's not really important to software freedom, and (IIRC) he'd oppose mandating that all changes be released. The difference between internal changes to GPLed and BSDed software is that, in the case of the BSD, it's legal to change it, put a proprietary license on it, and release the executable without the source code.

The difference is that, if RMS gets code that's GPLed, he can get the source, and change and redistribute at will. With GPLv3, he can take GPLed software out of any device that can be reprogrammed, change it, and put it back. (This is the basis of his main disagreement with Linus Torvalds. Linus is happy to have people change the Linux kernel and make the source code available under the GPL, so he can use the code as he sees fit. RMS wants to be able to change the software he uses, and not be prevented from changing and reinstalling.)

Re:Convenience

[david_thornley]

You say you couldn't use the software, which is not completely true. You couldn't use the software in the way you wanted to, which would be against the wishes of the people who had made (or translated) the software. You wanted to use that software and reissue it in a way that that none of us would consider Free (or Open Source) software. Since you weren't interested in producing Free Software, why did you think you should be able to take advantage of Free Software?

I'm not trying to criticize your actions, but rather understand why you think your version of freedom is superior to RMS's. We can't have every possible freedom (the freedom to own slaves comes to mind), so why does it bother you that the person who founded the Free Software movement has a somewhat different definition than you do?

Re:Convenience

[Marginal Coward]

You say you couldn't use the software, which is not completely true.

Sorry that I didn't spell out that I meant that I couldn't use it from a business point of view. I assumed that readers would be able to figure that out without me having to explain every detail.

Although many people make money selling GPL'ed software, it just doesn't make sense for many business scenarios, in which case the business "can't use the software" (again, in a practical business sense.)

In my case, the business is a small one that I operate out of my home as a sideline. It sells something extremely specialized in very low volume. It's not lucrative, but it has made enough money over the years to be worth my time.

If I were to incorporate any GPL'ed software into it, I would then need to GPL the whole thing (isn't that the whole idea of the GPL?), and the few sales I have would dry up completely. Since it has such a small user base, I would be unlikely to make any money in any of the common open source revenue models, such as selling media or service.

So let's think about this realistically from a business point of view only, not trying to make the world a better place, like your beloved RMS. (Some of us want to be able to afford to shave, take a bath, and subsist on something tastier than toe jam.) I could incorporate a single function that had been translated from unlicensed Fortran to C and GPL'ed, and then lose my entire small business. Or, I could translate the function from Fortran to C myself, where the unspecified license of the original Fortran would remain unspecified in the new version.

So, which would you do?

Remember, you're not allowed to make the world a better place in this scenario, except by providing proprietary, closed-source software to end users that does a useful, highly specialized function, at a price that many are happy to pay.

BTW, my version of freedom is superior to RMS's because it's freer. Isn't that axiomatic? If freedom with a few restrictions is good, freedom without the restrictions must be better. I've always thought it was a great fraud to describe restrictions as "freedom".

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

The only issue I have with your 'business' argument is that you think you have a right to profit from what is freely given to you, yet deny others the same opportunity when you build on that code.

You claim you're interested in freedom, but you're only really interested in leveraging someone else's work for your own benefit. You are painfully transparent.

Re:Convenience

[exomondo]

If you "lock yourself into" using something, you are necessarily less free than someone who doesn't.

When do you ever do that?

Re:Convenience

[drinkypoo]

No, you've provided some hair-splitting arguments from people who found the words previously put together in certain instances.

I'm the person who found the words previously put together to mean that you would get the source code. But that meaning was already in use. We already knew what they meant when they announced that OpenDOS would be Open Source. I know because I remember because I was there. You, obviously, were not.

Some of your examples are weak enough to argue that because "open" was already in widespread use, therefore "open source" was also in widespread use.

False. It explains the origin of the term. The argument doesn't depend on that fact.

they didn't find lots of conversations bandying the term about, which you would expect if it were a common term.

It wasn't yet common. Yet Caldera's use predated the OSI's claim by two years.

I agree with Bruce Perens's reply to Falconwolf on the "OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers" Slashdot thread:

Good for you. But at best, Perens was ignorant of the fact that the phrase was in use for over two years before he claims that he and others "created" it. His ignorance does not make him an authority. To the contrary, it calls his entire story into question.

"There were one or two uses of the words together, they didn't go anywhere"

They did go somewhere: Many of us in the community were already using the words "Open Source" long before we ever heard of the OSI, or even of Bruce Perens.

"Did you know that 'X' is a trademark? But surely, someone used 'X' before it was filed :-)"

Yes, he was being disingenuous there, because it had already been shown that the phrase had been used in connection with computer software whose source code would be made available. And even before that, it previously had the well-established sense of being interoperable due to use of published standards. This in fact is the sense in which Caldera used it at the time, the sense in which SCO had been using it for years before that (Hello? The Sco Open Deathtrap shower phone is ringing, it's for you) and the same sense in which the rest of us understood it.

That you missed this is not interesting. That Perens apparently missed it is only interesting if if wasn't true, but I'm not going to try to sleuth down all the places where you can catch him saying something that implies that he knows it, if indeed they exist. I don't care, because the OSI has already lost. They lost the battle when they failed to attempt to trademark the term "Open Source" back when they might have succeeded at doing so, and as I said before, we're all still free to use the term however we like. I like to ignore the OSI, and pay attention to the FSF.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. I see you have already argued this to death with Perens, but what it comes down to is evidence.

IF the term was in use for software licensing before 1998, evidence shouldn't be hard to find... yet for some inexplicable reason, it's just not there. Aside from your Caldera message, which could be coincidental (more than one person/group can 'invent' a term) there's nothing on USENET, not a sausage.

I was there too, and I don't recall hearing the term before 1999 or so. Feel free to continue your crusade; I'm not beyond being convinced, but so far you've got an empty hand.

Re: Convenience

[sg_oneill]

nothing says meritocracy like generalizing, shaming, and stereotyping men with logical fallacies either.

What logical fallacy? The guy was booted out of forum after forum for being a total psychopath, and then he races around going on about how its "SJWs" at fault and the death of open source blah blah blah. No, he was booted out of everywhere he went for acting like a complete asshole and frightening people with his threats.

Re:Convenience

[drinkypoo]

Whatever. I see you have already argued this to death with Perens, but what it comes down to is evidence.

Yes, and I presented evidence.

IF the term was in use for software licensing before 1998, evidence shouldn't be hard to find...

And it wasn't. I found evidence.

I was there too, and I don't recall hearing the term before 1999 or so.

So, no, you weren't there. If you had been someplace like Santa Cruz (or a student at MIT) you might have been better connected.

Re:Convenience

[david_thornley]

If I could use a version of the software that was easily available but which I would wind up violating the license, and a version I wrote, I would write my own. That applies no matter which license applies. There's nothing special about the GPL in this case. (I'd be uncomfortable with the lack of license on the Fortran code, myself, but nobody's likely to do anything about that.)

Freedom without restrictions must be better? So a country that maintains the freedom to own slaves is freer than one where that's illegal? After all, preventing me from owning slaves is a restriction. There are also restrictions on me shooting you if you say something I don't like. Freedom needs restrictions to survive. You may certainly have your own opinions about specific restrictions, but nothing's axiomatic about it.

Re:Convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, and I presented evidence.

No, you presented evidence that a SINGULAR entity, Caldera, used the term INDEPENDENTLY prior to OSI, not that it was in common use beforehand.

Seriously, if "open source" was a common term prior to 1998, show us the evidence. There is none. Kthxbye.

Re:Convenience

[geminidomino]

A free software license will always be considered open source compliant.

That was my take, and what the poster I was responding to said was not the case.

Re:Convenience

[RR]

Fine. How about this: To recover data from an SD card, I wrote a Python script to read each sector and dump them into an SQLite database. I'm not publishing the script, so it's not open source. But I made it for myself and can do anything I want to it, so it's free software.

