As other posters have pointed out, once something is online, it's not private anymore. Complaining about the 'privacy concerns' of this software bugs me, because it's a distraction from real privacy issues.
Reminds of the Libertarian Party (of which I am, unhappily, a member) - seriously complaining about trivial issues means that people will trivialize your complaints about serious issues.
In the New Testament book of Galatians (especially chapter 3) Paul makes it clear that the new teaching supersedes the old. For that matter, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 - 7) Jesus starts a number of sections with "You have heard it said..." and quotes the Old Testament, then continues with "But I tell you..." and changes the rules. For example: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
(That one seems apt for the discussion at hand.)
It's worth pointing out that many Christians (such as myself) take the Bible seriously, are serious about our faith, and at the same time do not condone abusing non-Christians, have no problem with accepting evolution, and aren't particularly fond of the religious right. There is no conflict here between any of these beliefs, either. My faith is in Jesus - not in Creationism or Republicanism or Fundamentalism.
I see people complaining that he shouldn't have done this on a laptop - the hardware is too weird on laptops for the test to be meaningful. Maybe so, but my first Linux install was on a laptop (Fedora on a Toshiba, which I'm using to write this post). I haven't owned a desktop in years, and don't care about them. Having him test Vista on a laptop actually tells me something - that it's probably easier to install Linux from scratch than it is to install Windows from scratch.
Of course, this isn't really news. The reality is that Windows has always been harder to install from scratch than most other OSes, but this doesn't matter to Microsoft because most people will get Vista by purchasing a new computer. (This applies to both desktops and laptops, but it's worse on laptops.)
Um, because English has been around longer than Esperanto? So this is a horrible analogy, since Hurd has been around longer the Linux. Please try again.
Once a technological approach hits a certain number of users, it becomes really difficult to change to a completely different thing.
The most obvious example I can think of is writing. Using syllabaries or ideograms is clearly not as good a technology as using an alphabet. The learning curve is vastly worse, the total number of symbols that must be memorized is orders of magnitude higher, etc., etc.
And yet a pretty high percentage of people in the world today read and write in languages that do not use alphabetic writing. Japanese or Cantonese readers/writers are not going to switch to an alphabet anytime soon, despite its many advantages, because of the sheer cultural and historical weight behind their current approach.
I don't know if we're at that point with computer interfaces yet, but the longer we go the harder it is going to be to get people away from GUIs using WIMP. Even non-PC tools now use this metaphor for UI - for example, your cell phone probably has some basic WIMP approach. If some 'innovative' new 3D tool just makes this prettier, well, that will be nice, but it won't really change anything much. If it really changes things, it may not succeed even if it's a clearly better technology, because so many people are getting locked into our current approach.
I can't help but notice that this kind of inertia is what keeps IT shops from migrating to Linux. It's clearly a vastly superior tool in every way to Windows. Ten years ago the switch might have been easier, if Linux had been readier. But now, IT is much more tightly coupled into corporate infrastructures, and there is a lot more inertia to be overcome for such a dramatic change. (Even if the change is for the better.)
One thing that technology geeks like us forget is that, for almost everyone else, the technology is just a tool, not an end in itself. It has to fit into the overall picture. Changing something (office suite, operating system, interface approach, whatever) is really tough for most people, even if the end result is that the change is for the better. Us geeks think that change (buzzword: 'innovation') is automatically good, but for most people it is automatically bad. The change has provide something so vastly better in their opinion that they will put up with change.
For all you who don't like how Linus is handling this, hey fork the code, start your own development.
Maybe his phrasing was a bit harsh, but remember that he is not just a developer - he really plays the role of Project Manager here, and sometimes the PM has to send a wakeup call. That's what this sounds like. Not that big a deal.
Think about all the failed FOSS projects where nobody did this - UserLinux and Hurd spring to mind. (Now for some posts telling me that Hurd isn't a failure, even though it's not production-ready after what, 16 years now?) Makes you kind of glad Linus is managing this thing.
1) In organizations where security/privacy is mandated (due to HIPAA, SOX, and other legislation) I expect the ISOs (Information Security Officers) will begin prohibiting the use of audio CDs in PCs. This will probably help Sony's competitor Apple more than it will help Sony, because it will drive iPod sales.
2) Here's a link where you can communicate to Sony how you feel about the rootkit situation.
