RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM

Letter writes "Open for Business has an interview with GNU founder and free software zealot Richard M. Stallman (RMS) discussing the SCO situation, the single RMS-approved free Linux distribution and DRM in the Linux kernel. RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"

RMS disses Debian?

[MoxFulder]

I admire RMS but I think he's a little nuts for insisting that for a Linux distribution to be acceptable to him, it must not even include the option of non-free software in the basic install.

Debian is in my mind a scrupulous free-software-only distribution. If they include any non-free software, it's basically in the form of, "Okay, here's a directory of packages people have made to allow easy installation of non-free software under Debian."

I think considering Debian to be anything less than pristine free software is vaguely silly.

Re:Debian not recommended

[__past__]

Additionally, recently Debian has decided that the GNU Free Documentation License isn't free enough for them, and that therefore many GNU manuals have to go to non-free. If this isn't a huge holier-than-thou contest, I don't know. Some people really need to get out more.

wondering

[Biomechanoid]

I wonder if RMS actually only is a man searching for his own definition of freedom. The thing is in his lifetime and his age, freedom is measured versus the current surrounding. Can the GPL be flexible enough way into the future, or would the constant act of 'updating' this license end up in a paradox or grid lock of freedom?

Re:Debian not recommended

[ninthwave]

I agree with you about Debian striking the right balance. I disagree with your comment on RMS being over-the-top. I am a big fan of balance, but in issues like this I take the viewpoint that we need people with very strong ideals that push for a model that is opposite of what society is doing. Ideals are needed because you never reach an ideal but if you aim towards it you can strike a balance.
But this is probably a symantics game.

Re:Free is... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you kinda miss the point of the GPL. RMS is anti-IP itself (and I agree with him). He WANTS a situation where anyone "could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished" - but he doesn't want the people doing that being ABLE to say to him "no, don't you dare do the same to me, or reverse-engineer or clone my product" - which is the sort of right that so-called "intellectual property" confers.

So, the real purpose of the GPL is to put pro-IP people in a psychological double-bind. Either they can violate the GPL code, violating their own ideals of IP, and proving RMS right about the stupidity of IP, or they can not rip off GPLed code, uphold their own ideals of IP, and suffer through the endless wheel-reinvention disguised as work that the proprietary software world consists of.

RMS has gone on record saying that if IP didn't exist, the GPL would be unnecessary, as binary-only software would no longer have the artificial commercial advantage produced by the market distortion of IP.

The GPL only constrains your freedom if you believe in the absurdity that is "intellectual property", and thus I support it wholeheartedly.

Re:RMS promotes his views too strongly.

[silentbozo]

I wrote a long comment, but I accidentally deleted it (goddamn windows explorer!) Anyways, the essence is read Steven Levy's [echonyc.com] "Hackers" which provides a historical background of the first couple of generations of computer geeks. It's toward the end of the book (predating the internet or linux) that RMS appears, fighting to maintain a culture that is under assault by commercial interests that are raiding labs for talent, locking up code under nondisclosure, and promoting incompatibilities to try and get a lock on the market.

In this context, RMS isn't being extremist, he's being reactionary - trying to maintain the hacker credo (free exchange of information) in the face of people who are interested only in money. Some of RMS' own comments regarding this period of history are available online. [tunes.org] I think his POV is compromise could lead to corruption of the core principles of hacker thought, just as the original free-for-all homebrew computer culture was subsumed by the likes of Microsoft (another storyline which is covered in "Hackers.) I really do recommend reading Levy's book, BTW, along with his historical novel on the development of modern crypto ("Crypto".)

In light of the history, I think that RMS is perfectly justified in his opinions - just witness SCO vs. the GPL. Some asshole with money trying to steal something the community has created, and then even worse, trying to charge money for what formerly could be gotten for free!

ftp.gnu.org

[Isaac-Lew]

I guess this article was written before the ftp.gnu.org compromise. However, has there been *any* reason given on why ftp.gnu.org was running wu-ftpd ( which has a restrictive license [216.239.41.104]) when there are at least 2 GPL ftp daemons ( proftpd [proftpd.org] and vsftpd [beasts.org]) available? Especially given wu-ftpd's long, sad history of insecurity.

Re:Debian not recommended

[EvilAlien]

I find it pretty interesting how such a zealot for free software can also be such a proponent of restricted thinking. I don't trust that RMS's decisions are actually based on high-minded ethics... what I suspect is that RMS is either consciously or subconsciously most concerned with empire building.