Free Software has always been about freedom, not the price tag. You don't need to go to the Church of Programming to get software. You don't even need to dodge the malware on C|net. You can make your own software. The GNU Manifesto is about coming together and making an entire operating system that ensures individual freedom.

Re:Convenience

[geminidomino]

But I made it for myself and can do anything I want to it, so it's free software.

Being unreleased, it doesn't have any distribution license, so one else can do anything with it, so it's not "free software."

Re:Convenience

[RR]

Being unreleased, it doesn't have any distribution license, so one else can do anything with it, so it's not "free software."

No, you are ignorant of What is free software. I repeat: It's about freedom.

The users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist.

(Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.)

I think this applies to my script, for which I am the only user and the only person who has a copy.

Re:Convenience

[geminidomino]

No, you are ignorant of What is free software.I repeat: It's about freedom.

Actually, I know exactly what Free Software is (at least as defined by the FSF): I think you're just using the letter of the definition to ignore the spirit of it. You're conflating not distributing modified versions of released software with not distributing your own software - nothing wrong with that, we all have one-off scripts the universe at large isn't interested in - but there's nothing about that software that's "free" other than your statement that it is - If you decided that you weren't going to release it under the Oracle "We reserve the right to eat your Firstborn " license, the end result would be identical - no one else can run, copy, distribute,study, change, or improve it.

It contributes nothing to the software ecosystem or to society as a whole, which is the entire point of Free Software.

A long, long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

... even before RMS wrote and published his manifesto, I've already had contacts with RMS

No, I never meet the guy face to face all these years, but I did snailmail him, and he wrote back (snailmail) and later when email was more widely available we corresponded via email

Although many people roll their eyes when they talk about RMS, I find him a very responsive and helpful dude

And before I forget, I need to express my gratitude to RMS for what he has done (for far more than 30 years) for all of us !

Thanks, dude !!

Regards,
A long-time supporter

Re:A long, long time ago

[silentcoder]

I must second that. I have actually met RMS face to face over a period of several days more than 14 years ago now. We've had email contact on and off ever since as I have worked on various free software projects, especially where I had ethical questions. To give an example I wondered whether I should include software such as lame in a distro I was maintaining. As I was in a country where software patents aren't legal I had no restrictions preventing me - but I worried it could make the fully free distro I was working on inaccessible to others, so I asked his opinion. For the record it was: "Include them, don't let the publishers have more power than they do by obeying bad laws my country has that yours doesn't".

I must agree - I have always found him reasonable, measured and incredible rational about all things.

That's nice, just as opensource is falling appart.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone not on the "SJW" bandwagon is "blackballed" and their free software projects taken down. ( early example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6537 ) gnu utilities (unix utilities even) are being binned and replaced with systemd, choice is gone.

It was good while it lasted.

----

OpenSource release story removed due to developers opposition to Social Justice.

A story on the Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was manually removed after a few days.
The reason cited was the developer's views on social issues such as gender equality (1).

The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(2).

Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?

Citations:
(1) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(2) https://webcache.googleusercon...

Removed story URL:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

Why So Important

[rtb61]

The core principle of any democracy is knowledge must be free. Democracy ceases to be such when knowledge is priced beyond the reach of majority and they are forced to vote based upon ignorance. Computers are the best tool in making knowledge accessible and as such should never be priced out of easy access to the majority. Every citizen should have the right to readily access all the knowledge they want, in order to make informed decision about their democracy. Not selected highlights, not edited with secrecy, not distorted by lies but factual, validated information backed with explanations and when required, taught by suitably qualified professionals. Denial of information about the society they form a part of, in order to manipulate their consent, is autocracy by ignorance.

Re: Why So Important

[Bert64]

The problem is that the world is just too complex, that even the few of us who want to understand and make informed decisions cannot be experts on everything...

Re: Why So Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The core principle of any democracy is knowledge must be free

[Citation required]

This is not even a core principle, let alone the core principle. It's not even a well-defined statement. What counts as "knowledge"? You can't possibly believe that every citizen should have the right to have the number of grains of sand on a given beach counted? I'm afraid that between that ridiculous extreme and wherever your head is at right now is a large gulf of grey area.

Even without the grey area, a statement of the form "The core principle of X is that Y must be free" only makes sense when X is socialism. You can't decree that Y must be free, because Y obviously isn't free otherwise the statement wouldn't be a core principle of anything. All you can do is socialize the costs of Y so that it is free at the point of delivery. Therefore, X is socialism. Knowledge costs time, money and effort to accumulate. If you believe that all such costs should be socialized then you're a socialist, not a democrat. There are non-socialist democracies, though, so it can't be a core principle of democracy.

Re: Why So Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is a non-free License that rules by FORCE upon others. It FORCES outcomes. It is just as bad as the copyright, patent, and trademark issues it attempts to resolve. Therefore those outcomes will NEVER be as legitimate as outcomes that come about by free thought and free voluntary CHOICE. The 2-clause BSD license offers the world that CHOICE. Never fool yourself that GPL is free as in freedom, it is not. It is pure monopoly on force, just like any other ideology, religion, politic, or government.

Re: Why So Important

[NoOneInParticular]

GPL is called copyleft for a reason. Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist. It's simply a countermeasure to copyright. Your argument about "force" and "choice" are only relevant in a world that accepts copyright as a given. The GPL does not accept that premise.

Re: Why So Important

[AHuxley]

It not hard to be keep reading on what the security services have done to crypto, compliers, shipped hardware, OS, telcos and networks.
The big brands are helping, not able to fix, do not want to fix or in collaboration with the security services to ship tame, back door, trap door products.
If the shipped, offered or rented compiler is adding extra code or making applications that are open to network intrusion then people can also select other more tested products.
Divest from the tame big brand junk. Start looking for and helping better products.

Re: Why So Important

[exomondo]

Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist.

No, that assertion demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between Freeware and Free Software. Without the GPL and Copyright I could take open source code, create a modification to it and distribute just the binary without the source code. Sure the lack of copyright would mean that people could redistribute that binary free of charge and restriction but there would be nothing to force me to release the source code modifications along with it. And that is one of the key elements of the GPL, in fact it is what differentiates it as a restrictive license from permissive licenses like BSD, MIT or Apache.

Yes he's right

[aaaaaaargh!]

He's right about most of the things he says, and that's also the reason why there are so many haters.

If you look closely at the opponents of the free software movement you'll find out that most of them have no good arguments at all (except lame ad hominem attempts). Or they use weak fake arguments they do not believe in themselves, because they are (i) working for a large company dealing with proprietary software, or (ii) are disgruntled independent developers who really really would like to use some GNU libraries but at the same time refuse to respect to the licence.

Re:Yes he's right

[serviscope_minor]

He's right about most of the things he says, and that's also the reason why there are so many haters.

He also pulls no punches when it comes to saying uncomfortable unpleasant things. It's even worse that some of those have come to pass.

Anyway, I also predict this thread will be full of wild claims about RMS many of which are flat-out untrue and demonstrably so. Because almost every thread involving RMS winds up that way.

Re:Yes he's right

[Richard_at_work]

Theres a difference between being *right* and *having people agree with you*.

Re:Yes he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a difference between being *right* and *having people agree with you*.

Agreed. Look at any politicians career for reference.

Re:Yes he's right

[gnasher719]

Anyway, I also predict this thread will be full of wild claims about RMS many of which are flat-out untrue and demonstrably so. Because almost every thread involving RMS winds up that way.

So to start it off, you started with a wild claim of your own...

So basically before anyone can post anything that you don't like, you declare all such posts to be flat-out untrue and demonstrably so. Congratulations.

Re:Yes he's right

[serviscope_minor]

So basically before anyone can post anything that you don't like, you declare all such posts to be flat-out untrue and demonstrably so. Congratulations.

It would be a wild claim if it wasn't true. I've spent a lot of time debunking +5 informative posts on slashdot which are completely and utterly untrue.

