Slashdot Log In
RMS Says Free Software Is Good
from the and-mundie-is-wrong dept.
NYU Information Systems chairman Mike Uretsky and NYU computer science professor Edmond Schonberg briefly introduced Stallman to a standing-room-only crowd at NYU's Courant Mathematical Institute.
Stallman drew laughter and applause during Uretsky's introduction by calling out "I do Free software, Open Source is a different crowd" when Uretsky made a reference to Open Source software. Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal of Mundie's speech advocating Microsoft's current "shared source" initiative, Stallman's speech presented both an overview of the Free software movement -- several times emphasizing how it differs from the more pragmatic Open Source movement -- and a defense of Free software at several levels. Though peppered with jokes and historical asides, the bulk of Stallman's talk was devoted to explaining the benefits of Free software and comparing community-based, non-proprietary software development to the "deliberately inflicted waste" of proprietary software.
The publicity that Mundie's speech has stirred up around software licensing is obviously not forgotten, though. Stallman began by saying "I'd like to thank Microsoft for providng me the opportunity to use this platform. For the last few weeks I've felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere, but all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because Microsoft describes our license as an 'Open Source' license." Stallman emphasized at several points that the approach he and GNU project have is at its core philosophical, not merely pragmatic.
Beginning with cooking rather than computers, Stallman pointed out the advantages of being able to share functional documents in the form of recipes. He pointed that while nearly everyone cooks, "unless you're great, you probably use recipes. You've probably had the experience of getting a recipe from a friend -- and unless you're a total neophyte, you probably have also had the experience of changing the recipe. If you've made changes and you make it for your friends, and they like it, you can write down your changes for them." Imagine, he said, if recipes were packaged in black boxes, unavailable for inspection.
Stallman named the qualities he uses to define Free software. He began with "freedom zero" -- the freedom to run the software for any purpose -- noting, "If you're not even free to run the software for anything you want, it's a pretty damn restrictive license."
He went on to describe three additional freedoms which distinguish Free from proprietary software: the right to change software to suit user needs; to redistribute the software; and to publish improved versions.
These freedoms are absent in proprietary software, Stallman said, and cited what he said was his first taste to the evils of non-disclosure statements, which took place while he was working as an operating system developer at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Stallman knew of a computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University with a copy of the Xerox source, and asked for a copy in order to add this feature. He found his request was denied, because his fellow academic had signed a non-disclosure agreement.
"He had refused to cooperate with just about the the entire population of the planet Earth, because he had signed an non-disclosure agreement. This was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim -- my lab and I were the victims. The lesson it taught me is that NDAs have victims, they aren't harmless."
Toward the close of his speech, Stallman pointedly applied the advantages of Free software to businesses, giving examples of ways in which a community of more than 100,000 developers leads to more robust and maintainable software, all issues of price aside.
Describing his experiences after releasing GNU-Emacs in 1984, Stallman said "I got a msg that said 'I think I saw a bug, and here's a fix.'" Others emailed him with new feature requests and bug reports, and in many cases, the code to implement an improved version, "until they were pouring in on my so fast that just making use of the information I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem."
The iterative, inclusive software development process resulted in constantly improving code for the GNU Project's various pieces of software, said Stallman. "What people began to note around 1990 was that our SW was better -- it was more powerful than the proprietary alternatives."
Since that time (before the Linux kernel was developed and employed alongside many GNU utilities), Free and Open Source software has increased dramatically in use and public acceptance.
Citing the large number of companies now paying to develop Free software, and that the majority of pages on the World Wide Web are served with Apache running on GNU/Linux systems, Stallman scoffed at claims that the GPL was unfriendly to business. "Microsoft says that busineses can't get along with the GPL. So if businesses don't include IBM, and HP, and Sun, then maybe they're right."
Addressing one persistent myth, Stallman said "It's not true, sometimes I wish it was true, that if a company uses GPL in any project, that the whole project has to be GPLd. If programs operate at arms' length from each other, then they're legally separate, in general."
Again, though, Stallman was careful to point out that the advantages and intent of Free software had more to do with ethics and social good in a variety of fields than any particular bottom line. Closed software, he said, "causes psychosocial harm which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation. Progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. Nowadays you see scientists act as if they're in gangs at war with other little gangs of scientists ... we're all held back." And not just scientists -- of anyone who uses computers in the workplace, Stallman said that in the absence of a broad right to modify and improve the software they use, "Their lives and jobs are going to be frustrating -- people protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. When this happens, it's bad for those people and for society as a whole."
Re:RMS misunderstood the argument (Score:5)
The argument was indeed that. Read it straight from Microsoft [microsoft.com]:
Borg meets virus: GPL as a disruptive technology (Score:5)
A new product or service that disrupts an industry and eventually wins most of the market share.