Would anyone who knows the man conclude that he is a little more than slightly jealous of Torvalds, and would really like recognition and time in the mass-media spotlight?

Re:"Zealot"

[Overly Critical Guy]

Yes, let's conveniently skip a few other points, such as how he denounces Debian for giving you a choice, or how he denounces all non-free software as predatory and dominating you with an iron grip (yeah, Photoshop is ruining my life). Hence, zealotry.

*cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. You have the decision to buy the software or switch to a competitor. However, what happens if all the commercial software developers instituted a pay-per-use scheme? Perhaps a pay-per-distribution setup where you have to fork out cash everytime anyone so much as looks at anything produced by their software? I'm not trying to say this is likely, but I don't think the scope of closed source is being addressed completely. Just as all the processor manufacturers are looking to install DRM components within hardware (something I really, really feel is crossing the line), software developers could get together to determine they "know best" when it comes to users. So what happens when Lightwave, Maya, 3D Studio Max, Mathcad, Maple, Mathematica, and MATLAB decide to implement the latest buzzword feature that cripples your productivity/business plan? It's no longer an issue of "Oh, I'll pick up a competitor's copy" or "I guess I could shell out a couple more bucks".

An open source piece of software may decide to implement that new feature as well. The difference is, somebody somewhere will feel the same way you do and say "screw that!" He/she/they will have the programming expertise to maintain the software without incorporating this new feature. You have more options (the capability to avoid forced changes from cooperating industry executives) than with closed source.

Is such a change likely? I don't know. I never would have thought all the processor manufacturers would have jumped on the DRM bandwagon though. If it can happen in the hardware world, then it sure can happen in software too.

FSF Linux

[SenatorTreason]

Has the Free Software Foundation ever considered publishing a complete GNU/Linux distribution?

Why *doesn't* FSF and RMS put out a distribution? He so adamant about his ideals, saying everyone should use only free software, but yet fails to provide a viable replacement and solution to my non-free software needs.
Mr. Stallman, quit bitching and evangelizing and make your own distribution with only free software that I can download, install on my machine, and see if I can use it for my daily tasks. Why should I replace my current Debian desktop with some no name distribution from Spain? Give people a viable product with full FSF backing and they just might take you and your ideas a little more seriously.

Re:Free is... what?

[DGolden]

"The rest of us???". As we Irish say, speak for your fucking self, dickhead.

Personally, I don't care about anyone's "IP" "rights", including my own:

Information does not exist independent of its impression on a substrate. Your "intellectual property rights" amount to a demand for control over my PHYSICAL property of the substrate. I take my physical property rights to be much more important than your "intellectual property rights", which amount to government interference with my physical control of my physical property - I would not presume to tell you what to do with your substrate and any associated information.

As to your straw-men about drug manufacture: Don't be absurd. First off, you have no idea what would happen without IP, as you don't have a parallel earth on which to experiment. I reckon drugs would still be developed, since there'd still be a market for them. The business might become a bit more cutthroat, and industrial espionage a little more "fun", but people would still want drugs, would still be willing to pay for drugs, and I would bet drugs would still be manufactured.

Likewise, software would still be developed. The vast majority of software is written to serve a purpose inside some organisation, the commercial boxed-product software world is a tiny fraction of the real market, and wouldn't really be missed. If anything, programmers would be richer, since we can actually write new code, and would be free to reuse any and all old code as we saw fit, as opposed to the current situation where asshole "businessmen" who, thanks to "IP" laws they paid to be passed, just sit around getting richer and exploiting naive and socially unaware geeks (I've copped on to their little game, and am quitting my job - I might go get a business degree and use their suit-fu against them...)

Re:Debian not recommended

[Klaruz]

You're not allowed to modify the file named "COPYING" in most packages either. Why does debian distribute those? The way I understood it Invariant sections were for things like author credits and whatnot. Things that shouldn't be modified, just like the COPYING file that must be distributed with a package. Yes, I suppose invariant sections could be used for other things (like the whole manual), but wouldn't RMS have thought of that and written the license to prevent that?

Not trying to bash debian (It's my distro of choice), just trying to get a better idea for how their development team sees things.

Re:RMS disses Debian?

[frdmfghtr]

He also said the following:

TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software?

RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.

I refer you to http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html and look under the "Collections of Free Software" section.