Or you can just disappear into la-la land and make up stuff about what you think I'm going to do. That works too, and goes right along with making up stuff about RMS as well.

Re:Yes he's right

[rmdingler]

Theres a difference between being *right* and *having people agree with you*.

Absolutely. It's just that being right without the ability to convince people of it seldom leads to earthshaking revolution... you run the risk of losing out to someone who is clearly wrong, yet charismatic and convincing.

This is often the World we live in today, suffering because the person who thought up the head tax couldn't debate as proficiently as the proponent of the metered gas mask.

Re:Yes he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it hinges more upon the difference between 'facts' and 'opinions', but I wouldn't really expect anybody on the internet to understand that level of complexity.

Re:Yes he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU libraries tend to be released under the LGPL. There's no reason a 3rd party should have to open their commercial libraries just because an application vendor wanted to link some GNU code. That's why the LGPL exists. The only requirement is to publish modifications, which is a non-issue if you don't make any. There's not much to be disgruntled about with the LGPL.

Even if you want to talk to GPL code it's not rocket science to create a GPL process and talk to it using IPC from a non-GPL process.

This isn't why people hate Stallman. People hate Stallman because he wants a world in which software development is valued at zero.

Re:Yes he's right

[Antique Geekmeister]

> He also pulls no punches when it comes to saying uncomfortable unpleasant things.

This is certainly true. I've met the man at a conference, and mentioned my attempts to bring client's and partner's work into the published, ideally free software and open source where necessary world. He considered my and their work with "software as a service" to be immoral, because all the software should be directly in their hands. We didn't have time to discuss it longer, nor to discuss the inability of most home users to maintain a robust or secure database.

I have to admire his effective technology and political leadership, even while I find myself fervently wishing that he would bathe more often.

Re:Yes he's right

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Anyway, I also predict this thread will be full of wild claims about RMS many of which are flat-out untrue and demonstrably so. Because almost every thread involving RMS winds up that way.

So to start it off, you started with a wild claim of your own...

A prediction is not a claim. Its seeing the future and saying what one think will happen.

And that future are already here. So was a correct prediction too.

Re:Yes he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a user agreement where you pledge to always publish the source code of what is done server-side.

Re:Yes he's right

[serviscope_minor]

even while I find myself fervently wishing that he would bathe more often.

Now that is an oft-made claim which *is* true.

Re:Yes he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, where have you been? RMS as a public figure is just not discussed, unless people rail against his hypothetical personal hygiene. It's bizarre but there it is, you won't have to look far. The comment from serviscope_minor is completely apropos.

Re:Yes he's right

[olau]

He considered my and their work with "software as a service" to be immoral, because all the software should be directly in their hands.

Well, I'm not RMS but from some of the remarks I've seen from him on mailing lists, it's not just the software but also very much the data. He's against the idea of giving up data to a third-party.

In the light of the Snowden revelations, you have to admit there's some validity to his point.

... nor to discuss the inability of most home users to maintain a robust or secure database

I'm sure his response would be that we should figure out ways to help them do that. There are in fact people working on these kinds of things, e.g. the FreedomBox project. It's of course a much harder engineering challenge than a controlled server-based solution where the service provider can monitor stuff and fix problems directly.

Re:Yes he's right

[david_thornley]

A long time ago, somebody on Groklaw was complaining that RMS had casually mentioned to him that the Groklaw guy's Gameboy (or whatever) was immoral. What surprised me was how seriously the guy took RMS's comment. It wouldn't bother me at all, since I disagree with RMS on that point, but he was upset.

Re:Yes he's right

[david_thornley]

And yet Linux distros are among the most-used OSes today, and those are mostly based on a GPLed kernel and a whole lot of Gnu software. Basic software development tools are now mostly free (you can do pretty much anything with Visual Studio Express, for example, just not as easily as with versions you pay for). He inspired the Open Source movement, which is a lot more politically acceptable. Comparing the pre-RMS world and now, I'd say he did cause an earthshaking revolution.

Can you really run Open Source Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want to force anyone to use Open Source, I just want to be able to use the systems, that government forces me to use without relying on proprietary software.

About non google android: How many currently available smart phones can run Android without ANY closed source binary blobs?

Re: Can you really run Open Source Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the replicant project. There are a few, but they are still not feature complete and quite old. But if this doesn't bother you, go for it.

Another option is to run ASOP Android, or roms based on it, like Cyanogenmod. Don't install the Google apps and use F-Droid instead of Google Play. This method will give you almost any kind of app you need except really specialized stuff, and if you really need a certain app, you can sideload it under something like Cyanogen's privacy guard, which stops it from accessing your contacts and other private information.

The choice is yours.

Re:Can you really run Open Source Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want to force anyone to use Open Source, I just want to be able to use the systems, that government forces me to use without relying on proprietary software.

That is a problem with the government and nothing to do with proprietary vs open source. If they arent working with open standards then that's what you need to convince them to do.

One Laptop Per GNUser

[Anonymous Coward]

I've written GPL licensed software, too! Where's my free Lemote Yeeloong netbook, dude?

I guess rms is truly wise.

[ProzakLord]

"...this is one of my thoughts, which I have found: wisdom cannot be passed on. Wisdom which a wise man tries to pass on to someone always sounds like foolishness.” Sidhartha - Herman Hesse

Re:I guess rms is truly wise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wise men know when to use the right tool for the job. Microsoft Windows is the right tool for some jobs.

Re:I guess rms is truly wise.

[amalcolm]

But not the only tool for most ...

Re:I guess rms is truly wise.

[silentcoder]

>Microsoft Windows is the right tool for some jobs.

The only one I can think off is "using the shards of the shattered install disk to cut your wrists with"...

He's been right far too often.

[Anonymous Coward]

We missed our chance to make him look like a paranoid tin foil hatter.

I'd have preferred a world where he'd been wrong about a lot more things.

Reality

[jellomizer]

Stop blaming those other people for all the issues in the world, because they are blaming you right back. The idea that utopia can happen if people do it exactly my way, is not realizing the diversity in people and their particular needs.

Just because RMS is right about a lot of thing doesn't mean he is always right. The same with everyone.
Open source has its place, but it is also the cause for many of these outsourced jobs. As it gives people in poorer areas acces to advanced computing software, so they can apply and say they have such skills and then undercut people who live in a higher income area.
It is nice to be good and Nobel, but you still have bills to pay, not everyone can work at a not for profit, government, or educational institution and do what they train for. They need to work in the corporate world, to keep this job that pays the bill you need to be sure the company stayed in business, so you make software that they attend to sell closed source.
Because...
1. The software is easy to use so there is no money in consulting services.
2. Access to the Internet means there isn't much money in distributing your software.
3. The software fills a niche that is important but doesn't get enough attention to survive on good will.
4. You need to work with other vendors who has patented code, or closed licenses. But they are vital to the overall product.

It is not that open source is bad, it has its place mainly in infrastructure based systems OS, Web Servers, Web Browers, Office products, Developer tools. But once you get into general purpose it gets much harder

Re:Reality

[invictusvoyd]

It is nice to be good and Nobel, but you still have bills to pay

Dosent Stallman have bills to pay for his $10 million house and his private jet ? He wants the gulfstream G5 but because he works for the FSF and stuff and he can only have the beechcraft .

Re:Reality

[serviscope_minor]

Open source has its place, but it is also the cause for many of these outsourced jobs. As it gives people in poorer areas acces to advanced computing software, so they can apply and say they have such skills and then undercut people who live in a higher income area.

I think that's a stretch. The reason for that is that manufacturing has ALSO been outsourced, and to do that, companies had to build up the physical infrastructure. Labour is expensive, so it's worth spending a lot on saving labour costs.

IOW, I think the fact that labour has been outsourced across the board is an indication that the existence of OSS has not had much overall effect.

