Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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).
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.
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.