I used this link to send the following to Sony:
I want you know that I will never purchase any Sony product again until: a) the VP who approved your rootkit is fired; and b) Sony promises not to do anything like this again.
I have never pirated a CD, and I use Linux (so this rootkit would not affect me), but you have effectively declared war on your customers. So, I will refuse to be one of your customers from now on.
I am giving you this feedback because I wanted you know why I am boycotting you. I believe that Sony should be accountable for its actions.
I didn't submit this anonymously. Here is the email reply they sent me (pretty much a form letter):
Thanks for visiting Sony Music Online and for your feedback. We appreciate (and encourage) all suggestions and comments.
As you can imagine, we receive quite a few email messages every day. While we would like to respond to each of them individually, we often do not have the time and resources to do so. Be assured that I will pass your comments on to the parties most responsible for dealing with them.
Have you checked out our FAQ page? Perhaps you will be able to find the answer to your questions there:
http://www.sonymusic.com/help/faq/
Thanks again for your note and the time spent on Sony Music Online.
The most helpful thing about the faq was seeing which record labels are Sony. Unfortunately, Columbia Records is one of them - so I won't be buying the new System of A Down album when it comes out in a couple of weeks. That hurts, but in good conscience I just can't do business with Sony.
If people buy Sony products in spite of this, Sony wins. So, no System CD for me, no PS3 for you gamers, no Vaio for you Mac-wannabes, etc. Don't just complain - let them know why you're boycotting, then actually do it.
Thnaks to all teh braev suols who wer willign to bern kamra to piont out teh diferense btween "immanent" and "imminent". Othrewise we all wuold haev to RFTA and haev a maeningful dicsussion. Tihs is Slasdhot, and we ca'nt haev taht heer! (Stewpid atricles!)
I wonder whether RMS believes that renting is unethical? When you buy proprietary software, it's much closer to a rental agreement than to a transfer of ownership. So, open source (or 'free' to use RMS's preferred nomenclature) has an advantage in that you own the software once you obtain it. But calling proprietary software unethical always troubles me. Is it unethical for me to rent an apartment? If I willingly enter into an agreement with a software vendor, why is it up to RMS to decide whether it was free or not? Freedom is being able to choose - RMS wants to take that away.
I believe that one of the reasons that Open Source is winning the terminology war with FSF is because it actually supports more freedom, while pointing out the real benefits of this model.
Well, it was actually Hegel who first talked about History (capital 'H') being driven by the dialectic, not Marx. Many non-Marxists have used this approach - theologian Paul Tillich, for example, used the dialectic to explain church history. Marx adapted it to his theories, but did not invent it.
Disclaimer - I don't see much value in the dialectic approach - I just wanted to point out that using doesn't make someone a Marxist.
I have registered a domain. Just about the only spam I get is actually for two e-mail addresses posted on the main page of my website - webmaster@(domain) and list@(domain) I think that, once or twice, I've received spam at (nonexistent)@(domain), but very rarely.
(Given the volumes everyone is talking about here, I'm not too excited about actually putting those addresses here!)
I have another email address that I use for the various mailing lists, and don't get any spam there. I have a Yahoo account for online purchases, and get some spam there, but not much, and I don't get any in my work account.
I'm glad that, at least so far, I'm not one of the people getting 300 spams a day. Whew. My sympathies.
Good answer - well stated. I think you clarify the point well. Of course, I have spent time on the FSF website, and have read RMS essays on the subject, and I still disagree with him (and you).
I guess part of the problem is that there is no 'free' (as in beer) software, so I don't believe that all 'knowledge should be free to anyone', to quote you. (For that matter, there is no free beer either - someone carries the cost, even if you don't.) There is a cost in creating anything, so I believe that the person that created the software should be able to do with it as they wish - I prefer that they open source it, because I think everyone benefits (including them), but I believe that freedom means letting people make bad choices. If you want software that does the same thing, and the creator doesn't want to share, put in the same work and make it for yourself or be willing to pay what they ask. I don't believe that you have any right to the fruits of their labor except what they grant you. That's the free (as in speech) market. By the way, free speech, the favorite analogy of the FSF, does not mean you are free to appropriate other people's words. It means that you are free to create your own. We already have that in software - otherwise RMS would not have been free to create the GNU tools.