Besides a lot of the coutries where stuff is out sourced to seem to run on pirated copies of Windows, not Linux.

Re:Reality

[AmiMoJo]

As it gives people in poorer areas acces to advanced computing software, so they can apply and say they have such skills and then undercut people who live in a higher income area.

I thought that CS was the ultimate meritocracy, hence all attempts to increase the number of women and minorities in the workforce are just scams. Or are you saying that actually you resent anything that might provide you with competition in the job market?

Beside which, any increased competition is more than offset by the new business (and thus jobs) created by open source. Look at Android, how many people directly or indirectly benefited from that? Android is of course built on top of Linux, and uses many open source components and tools. A big part of its success is because it is open source, and because you can develop for it with free open source IDEs and compilers.

Imagine where we would be without open source. Imagine what the internet would be like if every single machine connected to it has to have a Windows or Cisco licence. Do you think there would be more or less jobs in that case? How do you think our freedom would be if we were reliant on proprietary, closed source software for everything?

Re: Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

I think youre confusing Stallman with Al Gore. But both are hypocritical shitbags anyway, so no real difference.

Re: Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

you are the shitbag you half brain faggot

Re: Reality

[david_thornley]

I've seen no evidence that Stallman is a hypocrite. As far as I can tell, he acts on his beliefs, and is willing to undergo a lot of inconvenience. Gore talks about global warming, and burns fossil fuels. Stallman believes proprietary software is evil, and will put up with a really crappy laptop because it's all free software.

New Yorker and open source

[grahamlee]

I was pleasantly surprised by the New Yorker's coverage of the shift from "free software" to "open source", which while less detailed (unsurprisingly) than other sources such as Free as in Freedom 2.0 also presented it simply as a thing that has happened, rather than either of the extremes that are usually applied: it's the worst affront ever to software freedom, or as the liberation of programmers from the crazy extreme ideology of RMS. Personally I'm more interested in free software than in open source: the source code is a means to an end, not an end in itself. But it's good to see that view handled as a view and the events (and responses to them) presented, without turning the story into a justification or rationalisation of the view. BTW, still waiting for that planned Chaosnet support...

Re:New Yorker and open source

[Anonymous Coward]

, still waiting for that planned Chaosnet support...

I bet you still want GNU HURD on your 68000 too, because that was the plan. Too bad the HURD only runs on x86 and almost everybody has switched to AMD64 or ARM by now. Even RMS uses MIPS instead.

Developers _are_doing it

[nut]

A lot of software developers are doing what RMS says a lot of time. It's just that almost noone does it all the time.

It's clearly evident from the amount of GNU and GPL software out there that wasn't written by RMS that people are following his ideas. And that those ideas have succeeded, simply by the success of that same software in the marketplace.

It's not a failure of the ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

The wide use of GPL software doesn't mean that people are following Stallman's ideals. When people write free software as they agree with the ideals of open source, that person isn't necessarily following Stallman's ideal. One of his ideals are a world where proprietary software doesn't exist. It's not a failure of the open source ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills. It is a failure of the free software ideal when anybody (writes then) distributes proprietary software at any price.

Money is not the problem that Stallman objects. The problem that he objects are the political restrictions that are attached to all proprietary software that cause software owners to have rulership over their users.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies in particular are actively trying to frame the BSD style licenses as the "freer" licenses. This is far from over, and if people get complacent about the GNU ideals, then most software will become proprietary again. Being allowed to build proprietary software on top of the shoulders of Open Source giants is the Achilles' heel of free software. The big achievement of the GPL license is to protect against that attack.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Registered Coward v2]

A lot of software developers are doing what RMS says a lot of time. It's just that almost noone does it all the time.

It's clearly evident from the amount of GNU and GPL software out there that wasn't written by RMS that people are following his ideas. And that those ideas have succeeded, simply by the success of that same software in the marketplace.

It's not a failure of the ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills.

I agree; especially if your really value freedom, i.e. the ability make your own choice about what you want to do rather than be forced to comply with one set of restrictions or another on your freedom to chose. RMS ideals, at their core, are about restricting your ability to make a choice, a more fundamental freedom, IMHO, than being free from proprietary software. Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[meta-monkey]

You are exactly correct. This is what's going to happen to Android. It's got a GPL kernel, sure, but everything else up the stack is less-free the further you go. The libraries and runtime are BSD-like and the user apps are mostly closed. And they're continuously replacing modules with code with permissive licenses. Next they're going to start closing them. Sure, you can still have the source code from Android 5.0, but by the time they're on Android 7.0 that stuff is woefully out of date and they will have intentionally changed APIs so anyone trying to create open replacements has to constantly jump through hoops to keep up. Eventually it'll just be a giant closed blob on top of a free kernel.

Permissive licenses are a trap.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[meta-monkey]

Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.

Free software is not about freedom for the developer. It's about freedom for the user. Closed software enslaves the user. They own their device, but their device obeys the software developer, not the user.

Is a world in which you are not allowed to own slaves less free? I suppose, in a "freer," but perverse, world you'd be free to enslave others.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Registered Coward v2]

Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.

Free software is not about freedom for the developer. It's about freedom for the user. Closed software enslaves the user. They own their device, but their device obeys the software developer, not the user.

Is a world in which you are not allowed to own slaves less free? I suppose, in a "freer," but perverse, world you'd be free to enslave others.

Bullshit. No one is forcing you to use proprietary software; the user has complete freedom to chose what type of software to use. To use your argument, free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation. In that reverse free world yo are free to enslave others under the guise of freedom. Welcome, citizen, to the new free world. We have been at war with Eastasia forever.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[meta-monkey]

Wrong. The software developer is not forced to develop software at all.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Registered Coward v2]

Wrong. The software developer is not forced to develop software at all.

and users aren't forced to use proprietary software either...

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[david_thornley]

free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation.

Nope; nobody is forced to write free software, and RMS wanted developers to earn good livings. RMS used to ask, at his talks, how many developers were paid based on their software being sold, and it was usually a small part of the audience. Most developers are paid to cover specific needs their employers have, and would be paid no matter what the license. We tend to forget that because the most visible software is proprietary, sold by all sorts of stores and websites, but these are the exceptions.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Registered Coward v2]

free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation.

Nope; nobody is forced to write free software, and RMS wanted developers to earn good livings. RMS used to ask, at his talks, how many developers were paid based on their software being sold, and it was usually a small part of the audience. Most developers are paid to cover specific needs their employers have, and would be paid no matter what the license. We tend to forget that because the most visible software is proprietary, sold by all sorts of stores and websites, but these are the exceptions.

Correct, which is also true for proprietary software and thus points out that proprietary software "enslaves users" argument is bogus. Since just as no one forces anyone to write free software no one forces anyone to use proprietary software. The existence of both widens choice rather than limit it; which was my point and why I took the "enslaves user" argument and turned it around to "enslaves developers" to show how ridiculous it is.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[david_thornley]

Ah, we are in agreement here, and my sarcasm detector needs calibration.

Re:Developers _are_doing it

[Registered Coward v2]

Ah, we are in agreement here, and my sarcasm detector needs calibration.

No worries, I forgot to properly use the sarcasm tag anyway, Cheers...

A Story of Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first encountered GNU it was in the age of Windows 3.1 and 386 processors. I had just received a shareware utility program which included GNU tar as part of the distribution. I read the GNU General Public License of GNU tar and it impressed me because it was refreshing to see a program license that not only gave me unlimited usage of the program (GNU tar, not the shareware utility) but also gave me the right to study the source code, modify the source, and then redistribute the program. All the other programs that I've noted at the time had various usage and distribution restrictions in their licenses and GNU tar was outstanding in this regard. I was not a programmer at the time but I understood the utility in being guaranteed the right to modify the software.

