This is yet another act against freedom, and its a serious problem that people become oblivious to freedom, willing to lose "just a bit" here, and "just a bit" there, for all sorts of "worthy causes".
If we are willing to give up "just a bit of freedom" in some of the Closed Software that's used, will we be willing to give up the amount of freedom required in order to apply these measures in Free Software and Free Hardware?
Obviously, to apply these measures to Free Software and Free Hardware, one would have to disallow them altogether.
If currency security can no longer be maintained the old-fashioned way, then lets ditch it. There already are better alternatives. Legislate the use of credit cards to replace cash, for example. Mass-distribute cheap credit card readers, etc.
As expensive a solution as that may be, our freedom is more expensive.
Putting restrictions in software is never appropriate.
Not only because it cannot really work correctly, but because freedom is more important than such anti-crime measures, especially when they're so futile.
1. Linux does not have a clipboard. E.g. you can't: open a doc in a viewer, mark and copy some text, close a viewer, paste the text to an editor.
"Linux" the Kernel does not have a clipboard. However, the X11 window system has clipboard/selections. Copying/pasting text with the mouse is far simpler in X (and in KDE, specifically) than in Windows. Copying/pasting files is as easy in KDE. Some other objects are copyable between KDE applications, because only KDE (and perhaps) gnome defines the D&D/Clipboard protocols between its applications.
2. I can't close a window just by moving mouse cursor to the upper right corner of a desktop and left-clicking. Linux forces me to aim to the close button accurately.
That's only true of some of the window decorations. Annoying as they are, I use the KStep window decoration which allows exactly this. You are correct though that the Redmond window decoration that looks like Windows does not behave the same for maximized windows. It is probably a good idea to file a bug/wishlist report for this if you care about the Redmond theme.
3. Win-key (lets just call it the Flag Key if touching anything labeled "Win" is a taboo in Linuxland;-) ) doesn't show a "Start" menu.
The Win-key is by default configured to be a modifier in X. I am quite sure that this can be reconfigured to be a normal key, in which case you can then configure it to be the Panel Menu key.
KDE stuff is not enough for me. So GNOME stuff should offer an optional Windows L&F as well.
Tough:) Anyhow, GNOME probably has Windows L&F themes as well.
In any case, if the window decoration looks a bit differently, or if a couple of keys are mapped a little differently, it is really not a thwart to producitivity.
If you want, KDE/Qt have Windows themes (The Redmond theme, iirc).
You can probably find an iconset that's identical to Windows (or perhaps just rip the Windows icon files into a KDE iconset).
Most KDE dialogs are already designed to look like the Windows equivalents, when there's nothing wrong with the Windows ones. Some dialogs/panels are redesigned simply because they are very poor in Windows, or because they don't fit the KDE/GNU/Linux model.
KDE/Qt programmers are very able programmers.. Just look at the Qt API's for example, remarkable piece of work (It does seem as though Trolltech obfuscates their Qt source code intentionally, perhaps as a semi-abuse of the GPL).
Also look at Gtk+/Gtk--, strong naming conventions, high uniformity and consistency.
Hell, in those regards both Qt and Gtk+ are better than the Linux kernel.
KDE is very very usable. In my oppinion, much moreso than current Windows, though I don't know OS X in order to compare to that.
Or they use your code in order to create something that's compatible with your code, but your code is incompatible with.
Or they simply save resources on developing that code, and can put more resources into the Doc format lockin.
I'd rather OSS contributions were forced open so all could enjoy them. Those who want to create closed software can suffer from the same code duplication and inefficiencies that everyone else suffers of, due to the closed-software practices.
If you don't want your document to be changed by others, why don't you crypto-sign it?
Its not specific to any specific document format or type and requires no extra features/code on the behalf of every program. Ofcourse "Password-protecting yadda yadda yadda" sure sounds good on a feature list of a word processor, even if completely useless.
Not letting your software out at all is not great, but forcing you to give it away is worse.
The thing is, that pragmatically speaking, if no such restrictions are allowed to be made, then people won't simply stop distributing software, they'd simply have to settle for less and give up their control of the users.
Contract law is not equivalent to copyright, because since there's no slavery (mostly:), contracts are always reasonably breakable (and it only takes one to breach the contract, noone else is bound).
GPL depends on copyright law, but it uses copyright law to prevent others from using copyright law for restrictive purposes. That's what I meant by "fighting fire with fire".
The GPL does not force people to give back changes they make. It only disallows people from distributing derivative works under restrictive licensing. One of the effects of this is that to distribute derivative works one must contribute back.
