Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has written a piece on the state of free software and where it needs to go now, in celebration of GNU turning 20 today. It's available both on NewsForge and Linux.com."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
I have no idea what R.S. would or will say in reply to your concerns, but I would like to give you my perspective as a professional economist. As such, I am perhaps somewhat less interested than R.S. is in arguing what SHOULD be, and perhaps somewhat more interested in explaining what exists.
What indisputably exists is a rapidly expanding set of free software which more and more perfectly substitutes for commercial software, and in many cases excels it. Particularly considering its low cost, there is no need to explain the demand for this software. The challenge is, to explain the supply.
It seems to me that among the key sources of supply of "free" software are (1) that rewards not directly compensatory can nevertheless have significant value (e.g. recognition as a good designer, inventor of algorithms, or project coordinator is valuable human capital); (2) that marketing a new piece of code is significantly more difficult and costly than simply handing it out; (3) that normal IT puruits inevitably yield as by-products sections of code that are useful to others but neverthess may be too small or too insignificant to be packaged and marketed as stand-alone software products (see 2); (4) that very many minds working on any given software development problem will generally produce a much better solution than a few minds (this effect is an 'economy of scale'); and (5) the existence of the internet as an inexpensive but effective mechanism by which production may be coordinated and promotion and distribution may be facilitated.
I personally believe that the cost advantages enjoyed by free software producers are such that free software will eventually drive out proprietary software for all tasks that are routine and widespread. I believe there will remain scope for the development of proprietary software only in applications that are highly specialized or require confidentiality. I believe that this will occur as a market outcome of the self-interested actions of economic agents. So I differ from what seems to be R.S.'s belief that this will require anyone's altruistic conduct.
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software. Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners. The profit motive, which is responsible for the great efficiency of our economy, leaves scant room for altruistic software preferences. As for individuals, R.S. may do as he likes, but I personally feel no obligation to give special preference to free software. Instead, I take into account the costs and benefits of each and use whatever I decide is best for my particular circumstances.
That's why I use free software like GNU Linux, GNU Emacs, the Ion window manager, Open Office, Cdrecord, Gphoto2 and so forth, but also why I use proprietary software like Windows 98, Win4lin, ChessBase, Hiarcs and Bookup (the latter three being chess applications that really have no equal in the free software domain and which, unfortunately, exist in Windows versions only). Oh, and I paid $39 for Opera for Linux, which I think is a very good browser. Detesting Windows as I do, I do not browse, word process or do anything but chess on my Win4lin setup. Someday, perhaps after I retire, I may devote some time to improving the free software that exists for chess. If I do, I will do it for my own entertainment and not for the altruistic reasons proposed by R.S. I admit, however, that I would take keen satisfaction in stealing business from developers who designed software for Windows only.
What happend about the Savannah compromise? According to a LWN.net interview with FSF director Bradley Kuhn it appears that the FSF is NOT trying to figure out what really happened.
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Isn't it odd that two apparently unrelated, or even diametrically opposed, groups can have such similar sentiments as their "mission statements"? I guess some will claim that my paraphrasing is optimistic or even naieve, but I believe it, and I believe a lot of others do as well.
So, we have now a view of Stallman working on free software as a microcosmic version of the U.S. working on world freedom. Discuss!
RMS is all talk and no walk. Take a look at what ESR and Perens have been doing to combat SCO. Then you see comments where all he does is worry about Linux being identified as GNU. Reminds of the zealots who have to pronounce GNU (guhnew" and Gnome similary and always have to say GNU/Linux not just Linux. Who cares?! It's just words.
Here's Stallman's comments: ""I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says".
I agree with you almost entirely. Except that when you say;
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software
I disagree with you in the context of the state's use of software. It should _never_ be proprietary. Indeed I believe the state should fund the writing/improving of the free version to meet their needs rather than purchase the non-free equivalent. I am happy to limit this requirement to the same category of applications for which you (and I) believe that free software will eventually drive out non free software, however I would be even happier not to limit it at all. The reason why the state should mandate the free solution is that the state is well able to make the long term decision that having these applications will be of more benefit to all citizens in the long run than the short term cost of improving the software or accepting reduced functionality. Indeed, I would argue that it is the duty of rational government to make these kind of decisions.