One of the common complaints about the term 'free software' is the confusion between 'gratis' and 'libre'. Maybe a bigger issue within the 'libre' side is the confusion between libertarian and communitarian definitions of freedom. (Before anyone freaks out here, 'communitarian' does not mean the same thing as 'communist'.) I am primarily looking at the individual (including those developers that don't share) and you are primarily looking at the community (where individual freedoms are less valued than perceived benefits to the community).
One of the problems with RMS (and the FSF) is that they don't seem to understand what a computer is. It's not some kind of 'freedom machine' and it isn't a political issue. It's a tool, used to do a job (or jobs). RMS has stated on numerous occasions that it is always unethical to use non-free software (except when he does it to develop GNU, of course). There are many problems with this statement, but a big one is that he doesn't understand why people own computers in the first place.
So, here's a real-life example: I bought my first computer for use in music, and that is still my primary use (outside of work). There isn't much free (or open source) pro-quality music software. According to RMS, this means that I simply shouldn't do music on my PC, because I sacrifice my freedom when I use proprietary software. This just demonstrates that he either doesn't know what freedom is, or doesn't know what a computer is. How is it more free for me to not get the job done? There are times when you should sacrifice your freedom in service of a moral principle, (for example, not buying slave-produced chocolate), but this one doesn't make sense. I shouldn't use any software to do the job because none of it is as free as RMS says it should be?
I think that the real problem is that RMS has some transcendent view of computers that doesn't have much to do with what they really are for most people. ESR (and OSI) seem to understand this - people use computers to get the job done. Whatever gets the job done best is what creates the most freedom. ('Best' is a word that can vary from user to user - most reliable, cheapest, easiest to use, etc.) Open source is a vastly better engineering model, and that is its primary benefit. (I hope some serious open source music apps start happening!)
One of the other problems with RMS is that he thinks that if two parties enter into a mutually agreeable relationship, it is only ethical and free if it meets his requirements, instead of their own. If I choose to purchase crappy software from MS and agree to their EULA it may be dumb, but why is it unfree? The real freedom occurs when I select the product - I can choose OSS or proprietary. If RMS has his way I will be less free, because I will only be able to select OSS software.
Final disclaimer: while I disagree with RMS about many things, I do not intend any disrespect to him. The creation of the GPL (and many of the GNU tools) demonstrate his brilliance, and, while I think his principles are wrong, I must admit (and admire) the fact that he sticks with them. I would never suggest that he abandon principle, just that he rethink the ones to which he is committed. Hint to/.ers: it's possible to strongly disagree with him without denigrating him as a human being.
Unlike you however, rms actually thought about the future.
Well, no, actually, just like me rms used proprietary software to do the things he needed to do when there wasn't any free software to do it. He used proprietary systems to begin developing GNU. Why is it okay for him to go proprietary, but unethical when I do it? For that matter, if I create music today using proprietary software, how is that ignoring the future? I should just wait and create computer-based music in the future once the FOSS tools catch up? I would prefer to use them, except, oops, they don't exist yet. So, if I follow you correctly, thinking about the future means not making music in the present. Yep, I'm going to continue ignoring the future (and looking for FOSS pro-quality music software in the meantime!).
Are you really comparing software producers to the pharoahs? Linus is a pharoah? The pharoahs were exploiting Moses' people by forcing them into a relationship (slavery) that was against their will. With software, I can choose to use it or not. If you deny this, and say, for example, that MS forces me into a relationship against my will, then the battle is already lost. The very fact that rms says that we can choose not to use proprietary software means that we are not forced to use it.
So, 'freedom' to rms does not mean that he is freeing me from an oppresive relationship. It means that he is imposing his own restrictions on the relationships that I can have with third parties. It means that he believes that he has the right to condemn the relationship between other parties (consumers and producers) even when that relationship is mutually satisfactory to them. Within the FOSS movement, the only ones trying to limit my freedom and choices are rms and his followers. OSI is trying to give me a better alternative.
To simplify massively there are three principle models for this relationship these days:
1) Microsoft's model - all the power is in the hands of the producer, and the consumer is powerless and ignored. Producers - free, consumers - not free.
2) rms' ideal 'ethical' model - all the power is in the hands of the consumer. The producer has no rights whatsoever once the fruit of his work is released - they are prohibited from any but the most basic relationship with their consumers. Producers - not free, consumers - free.