The "GPL world" only uses copyright to enforce the GPL license itself which prohibits any other use of copyright restrictions in regards to anything and everything possible. The "BSD world" allows others to distribute the work or derivative works under restrictive licensing, which uses copyright to restrict others.
Without copyright, there would be no restrictions, which is more similar to the GPL world.
It is not fine to "let others have it but only if they promise to let others have modified versions they produce" since that limits their freedom of actions that are no longer directly connected to you (and no, the GPL does not demand that you distribute any changes you make, it demands that you distribute the source of any changes you already distribute under the same licensing).
For the same reason, it is not fine to limit their freedom to share it with others.
Yes, some contractual conditions should be (IANAL, but I think some are) disallowed.
You can reconstruct some of the copyright restrictions in a contract (if no restrictions are made on what restrictions can be made in a contract), but not all of them. Since there is no longer slavery in most (all?) of the Free world, contracts are always reasonably breakable. Thus, someone can break the contract for a fee (and the limit to this fee is usually set in the law), and your software is out in the open. Easy to see that this is not equivalent to Copyright law.
The choice between only morally acceptable choices is superior to the "more-free" choice between those choices and morally unacceptable choices. Furthermore, nobody should ever choose the morally unacceptable choice except under the most extreme circumstances.
Stallman also believes that Copyrights (at least on software) are no longer a valid concept. Unless you believe that the Status Quo is inherently better than anything else, it is not clear that copyrights indeed maintain a good balance between incentive and restrictions. In the case of software in particular, it seems copyright are being abused against their original purpose (allowing Closed Source/information secrecy rather than encouraging openness and information availability).
If you accept that copyrights are invalid, the issue of the choice is moot - only Free Software is available.
The vast majority of replies here seem to be critics of RMS who try to explain why they disagree with his "extreme position" (while implicitly suggesting that they understand what they're disagreeing with).
It seems that in every single one of those cases, the critics did not really get RMS's point and what he is trying to say.
Most of the questions being raised are actually answered (almost literally) in the documents in the GNU Philosophy documentation.
I'll list some of the common misunderstandings anyways, and answer them as I understand Stallman's approach:
How are we going to make a living? See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument. Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living. Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.
He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software. That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.
Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?
Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.
Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!
Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.
Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.
This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck. It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you. It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.
Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.
Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.
Don't say it as if its such a far-fetched extreme thing.
It is simply the belief that copyright restrictions are no longer justifying their own existence and are becoming too big a burden. GPL is a way for people who oppose copyright to "fight fire with fire". If copyright law is cancelled, all licenses will become irrelevant (almost effectively equivalent to GPL).
"Non-Free Software carries with it an anti-social mechanism to limit sharing and community" (me quoting RMS from memory).
Non-Free software is about limiting the Freedom of users. Stallman believes that people should be free, and that includes copying anything to help their neighbour/etc. This means that anything that attempts to limit this kind of freedom is inherently negative and should be treated as a problem, not a choice.
This "choice", by the way, only exists if copyright restrictions are taken for granted and I for one do not think the burden of copyright restrictions in the digital age justifies itself.
How about: marginalized himself and free software with outrageous statements on software morality, pitted developers against each other (just look at lkml), tried to sabotage Linux in its infancy by encouraging developers to work on the HURD instead, and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
I and many others agree with his views and do not find them outragous or marginal. I find the opposite view outragous, actually. I wouldn't say trying to attract people to work on the Hurd should be considered "sabotage". Its legitimate competition on resources in the Free Software world. And Stallman never tried to take credit for the Linux kernel, or can you find a single instance where he did?
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
Yes, if you create something, you are to do with it as you will with no obligation to give it away. Stallman agrees with this. What Stallman doesn't agree with - is restriction of the actions of people/society with the stuff given to them.
If you give me your creation, then I should be Free to do with it as I will - including copying it to anyone I wish.
To emphasize, Stallman doesn't care if you charge a million dollars for something you create, as long as that something can be redistributed freely.
People (not necessarily me) think Stallman is "some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot", because they can't see why he would disagree with this seemingly obvious assertion,
The disagreement lies in the belief that copyright seems "obvious" to many people since it outdates their birth and has "always been there". Stallman claims, and I agree, that copyright restrictions are an unjustified and unreasonable burden on society in the information age.
Slashdot Mirror
This is yet another act against freedom, and its a serious problem that people become oblivious to freedom, willing to lose "just a bit" here, and "just a bit" there, for all sorts of "worthy causes".