I wonder

[Quill_28]

>RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"

Does he also believe that non-free architects, authors, musicians, is a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'

I fully believe Stallman's goals do NOT stop at software.

Re:Debian not recommended

[ciaran_o_riordan]

As a Free Software zealot myself, I have problems with the GNU FDL.

Any section that does not contain subject related content can be flagged as invariant. Companies can add a spiel about what a great company they are and no one is allowed to remove this from the document. Ok, so they get credit. Big Deal.

If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite being the author of most of the content.

Also, if someone decides to translate a GFDL'd document, they are not allowed to translate the invariant section, so they have a 400 page book in spanish with 12 pages of some silly language that the readership cannot understand stuck at the back.

Invariant sections should be removable. (Copyright notices are automatically non-removable)

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Question

[Osty]

Are future submissions always going to have some sort of character assasination buzzwords attached to them as well?

Haven't past submissions already set that precedent? Go back and look at nearly any Microsoft submission, or SCO submission, and get back to me on that. Now, the thing is, if you want objectivity you have to take the good with the bad. That means that if you don't want to see an Open Source (err, I mean Free Software) "luminary" like RMS called a zealot (which he clearly and obviously is, and I would bet he would say that himself), then you should be equally incensed when the same is done against Microsoft or SCO, regardless of whether or not you feel they are the "bad guys". If, on the other hand, you don't want to accept that, then don't pretend that the submissions should be objective.

Personally, I agree with you. These kinds of things should be edited from the submissions, or if the editors don't want to edit user submissions then they should at least choose one of the hundreds of similar submissions that do not have inflammatory remarks and such off-hand comments. At the same time, I think that this should be applied across the board, and not just to articles dealing with the "good guys" (my own opinion differs on who is the "good guys", but that's irrelevant).

Re:Someone's missing the point, but not us...

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I find the practical benefits of Free Software very compelling.

With GPL'd software, the distributor has to give the user what they want or the user will find a new distributor. And if a software package does things that users don't like - the package will be forked.

I can trust GPL'd software not to: ..be crippled to encourage me to buy more software ..throw ads at me ..disappear ..etc.
If the software did these things, it would be forked.

Free Software is practical, OpenSource (which is usually a mis-used term) generally means short sightedness. When an executive allows a companies data to be managed by a piece of software they have no control over, they are being impractical. For practicals sake, people should demand Free Software.

Ciaran O'Riordan

He may appear like a pill but he's got a point.

[Qbertino]

TRB: Would you say that easing into Free Software slowly (as opposed to jumping from completely proprietary to completely Free Software environments) by using software such as WINE is acceptable ever?

RMS: Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.

TRB: Do you have any closing thoughts you would like to share with Open for Business readers?

RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it.

Though at one point (when he goes at Debian) I was about to consider this guy a real prick I changed my mind. After finished reading this interview - which gives a good insight into RMS for those who don't know him or his motives that well - I must say that he has a rock-solid point in case.

I allways like to say: Thought is free. And with machines around that somewhat emulate basic algorithims of human thinking we have to be very carefull not to permit companys to patent thoughts.

RMS actually does make sense when he emphasises his Freedom thing. Oh, sorry, was that GNU/RMS? :-)

Re:RMS's political rants

[einhverfr]

Hm...but how does providing people non-free software, maybe with a note tucked away saying "you really shouldn't use this", compare as a way of letting customers see the difference to not providing the software, and tucking in a note saying "Here's why we're not including this"?

The difference seems subtle at first-- the user doesn't see that much difference... And that is OK. It gets rid of the culture shock.

But now look at it from an IT manager's perspective or that of a software developer. These people are going to be the driving forces in trends of deployment and they are going to be *keenly* aware of the differences.

I also think it would be good practice to include on each CD a manifest listing each package, which license it is released under, whether it may be redistributed, etc. It would make much of this clearer and reduce the cost of researching this sort of thing.

Re:I wonder

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> Does he also believe that non-free architects,
> authors, musicians

He distinguishes between technical works, works of art, and personal expressions. His "must be Free" mandate only applys to technically useful works.

He believes that non-commercial distribution of all works should be allowed. Some works should be alterable, some shouldn't.

He admits to not having a solution that he's completely satisfied with for non-software works.

Re:Non-free?

[glenstar]

It takes work to write software. That's true. But it doesn't take any work to copy it.

Argh! Goddamnit, if I see that argument one more time I think my head will explode. That argument only holds up if the company in question could charge $1 million for the software to the first purchaser. Of course, said first purchaser will be mightily *pissed off* when everyone else gets it for free.