3) Open Source - it is almost always in the interest of both consumer and producer to work cooperatively. Both parties are free to choose what kind of relationship they are willing to have with each other. If a producer does not wish to make free software, they are not required to. If a consumer wishes to use proprietary software, they are free to do so. But it is almost always in both parties interest to use free models. Everybody - free.
If you think that maximizing freedom is the top ethical priority, which of these creates the greatest freedom? I vote for number three.
I respect rms, and believe that he has done some very important things for the software world (creating the GPL is at the top of a long list). But his ideals are only slightly about 'freedom' and his constant questioning of everyone else's ethics is tiring. He cares about the freedom of the consumer, but not the producer - he wants to force producers of software to play by his rules.
The Open Source movement, for all that rms flames their ethics, is actually much more concerned with freedom - they try to support the freedom of software consumers, but recognize that software producers should be able to do what they want with their creations, including keeping the source to themselves (dumb as that may be technically).
Personally, I prefer Open Source for technological reasons, but at this point there are things that I cannot do with it (pro-quality music apps are lacking at this point, for example). Would it really be more free for me to not use my computer for these things because GPL software isn't available yet? Some of you will now suggest that I write these programs myself - is it more free for me to spend time on that rather than just using programs that already exist?
What the FSF people forget (and the OSI seems to remember) is that, for non-programmers, computers are tools, used to accomplish a job (other than programming). Comparisons to free speech vs. free beer miss the point. Does rms believe we should all have free hammers?
Slashdot Mirror
As other posters have pointed out, once something is online, it's not private anymore. Complaining about the 'privacy concerns' of this software bugs me, because it's a distraction from real privacy issues.
Reminds of the Libertarian Party (of which I am, unhappily, a member) - seriously complaining about trivial issues means that people will trivialize your complaints about serious issues.
In the New Testament book of Galatians (especially chapter 3) Paul makes it clear that the new teaching supersedes the old. For that matter, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 - 7) Jesus starts a number of sections with "You have heard it said..." and quotes the Old Testament, then continues with "But I tell you..." and changes the rules. For example:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
(That one seems apt for the discussion at hand.)
It's worth pointing out that many Christians (such as myself) take the Bible seriously, are serious about our faith, and at the same time do not condone abusing non-Christians, have no problem with accepting evolution, and aren't particularly fond of the religious right. There is no conflict here between any of these beliefs, either. My faith is in Jesus - not in Creationism or Republicanism or Fundamentalism.
As a shallow humanist, I believe getting us off this planet is inherently right.
(By the way, what is a 'deep ecologist'? Do you mean 'serious environmentalist', 'Underwater ecology scientist', or what?)
I see people complaining that he shouldn't have done this on a laptop - the hardware is too weird on laptops for the test to be meaningful. Maybe so, but my first Linux install was on a laptop (Fedora on a Toshiba, which I'm using to write this post). I haven't owned a desktop in years, and don't care about them. Having him test Vista on a laptop actually tells me something - that it's probably easier to install Linux from scratch than it is to install Windows from scratch.
Of course, this isn't really news. The reality is that Windows has always been harder to install from scratch than most other OSes, but this doesn't matter to Microsoft because most people will get Vista by purchasing a new computer. (This applies to both desktops and laptops, but it's worse on laptops.)
Um, because English has been around longer than Esperanto? So this is a horrible analogy, since Hurd has been around longer the Linux. Please try again.
Since my desktop is gnome, I'm with him. (Hotmail would just be really weird there...)
In Soviet Russia, our new insect overlords welcome you, but do they run linux?
The most obvious example I can think of is writing. Using syllabaries or ideograms is clearly not as good a technology as using an alphabet. The learning curve is vastly worse, the total number of symbols that must be memorized is orders of magnitude higher, etc., etc.
And yet a pretty high percentage of people in the world today read and write in languages that do not use alphabetic writing. Japanese or Cantonese readers/writers are not going to switch to an alphabet anytime soon, despite its many advantages, because of the sheer cultural and historical weight behind their current approach.
I don't know if we're at that point with computer interfaces yet, but the longer we go the harder it is going to be to get people away from GUIs using WIMP. Even non-PC tools now use this metaphor for UI - for example, your cell phone probably has some basic WIMP approach. If some 'innovative' new 3D tool just makes this prettier, well, that will be nice, but it won't really change anything much. If it really changes things, it may not succeed even if it's a clearly better technology, because so many people are getting locked into our current approach.