The next time I encountered GNU was during a Stallman lecture about his free software movement. He taught us that proprietary software is anti-social and harmful to our freedom. How could my beloved software (that has served me well for such a long time) harm my freedom? The idea that I could have total freedom in my computing were implanted as a result of that lecture but I was too addicted to the software I was using to do anything meaningful afterwards. His GNU system that he wrote for the express purpose of escaping from the world of proprietary software was too much of hassle to bother with; I was quite comfortable with my system that ran Windows 98.

As time moved on, I had to use and manage all sorts of software in my job and in my personal life. I started to notice the points that Stallman had indicated: proprietary software intends to divide society by restricting users from sharing the software while simultaneously encouraging users to adopt the software, users are locked into a single source of help if the software needs fixing and users are helpless to help oneself, the users' computing belongs to the owners of the software which means it's quite possible that the owners of the software put their own interests before the user by putting in a backdoor to protect their interest.

Time and time again, Stallman had proven to me that I chose a life where my own computing did not actually belong to me. When I realized this, I knew that I had to start migrating my computing into the world of free software. It's been many years and it's cost me a lot of money and today, I am proud to say that 100% of my personal computing and the vast majority of computing in my businesses actually does belong to me. Thanks Mr Stallman, the cost was expensive but your activism taught me of a life where I don't need to bound to the rules imposed by proprietary software and by association, you've also given me the passion to consider the wider topics of society, politics and freedom.

Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Viol8]

And if I have personal freedom I can choose to buy and use an iPhone if I want (I don't, but not for the same reason as RMS).

While much of what he says is right wrt software, unfortunately he has a bad dose of myopia or tunnel vision, call if what you like, about the wider world and how software interacts with it at the personal and societal level.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he's a visionary and what he says will come to pass, as has happened in the past, and you would prefer that you current pragmatic approach to 'the way things are' isn't a brick in the wall of that furure distopia.

But lets just call him myopic.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman doesn't believe that having an option implies having freedom. Stallman believes that freedom is a matter of self-control and your choice to accept your iphone means that you've chosen to let Apple control your life in your phone. You may have paid for your iphone but Apple controls it and you are forbidden to control your iphone.

Stallman doesn't have the myopia that you think he has. He knows fully well that wide world uses proprietary software and people are happy with their choice of software. What he's doing is to teach society that a life of proprietary software means that we live subject to the will of other people. Stallman cannot (and does not) force people to dump proprietary software. He teaches what he knows and hopes that some people will agree that self-control and social solidarity are things worth advocating.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Viol8]

"Or he's a visionary and what he says will come to pass,"

He's had 30 years. I won't hold my breath.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Viol8]

"You may have paid for your iphone but Apple controls it and you are forbidden to control your iphone."

When you buy a house or flat in most countries you arn't allowed to absolutely anything you please with it. So what? Its just a phone.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue about housing is that your house has a direct impact to the people in your neighborhood. You can do what you want to your house subject to the rules of the local county, the rules of the state and maybe other rules like home owner association rules or unit corporate rules.

Your computing is not quite the same thing. It is usually the case where your computing directly affects nobody but yourself. It's all up to you to decide whether you believe it is important to own a computer (like a smartphone for example) to achieve meaningful computations for your own life. When you choose proprietary software, it is totally impractical to control your own computing. So be it that you're happy to let other companies control your computing but make no mistake, your computing belongs to others who doesn't necessarily have your interest as their priority.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[serviscope_minor]

unfortunately he has a bad dose of myopia or tunnel vision, call if what you like, about the wider world and how software interacts with it at the personal and societal level.

Such as? And stick to actual things he's said.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The matter of housing is not quite the same as software. Your house has a direct impact on your surrounding neighborhood. As such, there are various rules (local county, state, home owner association, unit corporate) that set certain standards and restrictions for what you do to your house. You can do what you want within those rules so that the surrounding neighborhood isn't negatively affected by your actions over your house.

The matter of your own computing is different. Your computing normally has no direct impact on other people. It's your choice to decide whether you believe that it's important to own your own computer (like a smartphone for instance) to achieve practical computing tasks. It's your choice if you believe that it's not important to own your computer to achieve your own computing tasks. So be it if you're happy for Apple to control your computing but make no mistake, your choice means that it's totally impractical to control the machines that you own.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[silentcoder]

>When you buy a house or flat in most countries you arn't allowed to absolutely anything you please with it. So what? Its just a phone.

But in none of them (at least none of the free ones and probably not even the non-free countries) does every house for sale come with a contract that says that at any time after the purchase the seller can come in without informing you of the visit to dig in your teenage daughter's underwear drawer and sniff her panties.

Which is slightly less of a privacy invasion than what's found in the typical software EULA - and the iphone is among the worst there.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[avandesande]

Some people are capable of building/configuring their own PC and others aren't- so buying an off the shelf PC might be best. Or perhaps the capable person values their time too much to bother. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS's position is that you should have the personal freedom to buy and use an iPhone, and you should *also* have the personal freedom to hack it, reprogram it, etc.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or he's a visionary and what he says will come to pass,"

He's had 30 years. I won't hold my breath.

You would if you were standing next to him.

As others have mentioned, RMS doesn't seem to bathe that often.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Listening to RMS about consumer electronics is like listening to a cave man about how to build a particle accelerator. He still emails webpages to himself and reads them in pine. Any opinion he has about modern computing needs to be taken with a tonne of salt.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[UnknownSoldier]

> in most countries you aren't allowed to [do] absolutely anything you please with it. So what? Its just a phone.

And where does it end?

Printers and their DRM ink cartridges?

Game Consoles?

TVs?

Computers?

Cars?

It is _already_ illegal to _inspect_ some of the things you "own" due to the greedy and immoral DMCA.

When you can't even charge the _battery_ this is _already_ going TOO FAR.

* https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

While much of what he says is right wrt software, unfortunately he has a bad dose of myopia or tunnel vision, call if what you like, about the wider world and how software interacts with it at the personal and societal level.

Well, if the world stopped behaving like a fscking downward tunnel about how software interacts with it at the personal and societal level, his tunnel vision would be just Stallman's personal problem rather than an adquate view point.

Unfortunately of the many things one is inclined to justifiably call Stallman, "wrong" is pretty low on the list.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[UnknownSoldier]

Ah, so we should toss the baby out with the bathwater simply because you dislike _his_ work flow. Riiight.

/sarcasm I guess no one else got the memo that we ALL should follow _your_ divine workflow and use _only_ the software that you "bless" as being "valid". Who die and made you king again?

Philosophy doesn't depend on technology. It is about how it can/should be used.

It would behoove you to study history.

"The easiest form of parochialism to fall into is to assume that we are smarter than the past generations, that our thinking is necessarily more sophisticated. This may be true in science and technology, but not necessarily so in wisdom."

Macaulay on dangers of Copyright in 1841

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The off-the-shelf PC in your metaphor also has a lock on it that only the manufacturer can open. And it's illegal to pick the lock. Not only can you not change the PC that you _own_, you can't pay someone more capable to do it for you. Compare this to owning a car - most people have a limited knowledge of auto repair but they still have the freedom to fix it or have a qualified mechanic do it.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[phantomfive]

And if I have personal freedom I can choose to buy and use an iPhone if I want (I don't, but not for the same reason as RMS).

You failed to understand his point. Maybe a car analogy will help.

You have the freedom to run your car into the tree in your front yard. Stallman is not trying to deny you that freedom. He's merely pointing out that it will destroy the tree, probably your car, and suggests that it's a rather stupid idea. In the quote in the summary, he is lamenting that a lot of people do stupid things.
Do you understand the difference between forbidding you from doing something, and trying to convince you not to do it? Because there is a difference.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Qzukk]

When you buy a house or flat in most countries you arn't allowed to absolutely anything you please with it.

Hey, there you go, appeal to everyone's undying love for homeowners associations to get your point across!

Except... it'd probably work better if they weren't so generally hated.