I get paid by the hour. Anything else means I'm getting paid for work I didn't do.

That works great for creating a website, or some other one-off piece of software. It does not bode well with software written for the consumer market. Also, I am curious as to what sort of super-altruistic being you are that you don't believe that you should be paid for "work" not tangibly performed?

Taking your argument to its logical extreme... do you believe that a book author should not be paid for the copies of his/her book sold to the public? Are you saying they should get one up-front check (in your theory, I imagine they would only be paid for the amount of hours spent actually writing the book) and then nothing?

Our world economy simply does not work that way. People get paid as much as the market will bear. There are most definitely people who, in my opinion, make much more money than they are worth, but that is very subjective. Obviously others think that Britney Spears is worth hundreds of millions. Really, who the hell am I to complain about that?

...and nobody should be paid for not doing work. think about it.

I *am* thinking about it, and it is making my head explode. When you are referring to software companies making money from selling copies of their software, you are not taking into account the time, effort, and expense it took to reach the stage where they *could* distribute copies. Because of that time, effort, and expense, the company is well within its rights (moral and otherwise) to charge an amount for said copy that gives them a profit. Hell, even a gigantic profit! If the purchasing public is willing to pay it... then, what is the problem?

Re:WTF

[shaitand]

ok AC, I'll back it up. Without the GNU tools you still have an OS, without the kernel you don't have anything.

It's not GNU that runs embedded devices, it's linux. RMS is waay overboard. Free software is a great thing, I hope RMS doesn't destroy it.

I just lost a lot of respect for him.

[sootman]

OK, so free-as-in-free is the most important thing in the universe, and there is only one distro on the planet he recommends due to "ethical considerations"... but he runs Deb on his laptop because it was "the best at the time." what fucking bullshit. if it's so important to you, switch distros right-fucking-now. OTOH, why didn't you just go with LFS or something in the first place? c'mon, if absolute purity is your number one concern, why use a distro at all? oh, you're too busy? using a distro is more convenient, you say? so you're saying there are practical reasons for not being as pure as pure can be, and that real life must sometimes intrude? So it's OK for you to be impure for practical reasons, but not the rest of us? OK, now I see.

"When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations."

Practice what you preach, brother.

Re:Debian not recommended

[AstroDrabb]

That is not a copout. Nothing in the FSF philosophy prevents anyone from charging. Take a look at Ximian. You could download their XD2 desktop free of charge OR you can purchase it from them. Same thing with their Red-Carpet product. The same goes for MySQL, Red Hat, SuSE. The reason that most free-as-in-speech software has also been free-as-in-beer is because there are not as many companies who release their products free-as-in-speech verse closed source. As more companies come along that try this business model, you will find more free-as-in-speech software that is charged for. Look at SuSE. Their product is free-as-in-speech, however they try to encourage you to purchase it from them by not making ISO's available and keeping the price low.

Re:Debian not recommended

[EvilAlien]

Its not even necessarily about power... its about things like the cult of personality, fame for intellectual achievement, lasting legacies, those sorts of things. Piles are money are only good as long as you value "things", and RMS has made it pretty clear with his software communism ideals that he has no value for things... the point that I'm commenting on here is that he seems to value something else entirely: his own fame, perhaps his own legend.

Perhaps I should use the word "legend" instead of "empire" to make the point. It is clear that RMS does not value material things, money, and other physical rewards from one's intellectual product. It actually offends me that he would campaign so mercilessly to undermine those who would like something real for their work. Its not just that RMS is a "greasy long haired code hippy" who loves free software and wants to use it... its that he is a militant who wants there to be no other option. At least that is what I'm perceiving. This makes his motivation far different than the love of free software... its much closer to the hate of profit from software produced by hard work and skill.

Thats pretty disgusting, actually. Makes me want to chip in with: "IN THE SOVIET UNION the RMSes had already won"...

Re:Debian not recommended

[Wolfrider]

--It's kind of nice to have something of a "star to navigate by" in the person of RMS, but when you get a distro recommendation based on "ethical considerations" rather than WHAT FITS THE USER'S NEEDS, you have to decide if RMS is really the person you should be asking. RMS is rather hard to take in un-diluted doses, this is why the RMS Filter should be applied to all his output so that a happy medium can be found.

--Part of Linux's appeal is the freedom to CHOOSE. If the *only* software that RMS ever uses has to be "free" then sorry, he's missing out.