I can't help but notice that this kind of inertia is what keeps IT shops from migrating to Linux. It's clearly a vastly superior tool in every way to Windows. Ten years ago the switch might have been easier, if Linux had been readier. But now, IT is much more tightly coupled into corporate infrastructures, and there is a lot more inertia to be overcome for such a dramatic change. (Even if the change is for the better.)
One thing that technology geeks like us forget is that, for almost everyone else, the technology is just a tool, not an end in itself. It has to fit into the overall picture. Changing something (office suite, operating system, interface approach, whatever) is really tough for most people, even if the end result is that the change is for the better. Us geeks think that change (buzzword: 'innovation') is automatically good, but for most people it is automatically bad. The change has provide something so vastly better in their opinion that they will put up with change.
For all you who don't like how Linus is handling this, hey fork the code, start your own development.
Maybe his phrasing was a bit harsh, but remember that he is not just a developer - he really plays the role of Project Manager here, and sometimes the PM has to send a wakeup call. That's what this sounds like. Not that big a deal.
Think about all the failed FOSS projects where nobody did this - UserLinux and Hurd spring to mind. (Now for some posts telling me that Hurd isn't a failure, even though it's not production-ready after what, 16 years now?) Makes you kind of glad Linus is managing this thing.
2) Here's a link where you can communicate to Sony how you feel about the rootkit situation. I used this link to send the following to Sony: I didn't submit this anonymously. Here is the email reply they sent me (pretty much a form letter): The most helpful thing about the faq was seeing which record labels are Sony. Unfortunately, Columbia Records is one of them - so I won't be buying the new System of A Down album when it comes out in a couple of weeks. That hurts, but in good conscience I just can't do business with Sony. If people buy Sony products in spite of this, Sony wins. So, no System CD for me, no PS3 for you gamers, no Vaio for you Mac-wannabes, etc. Don't just complain - let them know why you're boycotting, then actually do it.
Thnaks to all teh braev suols who wer willign to bern kamra to piont out teh diferense btween "immanent" and "imminent". Othrewise we all wuold haev to RFTA and haev a maeningful dicsussion. Tihs is Slasdhot, and we ca'nt haev taht heer! (Stewpid atricles!)
I believe that one of the reasons that Open Source is winning the terminology war with FSF is because it actually supports more freedom, while pointing out the real benefits of this model.
Disclaimer - I don't see much value in the dialectic approach - I just wanted to point out that using doesn't make someone a Marxist.
(Given the volumes everyone is talking about here, I'm not too excited about actually putting those addresses here!)
I have another email address that I use for the various mailing lists, and don't get any spam there. I have a Yahoo account for online purchases, and get some spam there, but not much, and I don't get any in my work account.
I'm glad that, at least so far, I'm not one of the people getting 300 spams a day. Whew. My sympathies.
I guess part of the problem is that there is no 'free' (as in beer) software, so I don't believe that all 'knowledge should be free to anyone', to quote you. (For that matter, there is no free beer either - someone carries the cost, even if you don't.) There is a cost in creating anything, so I believe that the person that created the software should be able to do with it as they wish - I prefer that they open source it, because I think everyone benefits (including them), but I believe that freedom means letting people make bad choices. If you want software that does the same thing, and the creator doesn't want to share, put in the same work and make it for yourself or be willing to pay what they ask. I don't believe that you have any right to the fruits of their labor except what they grant you. That's the free (as in speech) market. By the way, free speech, the favorite analogy of the FSF, does not mean you are free to appropriate other people's words. It means that you are free to create your own. We already have that in software - otherwise RMS would not have been free to create the GNU tools.
One of the common complaints about the term 'free software' is the confusion between 'gratis' and 'libre'. Maybe a bigger issue within the 'libre' side is the confusion between libertarian and communitarian definitions of freedom. (Before anyone freaks out here, 'communitarian' does not mean the same thing as 'communist'.) I am primarily looking at the individual (including those developers that don't share) and you are primarily looking at the community (where individual freedoms are less valued than perceived benefits to the community).