I tend to agree with his statement. Maybe your corporation doesn't control citizens, but some corporations are in a position to influence and exert pressure. Record companies, Microsoft, many others... what OS do you use? Do you listen to music by artists that aren't associated with the RIAA? Corporate America is certainly becoming more synonymous with America in general. A hundred years ago, the major players in the world were the rich guys - Rockerfellers and whatnot. Now, it's corporations.
I asked this question in the Slashdot interview [slashdot.org] questions to Bruce Perens back in July. (What ever happened to that interview anyway?)
My question was modded +5, and I would really like to hear one of the "leaders" answer on it. Here it is as I posted it then...
A lot of people equate Open Source with Linux, but what are your opinions on Open Source on Windows? Of course Open Source works well on Linux, it falls more in line with the philosophy of the OS. In your opinion, is it more beneficial to keep the concepts of Open Source and Linux coupled, or to get the message of Open Source out there in any way possible?
The question still applies to Free software too. Is it possible to run Free software on Windows, and not get RMS' hackles up? OpenOffice is a great example that runs on Windows. Is it worth it to get the word out about alternative to proprietary software, or is the whole movement about alternatives to proprietary OSs?
I love free software esp. when it is the underdog. The following comment is only meant in the sense of what will happen if free software becomes the Big Kid on the Block.
Simply by using a new and unfinished free replacement, before it technically compares with the non-free model, you can help encourage the free developers to persevere until it becomes superior.
I see an analogy with Economic Models where they talk of Perfect Competition and a Level Playing Field leading increasingly towards profits approaching to Zero. It is not really a bad situation in the Creative-Destruction evolution of the market economies.
This economic destination would be perfect if the 'free" software was being written in time that was "leisure" time, or even in "professional" time if it is going to lead to professional and career advancements. Then the concept of Zero Profits is not unreasonable as there are other intangible benefits.
But for many other people the time spent writing "free" software is going to entail expenses - esp. if they they don't have the above two mitigating factors. In that case the programmers are then paying themselves for the software they write - i.e. negative profits.
I know this question has been asked a million/gazillion times. But, hey, it's GNU's 20th Birthday, so why not nostaligically revist it.
Does this mean that people should accept "negative Profits?"
Does it imply that the "free" software users are being subsidized by the programmers themselves.
How will the "societal benefits" of "free" software turn into some profits for the programming community - directly or indirectly.
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:49PM (#7881730)
there are man folks on slashdot who, in their pragmatism, fail to see that Stallman's idealogical approach to software can have pragmatic effects. after all, who would have thought 20 years ago that giving away software would make any sense in this capitalist society. now, it has become a huge movement within that capitalist environment, and somehow the world has not ended.
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
as the free software movement continues, we are beginning to see a new kind of problem--the problem of hardware, such as the nvidia issue. it is my belief that eventually hardware, like software, will become free. but since there is an important distinction between hardware and software (hardware needs to be manufactured, packaged, and distributed, as opposed to software, which one only needs to post on the internet for others to use), i believe that the following will happen: we will begin to see groups of 'hardware hackers' working on projects to create open hardware, and post the schematics on the net. then, hardware manufacturers (perhaps working in tandem with the hackers) will take the specs, manufacture the goods, and sell them cheap (only enough to cover *manufacturing* costs and make some profit).
the cost will be cheaper because they will, in effect, have no R&D costs, which for hardware companies such as intel and others, account for huge percentage of their operating expenses.
this, i believe, will have a tremendous effect on the hardware industry, just as open software had, and continues to have, on the software industry. will these hardware companies be making less money? of course. they will evolve into redhat-type companies, mainly doing the manufacturing and support of their products. their profit margins will be lower, no doubt. their will fire their engineers. in the short term, we may consider that to be bad, but the hardware and software is too important and too integral to every aspect of life today (and even moreso in the future) to be held in a stranglehold by proprietary interests. which is why the free hardware movement will succeed, despite its seemingly anti-capitalist nature.
i'm not saying that everyone hacker will have their hardware manufactured. they would have to have the clout that, say, the kernel project does. and the beginning will be especially hard, since the designers will have to prove to the manufacturers that the hardare is reliable. the establish the necessary clout, members of these open communities will have to start small, funding these projects with their own money. and once again, we will drag this nation, kicking and screaming, to the same benefits it sees from open software.