If we are willing to give up "just a bit of freedom" in some of the Closed Software that's used, will we be willing to give up the amount of freedom required in order to apply these measures in Free Software and Free Hardware?
Obviously, to apply these measures to Free Software and Free Hardware, one would have to disallow them altogether.
If currency security can no longer be maintained the old-fashioned way, then lets ditch it. There already are better alternatives. Legislate the use of credit cards to replace cash, for example. Mass-distribute cheap credit card readers, etc.
As expensive a solution as that may be, our freedom is more expensive.
Do you want your freedom taken away from you so your goods won't be purchased with fake money? I don't.
Putting restrictions in software is never appropriate.
Not only because it cannot really work correctly, but because freedom is more important than such anti-crime measures, especially when they're so futile.
In this case, use as in develop with.
1. Linux does not have a clipboard. E.g. you can't: open a doc in a viewer, mark and copy some text, close a viewer, paste the text to an editor.
;-) ) doesn't show a "Start" menu.
:) Anyhow, GNOME probably has Windows L&F themes as well.
"Linux" the Kernel does not have a clipboard. However, the X11 window system has clipboard/selections. Copying/pasting text with the mouse is far simpler in X (and in KDE, specifically) than in Windows. Copying/pasting files is as easy in KDE. Some other objects are copyable between KDE applications, because only KDE (and perhaps) gnome defines the D&D/Clipboard protocols between its applications.
2. I can't close a window just by moving mouse cursor to the upper right corner of a desktop and left-clicking. Linux forces me to aim to the close button accurately.
That's only true of some of the window decorations. Annoying as they are, I use the KStep window decoration which allows exactly this.
You are correct though that the Redmond window decoration that looks like Windows does not behave the same for maximized windows. It is probably a good idea to file a bug/wishlist report for this if you care about the Redmond theme.
3. Win-key (lets just call it the Flag Key if touching anything labeled "Win" is a taboo in Linuxland
The Win-key is by default configured to be a modifier in X. I am quite sure that this can be reconfigured to be a normal key, in which case you can then configure it to be the Panel Menu key.
KDE stuff is not enough for me. So GNOME stuff should offer an optional Windows L&F as well.
Tough
In any case, if the window decoration looks a bit differently, or if a couple of keys are mapped a little differently, it is really not a thwart to producitivity.
His point is that it means that women spent more money on tech, not that they bought more tech.
:)
You do the math
If you want, KDE/Qt have Windows themes (The Redmond theme, iirc).
You can probably find an iconset that's identical to Windows (or perhaps just rip the Windows icon files into a KDE iconset).
Most KDE dialogs are already designed to look like the Windows equivalents, when there's nothing wrong with the Windows ones. Some dialogs/panels are redesigned simply because they are very poor in Windows, or because they don't fit the KDE/GNU/Linux model.
KDE/Qt programmers are very able programmers.. Just look at the Qt API's for example, remarkable piece of work (It does seem as though Trolltech obfuscates their Qt source code intentionally, perhaps as a semi-abuse of the GPL).
Also look at Gtk+/Gtk--, strong naming conventions, high uniformity and consistency.
Hell, in those regards both Qt and Gtk+ are better than the Linux kernel.
KDE is very very usable. In my oppinion, much moreso than current Windows, though I don't know OS X in order to compare to that.
Sure, to edit files slowwwwwly :)
:)
Or use Emacs to get much more work done from every keypress than anything else in the world
I can
I can.
Or they use your code in order to create something that's compatible with your code, but your code is incompatible with.
Or they simply save resources on developing that code, and can put more resources into the Doc format lockin.
I'd rather OSS contributions were forced open so all could enjoy them. Those who want to create closed software can suffer from the same code duplication and inefficiencies that everyone else suffers of, due to the closed-software practices.
If you don't want your document to be changed by others, why don't you crypto-sign it?
Its not specific to any specific document format or type and requires no extra features/code on the behalf of every program. Ofcourse "Password-protecting yadda yadda yadda" sure sounds good on a feature list of a word processor, even if completely useless.
Not letting your software out at all is not great, but forcing you to give it away is worse.
The thing is, that pragmatically speaking, if no such restrictions are allowed to be made, then people won't simply stop distributing software, they'd simply have to settle for less and give up their control of the users.
Contract law is not equivalent to copyright, because since there's no slavery (mostly :), contracts are always reasonably breakable (and it only takes one to breach the contract, noone else is bound).
GPL depends on copyright law, but it uses copyright law to prevent others from using copyright law for restrictive purposes. That's what I meant by "fighting fire with fire".