So, here's a real-life example: I bought my first computer for use in music, and that is still my primary use (outside of work). There isn't much free (or open source) pro-quality music software. According to RMS, this means that I simply shouldn't do music on my PC, because I sacrifice my freedom when I use proprietary software. This just demonstrates that he either doesn't know what freedom is, or doesn't know what a computer is. How is it more free for me to not get the job done? There are times when you should sacrifice your freedom in service of a moral principle, (for example, not buying slave-produced chocolate), but this one doesn't make sense. I shouldn't use any software to do the job because none of it is as free as RMS says it should be?
I think that the real problem is that RMS has some transcendent view of computers that doesn't have much to do with what they really are for most people. ESR (and OSI) seem to understand this - people use computers to get the job done. Whatever gets the job done best is what creates the most freedom. ('Best' is a word that can vary from user to user - most reliable, cheapest, easiest to use, etc.) Open source is a vastly better engineering model, and that is its primary benefit. (I hope some serious open source music apps start happening!)
One of the other problems with RMS is that he thinks that if two parties enter into a mutually agreeable relationship, it is only ethical and free if it meets his requirements, instead of their own. If I choose to purchase crappy software from MS and agree to their EULA it may be dumb, but why is it unfree? The real freedom occurs when I select the product - I can choose OSS or proprietary. If RMS has his way I will be less free, because I will only be able to select OSS software.
Final disclaimer: while I disagree with RMS about many things, I do not intend any disrespect to him. The creation of the GPL (and many of the GNU tools) demonstrate his brilliance, and, while I think his principles are wrong, I must admit (and admire) the fact that he sticks with them. I would never suggest that he abandon principle, just that he rethink the ones to which he is committed. Hint to /.ers: it's possible to strongly disagree with him without denigrating him as a human being.
Well, no, actually, just like me rms used proprietary software to do the things he needed to do when there wasn't any free software to do it. He used proprietary systems to begin developing GNU. Why is it okay for him to go proprietary, but unethical when I do it? For that matter, if I create music today using proprietary software, how is that ignoring the future? I should just wait and create computer-based music in the future once the FOSS tools catch up? I would prefer to use them, except, oops, they don't exist yet. So, if I follow you correctly, thinking about the future means not making music in the present. Yep, I'm going to continue ignoring the future (and looking for FOSS pro-quality music software in the meantime!).
So, 'freedom' to rms does not mean that he is freeing me from an oppresive relationship. It means that he is imposing his own restrictions on the relationships that I can have with third parties. It means that he believes that he has the right to condemn the relationship between other parties (consumers and producers) even when that relationship is mutually satisfactory to them. Within the FOSS movement, the only ones trying to limit my freedom and choices are rms and his followers. OSI is trying to give me a better alternative.
To simplify massively there are three principle models for this relationship these days:
1) Microsoft's model - all the power is in the hands of the producer, and the consumer is powerless and ignored. Producers - free, consumers - not free.
2) rms' ideal 'ethical' model - all the power is in the hands of the consumer. The producer has no rights whatsoever once the fruit of his work is released - they are prohibited from any but the most basic relationship with their consumers. Producers - not free, consumers - free.
3) Open Source - it is almost always in the interest of both consumer and producer to work cooperatively. Both parties are free to choose what kind of relationship they are willing to have with each other. If a producer does not wish to make free software, they are not required to. If a consumer wishes to use proprietary software, they are free to do so. But it is almost always in both parties interest to use free models. Everybody - free.
If you think that maximizing freedom is the top ethical priority, which of these creates the greatest freedom? I vote for number three.
I respect rms, and believe that he has done some very important things for the software world (creating the GPL is at the top of a long list). But his ideals are only slightly about 'freedom' and his constant questioning of everyone else's ethics is tiring. He cares about the freedom of the consumer, but not the producer - he wants to force producers of software to play by his rules. The Open Source movement, for all that rms flames their ethics, is actually much more concerned with freedom - they try to support the freedom of software consumers, but recognize that software producers should be able to do what they want with their creations, including keeping the source to themselves (dumb as that may be technically). Personally, I prefer Open Source for technological reasons, but at this point there are things that I cannot do with it (pro-quality music apps are lacking at this point, for example). Would it really be more free for me to not use my computer for these things because GPL software isn't available yet? Some of you will now suggest that I write these programs myself - is it more free for me to spend time on that rather than just using programs that already exist? What the FSF people forget (and the OSI seems to remember) is that, for non-programmers, computers are tools, used to accomplish a job (other than programming). Comparisons to free speech vs. free beer miss the point. Does rms believe we should all have free hammers?