Re:Personal freedom trumps software freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a compromise is in order. Kind of like how you can unlock your phone now under current FCC rules, provided that certain conditions are met. Maybe they should change it so the DMCA only lasts for no more than 10 years since the purchase date. Now, if a car is truly a rental, you don't own it. But in situations where you rent devices, there really needs to be a signed contract. And if it exceeds two years, a notary should be required.

He's not always right.

[Viol8]

He seems to believe that software has some special place in the world rather than it just being another type of end result of human effort. Why should I give away my source code if I don't want to? I put my time and effort into creating it so it is MY choice. His opinion is irrelevant.

I don't know his opinions on copyright in general but would he suggest an author give away his manuscript for free then hope for a few coins to be tossed his way as virtual charity? Or ditto a painter?

If people want to give away their code then good for them - I've done it myself at times. But it should be MY choice to do it , it should not be some political ideal that everyone should be expected to conform to.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, keep your source code. Noone is saying you cannot. However, you have a bit more than that, don't you? You have copyright protections, patent protections which are given to you by a society to enforce your `propreitorship'. This is what he is campaigning against. Give up those `rights' and then hold on to your precious source. Why should I be burdened by your supposed ownership of ideas (as in patents) when I develop my software, even if I come up with the ideas independently? Also, why should programmers, unlike 90% of the people be paid not for working but for the product, in perpetuity? Are their efforts really that valuable?

Re:He's not always right.

[Dr_Barnowl]

> I put my time and effort into creating it so it is MY choice.

He would be right up there with the notion of personal choice. His contention is that closed software removes your personal choice to do what you want to with your hardware, because the hardware is under the control of the software, and the software isn't under your control.

The freedom to do whatever you want with a given piece of GPL software is enshrined in the license, where it does not conflict with the freedoms of the next person to receive the software. You can use it to build a kitten-immolating satellite deathray if you like.

And he's right - some people have to make the choice to have Free Software, or there will be no choice - we'll all be stuck with hardware that only does the bidding of it's maker.

e.g.

* It's no longer your choice to be able to scan most banknotes. The firmware in most scanners has a feature that will terminate your scan if it finds particular features.
* If you use your cable provider's hardware, your abiity to retain recordings may be limited - even though the right to timeshift is enshrined in law

etc.

Using GPL components as part of your software is another choice - your project benefited from a lot of work by others given freely, so you choose to either pay it forward (but ONLY if you distribute, unless you're using AGPL parts) or not use those components.

> Why should I give away my source code if I don't want to?

You don't have to, as explained above - it is definitely your choice.

Re:He's not always right.

[gl4ss]

his gnu ideology depends on copyright, that's the fault I have with the guy.

you see without copyright you can't make copyright licenses that force people to share the changes.

and yeah you can say that you don't want to share your code and he can say that he doesn't want to use and depend on it then. that's the whole point, that if he depends on the software you make and you don't give the source and possibility to recompile then he is dependent on you and you have power over him, can screw him over for money or just extract money from him by extortion.

this gets us to the forced outphasing of iphones that apple is doing matter of factly - encouraging, forcing or borderline conning people to upgrade the operating systems on their iphones, updates that make the older models work less comfortably than they worked when they were new and they're doing this to encourage people to upgrade their devices, even if the new device doesn't have any actual upgrade they need.

Re:He's not always right.

[Viol8]

"Give up those `rights' "

I don't want to. Next...

"Why should I be burdened by your supposed ownership of ideas (as in patents) when I develop my software, even if I come up with the ideas independently?"

Software patents only apply in the USA so is of no interest to me anyway.

"Also, why should programmers, unlike 90% of the people be paid not for working but for the product, in perpetuity? Are their efforts really that valuable?"

If thats how they want to sell the software then they're entitled to. Should an author simply get paid a flat fee and get nothing from individual sales? Why should a programmer be any different?

Don't make the same mistake as RMS and assume that everyone agrees with your left of centre world view.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Software has a special place in the world by virtue of being a logical work of practical function. Software is akin to mathematics in that it is critically important for everybody to have access to it regardless of their aptitude to use or interpret it. A mathematical computation without access to the mathematical logic that produced it is akin to a computer program performing a task without access to the source code.

Stallman isn't asking for developers to give away their code for free, Stallman is quite happy for developers to sell their code for a price. What Stallman wants is a total cease of the distribution of all proprietary software. Stallman would rather you keep your software private and let nobody install that program rather than have your distribute your program as proprietary software.

Re:He's not always right.

[silentcoder]

Yes, to see the proof of your claim just look at the cooking industry. Recipes cannot be copyrighted (they are explicitly excluded from copyright protection under international law). Which is why there are no chefs. Oh wait sorry, it's why all the chefs keep their recipes strictly secret and only provided finished food and none of them ever publishes a cookbook... oh wait.

For the nitpickers: yes a cookbook can be copyrighted but the recipes inside it cannot, you are always free to copy one, modify it, use it and even put it in your own cookbook modified or not.

Software is a lot more like a chefs recipes than it is like an authors book.

Re:He's not always right.

[Sique]

First of all: Software has a special place in the world. Software is a distilled form of knowing how to do things. Software is a way to actually store work: You do the work once and then use it again and again without further effort. Software itself doesn't degrade, it just might lose its uses. Software can be endlessly replicated with an effort that is minuscle compared to the effort necessary to create it in the first place. Once in the world, software is not a scarce good.

And yes, it is your choice what do do with the software you write yourself. No one will ever tell you different, except your employer. It is also your choice to smoke, to tell racist jokes, to not ask for help, to let your house rot away and to spend all your money on blackjack and hookers. Richard M. Stallman has no rights to your software at all.

But you too have no right to other people's software, because they have the same rights to do with their software as they like. If you want to get access to it, you have to play nice. You can spend huge amounts of money, which is the market economy way of doing things. But why? Software per se is no scarce good. The only reason you would have to spend huge amounts of money for a good that is easily replicated again and again is because other people don't play nice too.

Richard M. Stallman set up some rules how to play nice when it comes to software. You are not required to play nice. But then expect others not to be nice to you too.

Re:He's not always right.

[meta-monkey]

It is your choice to be an asshole with your shitty software, just like it's your choice to be a racist or a homophobe or whatever. No one is going to force you to be a decent human being.

But we have a political ideal that I would like everyone to conform to: don't be an asshole and don't use or produce non-free software. No one is going to force you to free your software. But, I hope for a world in which the last closed source software author huddles in a corner, death grip on his precious, precious codes while everyone else freely shares software and frolics in meadows and has group sex and shit.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

""Give up those `rights' "

I don't want to. Next..."

And the rapist doesn't want to let your arse alone. What you want means nothing if you're going to impose on others.

However you've displayed precisely the problem with the anti-FOSS/RMS brigade: Selfish little bastards don't like people who are successful without being selfish little bastards too.

You want the rights but you don't want to pay for it.

Because you're a greedy little shit.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

because the hardware is under the control of the software, and the software isn't under your control.

Having control of the software doesn't necessarily mean having control of the hardware. What if the hardware manufacturer put a backdoor in *hardware* that lets them circumvent encryption? Or brick your device remotely if they don't like what you're doing with it?

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You telling me what to do with my software makes you an asshole.

Re:He's not always right.

[meta-monkey]

But I'm not telling you what to do with it...

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is not a right. It was and is a privilege created by the state. All ideas are free. It is the state, and its power of the gun, that enslaves ideas.

Re:He's not always right.

[NoOneInParticular]

I'm not sure that you've thought this all the way through. Imagine a world without copyright on software. Would the philosophy behind the GPL still be distinctive? I would say it would not: although it would make making the clause about distributing the 'preferred way of making modifications' untenable, it would allow everyone to modify and distribute source code if they have it, it would allow anyone to decompile, reverse engineer, modify and distribute. If I can distribute your binaries without repercussions, proprietary software would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure a world without copyright on software is RMS' dream.

Re:He's not always right.