The GPL does not force people to give back changes they make. It only disallows people from distributing derivative works under restrictive licensing. One of the effects of this is that to distribute derivative works one must contribute back.
The "GPL world" only uses copyright to enforce the GPL license itself which prohibits any other use of copyright restrictions in regards to anything and everything possible.
The "BSD world" allows others to distribute the work or derivative works under restrictive licensing, which uses copyright to restrict others.
Without copyright, there would be no restrictions, which is more similar to the GPL world.
It is not fine to "let others have it but only if they promise to let others have modified versions they produce" since that limits their freedom of actions that are no longer directly connected to you (and no, the GPL does not demand that you distribute any changes you make, it demands that you distribute the source of any changes you already distribute under the same licensing).
For the same reason, it is not fine to limit their freedom to share it with others.
Yes, some contractual conditions should be (IANAL, but I think some are) disallowed.
You can reconstruct some of the copyright restrictions in a contract (if no restrictions are made on what restrictions can be made in a contract), but not all of them. Since there is no longer slavery in most (all?) of the Free world, contracts are always reasonably breakable. Thus, someone can break the contract for a fee (and the limit to this fee is usually set in the law), and your software is out in the open. Easy to see that this is not equivalent to Copyright law.
The choice between only morally acceptable choices is superior to the "more-free" choice between those choices and morally unacceptable choices. Furthermore, nobody should ever choose the morally unacceptable choice except under the most extreme circumstances.
Stallman also believes that Copyrights (at least on software) are no longer a valid concept. Unless you believe that the Status Quo is inherently better than anything else, it is not clear that copyrights indeed maintain a good balance between incentive and restrictions. In the case of software in particular, it seems copyright are being abused against their original purpose (allowing Closed Source/information secrecy rather than encouraging openness and information availability).
If you accept that copyrights are invalid, the issue of the choice is moot - only Free Software is available.
It seems that in every single one of those cases, the critics did not really get RMS's point and what he is trying to say.
Most of the questions being raised are actually answered (almost literally) in the documents in the GNU Philosophy documentation.
I'll list some of the common misunderstandings anyways, and answer them as I understand Stallman's approach:
How are we going to make a living?
See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics argument.
Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living.
Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.
He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software.
That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.
Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?
Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.
Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!
Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.
Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.
This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck.
It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you.
It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.
Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.
Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.
Don't say it as if its such a far-fetched extreme thing.
It is simply the belief that copyright restrictions are no longer justifying their own existence and are becoming too big a burden. GPL is a way for people who oppose copyright to "fight fire with fire". If copyright law is cancelled, all licenses will become irrelevant (almost effectively equivalent to GPL).
"Non-Free Software carries with it an anti-social mechanism to limit sharing and community" (me quoting RMS from memory).
Non-Free software is about limiting the Freedom of users. Stallman believes that people should be free, and that includes copying anything to help their neighbour/etc. This means that anything that attempts to limit this kind of freedom is inherently negative and should be treated as a problem, not a choice.
This "choice", by the way, only exists if copyright restrictions are taken for granted and I for one do not think the burden of copyright restrictions in the digital age justifies itself.
How about: marginalized himself and free software with outrageous statements on software morality, pitted developers against each other (just look at lkml), tried to sabotage Linux in its infancy by encouraging developers to work on the HURD instead, and then tried to claim credit for Linux once it was obviously successful.
I and many others agree with his views and do not find them outragous or marginal. I find the opposite view outragous, actually.
I wouldn't say trying to attract people to work on the Hurd should be considered "sabotage". Its legitimate competition on resources in the Free Software world.
And Stallman never tried to take credit for the Linux kernel, or can you find a single instance where he did?
Unfortunatly, DRM-hardware might be legislated right down everyone's throats.
Emacs is an operating system :)
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
Yes, if you create something, you are to do with it as you will with no obligation to give it away. Stallman agrees with this. What Stallman doesn't agree with - is restriction of the actions of people/society with the stuff given to them.
If you give me your creation, then I should be Free to do with it as I will - including copying it to anyone I wish.
To emphasize, Stallman doesn't care if you charge a million dollars for something you create, as long as that something can be redistributed freely.
People (not necessarily me) think Stallman is "some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot", because they can't see why he would disagree with this seemingly obvious assertion,
The disagreement lies in the belief that copyright seems "obvious" to many people since it outdates their birth and has "always been there". Stallman claims, and I agree, that copyright restrictions are an unjustified and unreasonable burden on society in the information age.