The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in 1997 to describe new technical inventions that distrupt the established industries and economic patterns and cause existing, dominating companies to be replaced by new players based on the new inventions. Yet the distruptive inventions do not have to be technical. Can the GNU GPL, a 12-year-old software license and a hack on the copyright law, also be called a distruptive technology? It seems so. Microsoft is the most successful example of the proprietary software business model and dominates today's software market. Microsoft's recent attack on the GPL shows the attempt of an established player to try to suppress something new, up and coming. Except this time, the new player does not play by the rules. Instead, through viral-like propagation properties, the GPL establishes a new social model where software is passed freely and shared. The GPL distrupts the proprietary business model by social engineering, building a new way of life based on freedom and cooperation. Microsoft can assimilate anything following the proprietary business model but will have problem dealing with the social model of Free Software.
As the GPLed software domain further expands, the proprietary business model is graduately pushed aside. How will the Borg assimilate the virus inherently incompatible with the Borg's nature? Will the virus distrupt and ultimately destory the Borg?
RMS's comments on Ransom Love (Score:5)
Everyone knew that RMS was going to be critical of Microsoft, but I personally didn't expect him to lay into Ransom Love.
Here's how eWeek [zdnet.com] is reporting it. To whet your appetite here's a direct quote from the article:
Re:RMS misunderstood the argument (Score:3)
This only works when dealing with B2B contracts. The model falls flat any time you try to live off of service fees in a B2C relationship,
IBM makes tons of money with B2B support contracts and consulting. That's where RedHat makes a lot of their money too. The software needs of a business is much different than the needs of Joe Sixpack. Because of this, they hire someone to create custom solutions that never leave the business. This is done by B2B consulting firms and/or in house developers (most of the programmers in the world fall into this category). This is the market where using free software and selling service (support, customization, training, etc.) has a lot of potential. Businesses are willing to pay for this sort of service. Just ask any SAP or PeopleSoft consultant.
Microsoft's "Software as a service" model is probably more accurately described as the "Your data is our hostage" model. You pay the ransom, and you get to use your data until the subscription runs out. Then you pay again. They're going to this because the biggest obstacle to keeping sales revenue up is the perception by their customers that the version of the software they currently use is good enough for what they need it for.
Re:RMS's comments on Ransom Love (Score:3)
This is in response to a quote from Ransom Love in Mundie's speech, where Love was expressing doubts about the use of open source. Of course Ransom Love (whom I agree is pretty much a waste of flesh) isn't making a whole lot of money selling GPL'd software; the advantages of GPL'd software go primarily to the users of such software, not to the purveyors of it. In that sense, Ransom Love is a lot closer to the Microsoft viewpoint than the RMS viewpoint.
No company will become Microsoft-sized based on GPL'd software. It remains to be seen if the GPL will support even a Caldera-sized company. But the GPL allows software innovation to come from the grassroots users rather than from Microsoft on high, and in the end GPL'd software will provide more of what users want.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:Of Course it is Good! (Score:4)
A Haiku (Score:5)
RMS: Free Software Good,
Dog Bites Man, Sky Blue
--
OT: your nick (Score:3)
RMS understood the argument pretty well. (Score:4)
The question isn't: why would a company in the business of producing proprietary software embrace GPL? Self evidently, they cannot, except in a limited way.
It isn't from the perspective of the would be future Microsofts, but of the GMs and Citibanks of the world. The question is -- why would you pay millions of dollars for the privilege of having your precious IP converted and stored in a secret format that you have no rights to and for which you may be forced to pay tribute if you wish to have future access to?
I'm pretty neutral on the Free/proprietary software issue. I think free software is great, but if propietary developers can deliver enough added value to justify their existence -- fine. However, from my fairly neutral vantage point, it is very clear that Microsoft's argument is essentially circular: In a nutshell, they say we need proprietary software because proprietary software developers can't live without it.
My own view is that proprietary software is like any other monopoly -- useful when it attracts investment to areas of high risk or of public interest but limited profitability. Otherwise it serves no useful function. For that reason, I would like to see a situation where all source code is automatically licensed without restrictions to buyers after a limited period, perhaps seven years. If you can't innovate enough in seven years to justify your ongoing existence, you should go away and do something else. This would, not coincidentally, allow users unfettered access to their legacy documents. Many a group has discovered the futility of trying to read an MSBACKUP file with a later version of MSBACKUP.
Re:GPL is as disruptive as cold sore virus (Score:3)
The world got along just fine without Ip for thousands of years. IP is a recent invention. Somehow we got relativity, calculus, fire. wheel automobiles, airplanes, steam engines and the corron gin despite the lack of IP laws.