[david_thornley]

You could read what RMS had to say about that. He thought that, since he couldn't get rid of software copyrights, he'd use them in a different way. RMS can be surprisingly practical, and is willing to bend (not break) his principles for tactical advantage. Consider the LGPL, and the special licenses on bison and flex.

As far as the iPhones go, I never was forced to update to an OS I didn't want, and my phone continued to work just fine the way it was. It wouldn't necessarily be possible to get new apps for it, but the new apps wouldn't work well on it anyway.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the rapist doesn't want to let your arse alone. What you want means nothing if you're going to impose on others.

Pathetic strawman. You so braindead that you actually need it pointed out to you that you do not have the 'right' to rape somebody.

You want the rights but you don't want to pay for it.

Of course we do, if patents are valid we pay license fees for them.

Re:He's not always right.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people want to give away their code then good for them - I've done it myself at times. But it should be MY choice to do it , it should not be some political ideal that everyone should be expected to conform to.

Absolutely, but RMS is not interested in software, he is interested in an ideology and has spent 3 decades trying to convince people to care about that above all else. The reality appears to be that the ideology produces an inferior solution to the end game otherwise people would be using Free Software if for no other reason that a bi-product is that it is gratis yet ultimately in most cases people are willing to buy licenses for proprietary software or even pirate proprietary software rather than use Free Software.

Let's say I need a hammer, if I have the choice between one built to meet my ethical and moral standards and one that is not then naturally I will choose the former. But what if that former choice does not drive nails? But even if I value my ethical and moral standards to the exclusion of all else I'm still not going to use the tool if it doesn't do the job. That's where Free Software is, by and large in most use cases you have the choice to reject/compromise on the ideology or to simply have no solution at all, RMS proposes the latter and the FOSS advocates are still scratching their heads to try and figure out why nobody cares about Free Software.

Any iota of intelligence there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it give a timeline there? Why don't you bash Arthur C Clarke and NASA for their space station shuttles to the moon because 2001?

I get it, you hate anyone who thinks differently to you and you feel is a hippie or leftist or some other shibboleth that was used to scare you or your parents when very young, but why the hell do you display your idiocy so proudly?

I don't always agree with him...

[NormalVisual]

...but you have to give him points for consistency and not giving the first damn what *anyone* thinks of him. It can sometimes be a little grating, but generally it's quite refreshing to interact with people that lay all their cards out, whom you don't have to second-guess or wonder whether they have ulterior motives.

Re:I don't always agree with him...

[gnasher719]

...but you have to give him points for consistency and not giving the first damn what *anyone* thinks of him.

What does Stallman do for a living? Travel around, make speeches about free software, and get paid for it. He has to say what he says, or nobody will pay him anymore.

Re:I don't always agree with him...

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't get paid that much for his time and effort. Richard's hands have developed terrible RSI, and a great deal o f his limited income goes to students who help with his typing and computer use. Mind you, I still consider somewhat his own fault for his work on Emacs, the "Esc-Meta-Ctrl-break-my-pinkies" macro language of all time.

Re:I don't always agree with him...

[serviscope_minor]

What does Stallman do for a living? Travel around, make speeches about free software, and get paid for it. He has to say what he says, or nobody will pay him anymore.

Are you implying that RMS is in it for the money?

Re:I don't always agree with him...

[AmiMoJo]

So anyone who wants to speak about anything vaguely political has no credibility once the accept any money? John Stewart Mill isn't worth listening too because he published his ideas and was paid for copies sold?

Re:I don't always agree with him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that RMS is in it for the money?

Why not, if one can make it stick? If not, there is always child terrorism and asexual pornography. Or he sympathizes with Belgians.

Definitive copy

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Does anybody know if the online document is the definitive copy of Stallman's published letter to the editor? I'm also curious about the other GNU docs, not that I think they were "retconned" to fit current realities in the software world today. But mainly because I think these documents should be preserved for their historical worth, warts, typos and all. It would interesting to study the progression of Stallman's thought from a focus purely on getting that proprietary printer in the corner to work to a more embracing political philosopy of information freedom.

iPhone vs what?

[Dr. Evil]

Cyanogenmod with F-Droid, Firefox OS, Nokia N900....?

Re:iPhone vs what?

[jonwil]

Any phone that doesn't restrict your ability to run the software (and operating system) of your choice on it is what you should be buying instead of that crApple ifPhail.

If it was an actual device (and not just some schematics and a prototype built on an ARM dev board) I would be recommending the Neo900 as the best option for people wanting a truly open phone. With the Neo900, it will be possible (as far as I am aware) to run a 100% FOSS software stack on the main ARM CPU and have basically complete device functionality including LTE cellular modem, power management/battery charging, phone calls, SMS messages, GPS, WiFi, FM transmitter, FM receiver, camera and bluetooth.

Re:iPhone vs what?

[meta-monkey]

Sadly there's no such thing as a truly free phone. The radio firmware is still a binary blob.

To be honest, that's where the focus of the open hardware movement should be. We have options for free computers (locked bootloaders, though...), but we can't get free phones at all. The Ubuntu phone almost made its kickstarter goal. Perhaps a truly free phone could get some attention...

I'd volunteer for a free radio project. I can do digital design and VLSI, but my experience with that is about 10 years out of date. I'm an electrical engineer and my college studies were focused on computer architecture, but now I do software.

Re:iPhone vs what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There will always be powerful forces (in the most literal way) who will not like a truly secure communications endpoint.

Their power base rests on the ability to read and listen into each and every communication. And no, your funny gpg thing on your hackable OS wont stop them.

Re:iPhone vs what?

[david_thornley]

The problem is that some software needs to be legally certified in the exact form it's in. This typically includes medical software, avionics software, and software that can seriously interfere with other people. (This sort of thing forced a significant change during the GPLv3 comment period, since some things legally have to have their software unchangeable by the user.) In this case, the firmware controls what the phone can do, and if it's messed up the phone can cause a lot of disruption to other people and their phones.

Re:iPhone vs what?

[meta-monkey]

The source can still be made publicly available.

Practicality

[jones_supa]

But they don't seem to do what you say, I observed; they all have iPhones. 'I don't understand that either,' he said. 'If they don't realize that they need to defend their freedom, soon they won't have any.'

Some of the most powerful communication tools of current times are things like a smartphone and Facebook. RMS is correct about the privacy risks, and actually the situation is getting worse every day. But at the same time those are very practical tools and you lose a lot if you just throw them away. This is the dilemma.

That being said, at some point I expect there be a larger movement where some people will just find all the datamining and advertising too much to bear, and will stop using those services. IoT embedded devices will eventually bring more privacy-intruding trash into our lives. Operating systems and applications are also phoning home more and more often.

Any iota of reality there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you bash Arthur C Clarke

Okay. Psychic powers are real, bro. Arthur C Clarke strongly implied that Childhood's End was based on real science, for reals. There's totally a bright future for humanity, and humans aren't irredeemably evil scum.

Guess we have to

[Anonymous Coward]

Call it the OLD manifesto now

Is this not also reality?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Useful programs supply a need, and needs change, requiring code changes. And therefore development is continuous.
2. Access to the internet means that the cost of supplying software is much less than the cost of trying to control copies.
3. Software fills a niche that doesn't get attention to pass management NIH syndrome or axed by a new executive trying to "make a difference"
4. You don't have to have patents on software. Indeed they don't work for software since you never supply enough of the code (or, indeed, any) to allow someone skilled in the art to create your invention from the information in the patent, meaning that the patent is not valid. However, non-programmers make money out of patent trolling, so will not allow it to be fixed.

5. Company software that solves a company problem pays for itself by making the company more efficient. Others picking up your leavings will still need to change it and will be last entering the efficient process if they don't themselves produce novel solutions, which you are able to take advantage of as much as they can with your stuff. A rising tide lifts all boats. Knocking holes in your boat so that you don't have to share it sinks everyone.
6. Closed software is not living up to the responsibility of copyright, therefore should not get it. if you can't pay the price, don't demand the benefits, scroungers.