The government of Extramadura????

[maggotbrain_777]

I apologize, in advance, for my possible ignorange. But, I was going along, just fine, reading the RMS interview(with my RMS/zealot filters on) when I came across this: "Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software."
I'm sorry, but where or, wtf is the governmment of extramadura??? A ggogle search brings up links in Espanol, and me, being the ignorant AWM, cannot understand their content. Can someone please elucidate upon this preivously unknown country, or heretofore unrecognized goverment leader? I'm fairly well versed in geogrpahy and in some areas of politice; but, this has me stumped. Is it somewhere near erewon??

Re:Debian not recommended

[RALE007]

"...when you get a distro recommendation based on "ethical considerations" rather than WHAT FITS THE USER'S NEEDS, you have to decide if RMS is really the person you should be asking...."

I think it is completely resonable to make decisions based soley on your ethics. To give an example, I have big feet. If the only shoes available in my size were made in 3rd world sweat shops, I would choose not to wear shoes, rather than rationalize "I need shoes and my only option is what comes from sweat shops." My feet would most likely quickly become worn and sore, I couldn't go into many businesses, yet I would still survive.

I see RMS as being disgusted with the proverbial "shoe sweatshops" of the software industry. The companies who pimp and profit at the dire expense of others. I think of his fanaticism as an equivilant to someone screaming "Don't buy Nike's! don't you know where they come from? Don't you know what you're supporting?!?"

It is up to each individual to decide if RMS is full of B.S., if the proverbial sweatshops even exist, but that has nothing to do with the idea of basing decisions off of ethics instead of gratification as being flawed.

--Part of Linux's appeal is the freedom to CHOOSE. If the *only* software that RMS ever uses has to be "free" then sorry, he's missing out.

Your last statement implies that "free" software might be the only thing RMS ever uses. I think it is quite safe to say it is the only thing RMS uses. He is quite the zealot, he not only started Gnu/FSF, but gave up his employment at the time due to his refusal to sign NDA's and use proprietary software. Many of his writings on Gnu/FSF's website reference his complete refusal to use any software that isn't "free" (speach). The whole point of Gnu/FSF is due to refusal to ever use non "free" software.

Lastly, I'm not exactly an RMS supporter, but I don't hate the guy either. I do believe in one deciding what their ethics are and standing by them. I also felt your reference to what "RMS might use" put into question his level of fanaticism so I felt obliged to respond that from reading what he's put on Gnu's website, I think it would be a cold day in the seventh ring before he used any software that wasn't "free".

Free of responsibility

[Mybrid]

Hi!
Happy Sunday! The founding fathers had a lot to say about freedom. One thing they generally agreed upon is that "free" doesn't mean free from responsibility. You have resposibilities as a citizen based on services rendered to you by the state. This is why you have to pay taxes. You are not free of this responsibility. Yet, if you read the GPL it states " This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Imagine, if you will, elevators were shipped with such a "free" notion? Who would ride in such an elevator? Imagine if a Nuclear Power plant used GPL software. Paul Aoki has a link on his website where he states, "Prototypes have a life of their own. Some University POSTGRES applications that gave us pause." and he goes on to list: ...that were out of the ordinary. (These are not urban legends, these are all based on bug reports or other support requests we received first-hand.)

" * cruise missile "threat assessment" system (Johns Hopkins APL / U. S. Navy Tomahawk Program Office, 1991)
" * "evaluation of automatic target recognizer (ATR) algorithms" (U. S. Army Night Vision & Electro-Optics Directorate, 1993)
" * "a jet engine measuring system" (General Electric, 1993)
" * "an asteroid detection project, which aims at discovering earth-grazing asteroids which are potentially dangerous for the Earth." (Observatoire de la Cote d'Azur, 1993)
" * "Geoinformation Systems for the problems of the Chernobyl accident" (TechnoSoft, Ukraine, 1992) and other unspecified applications (Russian Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, 1993)"
(http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/~aoki/.admin/pg apps.htm l)
Now, imagine Chernobyl melts down because of some GPL software? Is this an appropriate use of the term free, free of responsibility?
But things are even more absurd. The Open Source community would have everyone believe that software shipped without any warranty is more secure than software shipped with warranty? Really? If a company warranties its software for fitness and could be sued for the melt-down of Chernobyl, then said company would supply less secure software than Open Source who is free of such a responsibility? Postgres is NOT GPL license, btw, it is Berkeley License, but still "free".
What the Open Source community and FSF is asking the public to do is to "trust" without responsibility. Hey, ride this elevator controlled by GPL software, but you can't sue us if the thing breaks. Why should the public do this?
The lawsuit FSF should be worried about is not SCO, but rather the notion that one can ship software without responsibility. While nothing directly in the Constitution states this is illegal, Constitutional writings by the founding fathers make it clear that responsibility comes with freedom. Thus you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. The question remains, can you write "free" software that causes fire in crowded movie house and not be sued?
"Hey, get in our GPL/Open Source elevator, we are screaming at you that its safer than the one under warranty. Money is not an incentive. The fact that you can't sue us for bad code has no bearing on our motivation to write quality code."