No you can not resell your software go read your license sometime.
Adam Smith is the most misquoted, least understood person in the history of mankind. If he knew the kind shit that was being shoveled in his name he would haunt you and you progeny for generations to come. Not only that but his understanding of ecosystems and scientific principles is from a couple of centuries ago. I would not let a doctor treat me by using medical techniques from the 18th century so why would I let some politician or economist handle my country using principles from them. We have learned a whole lot since the then my friend.
Re:Where are these so-called zingers? (Score:3)
Maybe someone needs to explain to RMS that not all recipes are available to public inspection. See: Coca-Cola formula, KFC seven herbs and spices formula.
And can you get Coke, or "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anywhere other than from the companies that own the recipies? Can you make them yourself? Can you improve on them if you don't find them satisfactory? No?
You've actually made RMS's point quite succinctly. Closed software is like buying prepared food made to a secret recipie. Free software is like cooking for yourself -- it's a bit more work, but it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper, and generally tastes better and is better for you.
But then it takes away the right to keep the changes to yourself. So much for freedom.This is just false. There is no language in the GNU GPL [gnu.org] requiring you to distrubute modifications to GPLed software. It only imposes conditions that must be met were you to distribute it. You don't want to share your changes? Don't! It's that simple.
Did he also happen to cite the fact that so many of these companies are going tits up lately?
What, like IBM [ibm.com]?
Doofus.
businesss != software (Score:3)
Our company's most precious assets, or even IP, are not software.
MS's IP approach is perfect for microsft at the expense of everyone else (want to measure that expense? just add up your software expenditure)
For businesses that use computers to help them do other things, things that are actually what makes us money, good quality public domain software is a godsend. Some stuff we modify, under the terms of the GPL but those mods aren't crucial to our competitive advantage and we're happy for them to be incorporated into the next version. It saves us the time of remodifying the next version.
Don't confuse what's good for Bill Gates with what's good for you.
Re:What's for dinner? (Score:5)
Recipes can be propietary, expensive, and for good reason. Good luck trying to get that famous chef to tell the secret ingredient.
The lesson? If you're paying for prepared, closed-recipe food, and you're paying big money, it better be good. Really good, to be worth it.
Win9x is the OS version of the Hungry Man dinner.
Listening... (Score:3)
I can only hope that people will be able to understand his perspective, because whether he is right or not, I think that Free Software/GNU needs to at least be a part of software philosophy in the future.
Bill Gates reaction to RMS reply (Score:5)
In related news, all multinational corporations trying to extend and embrace their software and hardware patents and copyrights promptly decided to throw in the towel, and relinquish all rights to the public good.
As a result, previous estimates of GDP growth for the world have been quintupled for the forthcoming year, due to the increase in useful knowledge for the world's citizenry.
Refusing to comment at press time are holders of patents for biological innovations in gene therapy.
(c) 2001 All Of The Above (TM)
Just another testimony that Open Source=good (Score:3)
I suppose Linux was a no-brainer for us. All of the people on the executive board are technical people (either engineers or CS majors). Also, as a smaller, private corporation, we didn't have a lot of money to cover startup costs...and starting a company of any kind ain't cheap.
At any rate, we (credit: IT people) were able to configure Linux to allow us to create a secure system to allow swipe card access to our building. This, among other things, would not have been possible under Windows. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.This is a rather small example, but the idea is there: Linux is a cheap and, more importantly, mallable solution for us. I know the IT people love it, since things can be tailored. Sorry I can't specify, but I'm not a coder...that's how I got the CEO job.So I'm out here, telling other CEO's that I meet that making the switch is, in the long run, definately worth it. Our case was easier, since we started with Linux originally. My thought, however, is that this is also a trend; if the word about Linux spreads and is used by startup companies, EVENTUALLY Linux will be much more mainstream. Or, perhaps, we're the exception and have a crew of people on the EB that all have technical/coding/etc know-how (to some extent) and Linux will never catch on with startups.
Well, that's my two cents on the Free Source/Business issue. Hope it helps to some extent. End Sermon.What's for dinner? (Score:5)
- You get a recipe from an online database, go to the store and buy (or order online from the comfort of your own toilet seat) the ingredients. You cook and improvise. You eat. You enjoy. Next time, you improve your skills and the resulting meal by improvising even more.
- You buy a finished heat-and-eat meal in the store, witch may or may not be protected by several patents and trademark protections, you nuke it, eat it, burp and discard. You'll never know exactly what you just ate, and it's difficult to make improvements the next time you want something to eat.
.../Bosse