It's not that closed software doesn't have a place, only that it's entirely ridiculous to care about it being defended.

FOUND ONE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian spotted!

Re:FOUND ONE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican senator spotted!

Re:FOUND ONE!

[Anonymous Coward]

ah the leftist witchhunt attitude in action. you people are no better than bible/koran thumping idiots.

Time to bury it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Along with other foolish, naive ideologies of the era such as the "hacker manifesto". The wondrous new society they predicted never happened, and corporativism triumphed once again. "Freedom" is now a dangerous word, we live in the Surveillance Society. Let it go.

Re:Time to bury it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Along with other foolish, naive ideologies of the era such as the "hacker manifesto". The wondrous new society they predicted never happened, and corporativism triumphed once again. "Freedom" is now a dangerous word, we live in the Surveillance Society. Let it go.

If people had listened to RMS perhaps we wouldn't be living in a surveillance society, he has warned of it often enough.

Imagining a world without RMS

[Marginal Coward]

The impact of RMS and his "GNU Manifesto" have been undeniably powerful, but I wonder what the software world would look like if there had never been an RMS. I'm certain that we would still have something like "open source" software. There would still be something like the MIT-style permissive licenses. There would still be a BSD version of Linux. Heck, a college kid from Finland might even still have created his own UNIX kernel, and maybe somebody would have pulled together all the pieces of a UNIX-style ecosystem to create a second UNIX-clone operating system that users were able to contribute to and modify.

Next, someone else might even have invented something like "Copyleft", wherein copyright law is actually used, jujitsu-style, to preserve the ability to copy rather than to limit it. Now, that's a pretty clever idea, but surely someone would have thought of it.

Maybe these things would have happened slower - much as light bulbs and cars might have happened slower without Edison and Ford, but would undoubtedly have happened.

That said, would Communism have happened without "The Communist Manifesto?" I'm not so sure. No idealogy can exist without its ideologue.

Re:Imagining a world without RMS

[Marginal Coward]

Correction: "There would still be a BSD version of UNIX".

Re:Imagining a world without RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

The impact of RMS and his "GNU Manifesto" have been undeniably powerful, but I wonder what the software world would look like if there had never been an RMS. I'm certain that we would still have something like "open source" software. .

But would there have been a GPL without Stallman? I doubt it. The BSD-type licenses are very different because they don't require copyleft, which is the whole point of the GPL. It's copyleft that keeps the knowledge embodied in code free for others to use.

Re:Imagining a world without RMS

[Marginal Coward]

But would there have been a GPL without Stallman? I doubt it. The BSD-type licenses are very different because they don't require copyleft, which is the whole point of the GPL. It's copyleft that keeps the knowledge embodied in code free for others to use.

As I had suggested, the idea of Copyleft is clever, and perhaps even original. But if "necessity is the mother of invention" and RMS hadn't provided the GPL and Copyleft to us, they must either be unnecessary or would have been invented by someone else.

Re:Imagining a world without RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

would Communism have happened without "The Communist Manifesto?

Of course it would have. It's not rocket science. It's merely coercive authority taken to the logical extreme: total, utter rule by the elite few, with a complete absence of individual rights. Ideology isn't the goal, but merely the excuse. Total power is the goal.

Re:Imagining a world without RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "power to the people" was the goal, but I don't think your right-wing brainwashing will allow you to see nuances of history.

Way not to read, AC retread

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is again:

Why don't you bash Arthur C Clarke and NASA for their space station shuttles to the moon because 2001?

Notice the bit bolded there?

Stallman == Freud

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman occupies the same place in free/open software as Freud does in psychology.

Very important, one of the first, etc.

And the kook who got people thinking, "There must be a better way."

Re:Stallman == Freud

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the other thing they have in common: their ideas are now mostly as interesting but largely outdated except for by their respective small groups of loyal acolytes.

Re:Stallman == Freud

[david_thornley]

You're wrong about Freud (and, I believe, RMS). Freud wasn't much of a scientist, and got a lot of things wrong, but much of what he wrote that shocked people of his time is simply commonplace knowledge nowadays. Everybody now believes in a subconscious part of the mind, which is a Freudian concept, and one that went against what people back then knew. The part of Freud's ideas that were not generally accepted are typically outdated and followed only by loyal acolytes.

I am grateful

[mrflash818]

Without him, I probably wouldn't have had the career I was able to have, nor enjoy the Debian distribution I currently enjoy every day.

I am grateful.

Your complaint is hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

You wanted freedom to use someone else's software as you see fit, but you don't want someone else to use your software as they see fit.

That's a textbook case of hypocrisy.

Freedom without restriction is not even anarchy, it's merely a word. You're not free if I can kidnap you, but forbidding that is making me not free.

The basic point is that if you're not free to use GPL code as you wanted, it wasn't the GPL that made it so, it was the existence of copyright. Abolish copyright and you are not restricted. Go ahead and do that.

Or admit that you want freedom for yourself only. Not anyone else.

Re:Your complaint is hypocrisy

[Marginal Coward]

You wanted freedom to use someone else's software as you see fit, but you don't want someone else to use your software as they see fit.

That's a textbook case of hypocrisy.

If it makes you feel any better, I have released a small amount of useful software under an MIT-style license for all to use any way they like with full, true freedom. So I'm not all bad.

Anyway, I follow your point. But without the financial incentive that I have in selling my proprietary software, it wouldn't exist in any form. Both my software's users and myself would then be poorer for that. (I've learned that few people will pay for software unless you make them.) And I've received many nice thank-you's from people who paid good money for my hypocrisy - and were happy to do so.

Obviously, software can be licensed different ways, and the choice of license is both a matter of personal preference and pragmatism for various situations. So, use GPL if you like - I'm all in favor of it. It's just not for me.

And if you license your software child via the GPL, don't expect me to adopt your child. It probably deserves a better home than I can provide anyway.

Millenials

[bregmata]

If they don't realize that they need to defend their freedom, soon they won't have any.

But they do expect a trophy just for showing up.

Re:Millenials

[Anonymous Coward]

Not THIS old line again.

No Happy Birthday

[Hydrian]

I'd sing Happy Birthday but GNU and Happy Birthday have incompatible licenses.

Placating consumerism leads to loss of freedom.

[jbn-o]

If you want to say that RMS's position is pedantic, that's fine. Just understand that RMS has slightly different values than open source advocates and he works to keep those values. RMS views open source as dangerous to the freedom to have all changes made available because open source does not make any guarantee about it. Others, like ESR, aren't quite as concerned about that as long as some version of the source is available. Thus, you get open source. Free and open source software are not exactly the same thing though.

Open source advocates think that proprietary software is acceptable and free software advocates don't think proprietary software is ever acceptable, as RMS points out in his essays and talks dating back many years (1, 2). I'd hardly call that difference pedantic—being overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning like a pedant. And the preservation of software freedom copyleft makes real can sometimes be okay to forgo but only after careful consideration. But the open source movement doesn't distinguish among licenses based on copyleft because that would draw attention to the very thing that movement was designed to silence and distract discussion away from talk of—software freedom.

Re:Placating consumerism leads to loss of freedom.

[ledow]

And how does freedom NOT include the choice to use proprietary software if you want? You can be as free as you like, except when you make THIS choice? Great.

Implying that "Free", meaning liberated, means YOU CAN'T USE THAT for something is completely hypocritical. Thus his concept of "freedom" does not extend anywhere near my concept of freedom at all... and is merely a subset.

Richard Stallman is, in this opinion, "less free" than the average person. Sorry, but that's just stupid.

Given that, I'd rather not associate his name with my concept of "open" because he's more restrictive than I, or most open source programmers, choose to be.

You can have any colour you like, said Henry Ford, as long as it's black.