RMS is inconsistent on non-software copyright

[The Revolutionary]

Since this is a story about RMS and his values and goals, I'd like to comment briefly on his values and goals.

I believe that share many of Stallman's political and ethical goals and committments, but I question his committment to the apparent grounds of his ideals in the case of non-software copyright issues.

RMS does not appear to believe that the right to Freely modify and redistribute "software" is an absolute right, and likewise does not believe that one's moral obligation to make "software" available in a form which is Free is an absolute right.

I agree. This is not an absolute right. It is a right which arises from more basic rights of all humans, and this obligation from obligations to satisfy these more basic human rights.

Stallman appears to ground our moral obligations regarding copyright, like myself, on the value that those rights which these obligations satisfy have to society at large.

Unfortunately, Stallman openly appears not to be consistent on these grounds concerning novels, music, video games scenarios, and certain embedded software.

See this 1999 interview [unam.edu] as a reference.

That an "offer to obtain the source" of a piece of software be provided is not an obligation to those who can not benefit from obtaining the source code, but rather it is an obligation to society, that the source code be made available so that those who can benefit society by obtaining the source code, can obtain it. It must be offerred to every one, because the original software distributor has conflicting interests and can not be trusted to, and may not even be capable of, properly determining which individuals or institutions particularly can benefit society by obtaining the source, so as to provide it only to these individuals and institutions.

For this reason also, I disagree with Mr. Stallman. I believe it is unacceptable that source be provided only to those who are also distributed a binary or other copy of the application. All institutions and individuals must have the right to request and obtain a copy of the source -- whether or not they have been distributed another copy of the software -- again, at a fair price for the material cost of doing so, and within fair time constraints.

If you have written a piece of software, the source of which could benefit society were a copy of it obtained by some individual or institution, then you are without excuse for not providing this source at a fair material cost and within reasonable time constraints. Whether or not you actually distribute your software does not significantly affect your obligations to advance and better society, which you has a software creator have the full ability to do. It is because of society that you are alive, have prospered, and have had the sort of education and upbrining which you have had, and so in the sort of environment which you have been in. To say that these obligations to society only arise when you actually distribute software, is at the very least to give the appearance of inconsistent, arbitrary demands and goals. I can see no justification for them.

To the other matters which he is asked to comment on in the above interview:

Being able to modify a novel, to make it suitable for a more particular audience or culture, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.

Being able to modify a musical composition, to make it better, more satisfying, or more targeted, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.

Being able to correct, maintain, or modify embedded software is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.

You owe Stallman a beer

[Simon Brooke]

Its not even necessarily about power... its about things like the cult of personality, fame for intellectual achievement, lasting legacies, those sorts of things. Piles are money are only good as long as you value "things", and RMS has made it pretty clear with his software communism ideals that he has no value for things...

I believe you're misunderstanding him completely. I think Stallman places an exceedingly high value on software; it's because he sees software as very important and very valuable to society that he is so determined that it should be free. It matters desparately to him.

There's no doubt that Stallman is a difficult person to have around the place, and I'm sure I'd hate to share an office with him. But the older I get and the more I think about what I'm doing the more convinced I am that he's right about most things. In a software mediated future access to and control over software will be essential to active participation in society. Consider the voting machines [slashdot.org] issue. Without open, free, publicly auditable software on voting machines, how can the process of democracy in an electronic age be trusted?

I've always considered the GPL to be a very imprtant document, and I've recently switched from using the BSD license for most of my work to using the GPL. I agree that Stallman is an extremist. But we need extremists and without him we would not have the opportunity to discuss differing purities of free software - because there would be no free softare at all, and we would all of us be microserfs.

In short, you owe Stallman a beer (and so do I)