Why is this good? Open source contributors who previously had no particular loyalty to a specific distribution now have a reason to favor Red Hat (assuming they buy into the IPO).
What will the community think when Mr. Renowned Developer publicly says, "Personally, my favorite distro is Red Hat"? In the back of our minds will be, "Hmmm...I wonder if he was allowed in on the IPO"
I believe that what RMS really wants is to get that issue into the public light. One way to do that is to get the term GNU/Linux out into the media. People will inevitably ask what GNU is, and that leads to FSF, copyleft, and discussions free software as a philosophical matter.
I agree that this is RMS's goal...to get people to recognize the concept of freedom that has enabled Linux. If people take exception with attaching the name 'GNU' to an existing name and think this is self-serving, may I propose we call it 'Free Linux'. This introduces the issue of freedom that RMS is concerned with without making it look like someone is trying to ride Linux's coattails to fame.
But there is the distinction between the knowledge that is published and the process which is patented. I like RMS's model even better for research (if you publish, you can't patent).
No, I don't believe copying is an issue because copying software means giving someone access to it. There is no access problem for published research because there are lots of decent academic libraries (and these days IEEE will even let you order reprints of articles on-line for a small fee). The fact that they are tightly bound in copyrighted journals prohibits no-one from making copies for FAIR USE, i.e., education or more research. Making a packet for your classroom is just a matter of convenience for the students (they could march up in droves to the library and make their own copies) but doesn't impact upon the freedom of access.
I think RMS is (quite rightly) trying to elevate the status of software to that of academic research, in which the different levels of freedom that he outlines are taken for granted, to the benefit of the entire research community.
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (level 0).
Academic research does not come with any prohibitions on its use. If its published, it's usable by anyone for anything.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (level 1).
This is the entire point of publishing research, so that others may see how it works and possibly modify it.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (level 2).
Publishing your research means that anyone has access to it at a decent academic library, so copying is not even an issue.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (level 3).
Again, this is inherent in academic research. Publishing your results allows others to improve on your ideas or borrow your ideas for another purpose.
Removing any one of the above freedoms from academic research would be a ghastly proposition for all those involved. It would also harm basic research.
I think that developing software should be considered a form of academic research. By realizing that what RMS is trying to do is not so far fetched (i.e., "free research" is already taken for granted), free software can be better appreciated by those who don't understand the model.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this good? Open source contributors who previously had no particular loyalty to a specific distribution now have a reason to favor Red Hat (assuming they buy into the IPO).
What will the community think when Mr. Renowned Developer publicly says, "Personally, my favorite distro is Red Hat"? In the back of our minds will be, "Hmmm...I wonder if he was allowed in on the IPO"
I believe that what RMS really wants is to get that issue into the public light. One way to do that is to get the term GNU/Linux out into the media. People will inevitably ask what GNU is, and that leads to FSF, copyleft, and discussions free software as a philosophical matter.
I agree that this is RMS's goal...to get people to recognize the concept of freedom that has enabled Linux. If people take exception with attaching the name 'GNU' to an existing name and think this is self-serving, may I propose we call it 'Free Linux'. This introduces the issue of freedom that RMS is concerned with without making it look like someone is trying to ride Linux's coattails to fame.But there is the distinction between the knowledge that is published and the process which is patented. I like RMS's model even better for research (if you publish, you can't patent).
No, I don't believe copying is an issue because copying software means giving someone access to it. There is no access problem for published research because there are lots of decent academic libraries (and these days IEEE will even let you order reprints of articles on-line for a small fee). The fact that they are tightly bound in copyrighted journals prohibits no-one from making copies for FAIR USE, i.e., education or more research. Making a packet for your classroom is just a matter of convenience for the students (they could march up in droves to the library and make their own copies) but doesn't impact upon the freedom of access.
AIDS research. This is an example of how an international research community got together to do something useful.
The Internet. The whole thing got started as a defense industry research project.
Buy into the MIT Media Lab's research of cool toys: wearable computers, etc.
I think RMS is (quite rightly) trying to elevate the status of software to that of academic research, in which the different levels of freedom that he outlines are taken for granted, to the benefit of the entire research community.
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (level 0).
Academic research does not come with any prohibitions on its use. If its published, it's usable by anyone for anything.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (level 1).
This is the entire point of publishing research, so that others may see how it works and possibly modify it.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (level 2).
Publishing your research means that anyone has access to it at a decent academic library, so copying is not even an issue.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (level 3).
Again, this is inherent in academic research. Publishing your results allows others to improve on your ideas or borrow your ideas for another purpose.
Removing any one of the above freedoms from academic research would be a ghastly proposition for all those involved. It would also harm basic research.
I think that developing software should be considered a form of academic research. By realizing that what RMS is trying to do is not so far fetched (i.e., "free research" is already taken for granted), free software can be better appreciated by those who don't understand the model.