I prefer that nobody try to tell me they've found the meaning of life. Given your response I'd say you are just like him, feeling that you need to enlighten those that you feel you know need enlightening. Extremist views always fail to garner any significant mindshare. Linux isn't popular for any of the reasons that RMS sites, it's popular because of it's suitability for any particular task it is used for.
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
Any given set of software will succeed in the marketplace when it presents a greater value proposition than all the other options. Linux has been growing like gangbusters in the server space because it represents a better value than proprietary Unix, and more recently, Windows servers. Linux is starting to make inroads on the corporate desktop for the same reason: customers are beginning to see the lack of value in Microsoft's offering (think ratio of price to functionality), so as free software's value proposition continues to become more attractive, more customers will make the jump.
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care. They just want to get their work done with the least amount of effort required. This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference. Software freedom, for the rest of the world, is a means to an end: that end being "software that doesn't suck" (as ESR once put it), and that lack of suckage is being brought on by the benefits of collaborative development we already know about.
RMS was a visionary. He started the free software movement, and he contributed a brilliantly built compiler suite and a bunch of other tools. But his PR has been a 20 year disaster, and it is definitely time for him to step down.
I pose this single question to the/. crowd and you must answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? Why or why not?
This is a valid point, but it's also an issue with commercial software.
Why should I upgrade to Office XP when Office 97 does everything I need? The only real way around that is forcing your clients to upgrade(which Microsoft has been doing with a number of their products) and that hasn't generated a lot of goodwill with customers.
If your product is "done", then it might be time to move onto creating a new product.
Who exactly are you talking about making money? The developers, the managers, the IT administrators, the sales people, the hardware computer tech? As has been said many times, there are many ways to make money, and the current vogue is not going to last forever.
Apple makes money off free software. Redhat is making money of free software. IBM and HP and Sun all have plans to make money off free software. The small developer still has every opportunity to write shareware, put any necessary public licenses on it, and probably do as well or bad as ever.
The IT administrators will still make money. Someone has to maintain the machines. And companies have show that they want free software, but still are willing to pay for the convenience of having someone else manage it and maintain it. So developer still will have jobs. And the frameworks will still need to put together into vertical applications, although most commoditized horizontal applications, like the word processor, will predicable be free.
And the question is, how many people make money now programming. It becoming an increasingly small number. Again, if you programming as part of an administrator function, or creating custom interfaces for corporate, that stuff will still be a paid position. if you doing OS development or app development at MS or Apple, your job may be in jeopardy. But what of it? How many small developers have they put out of business because these companies integrating previously paid-for products into their OS and gave it away. What is the difference between this and giving away an OS?
Look at it this way. We can get water for almost nothing out of the tap. We can get fresh fruit and vegetables for almost nothing out of the ground. We can get quality music for almost nothing by going to the local bar. We can go out and live life for almost nothing and have fun with a walk in the park or a playing ball. And yet we pay large sums of money to have other people do these things for us, or to give us what we consider a value added manifestation. We are willing to pay for things we can get for free, if the product is marketed properly and the opportunity costs allow it.
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.
We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1
And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.
For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.
My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.
You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
The thing is, though, that he seems to be proven correct every single time this comes up. Remember when BitKeeper restricted their license [berlios.de], effectively prohibiting anyone from contributing to the Linux kernel and, say, Subversion? Or when Darren Reed re-interpreted the license to IPF [deadly.org], forcing the OpenBSD team to remove it from their system? Or any of the other stories on Slashdot where a closed-source company lures users and developers with gratis copies of their new, shiny product - and then changes licensing terms once everyone's hooked?
The fact is that if you use non-Free software, then you are beholden to the whims of someone else. I always recommend Free software solutions to my employer when remotely possible, not to save a few pennies, but to ensure that we have the right to use our systems as we see fit, not as someone outside our business allows us to.
RMS is loud, obnoxious, and irritating to a lot of people. He's also right almost every time when he warns of the dangers of non-Free systems. Although you might not like the delivery, the message seems to be dead accurate.
The thing he misses is the principle of competition. Basically, by its mere existence, a free alternative threatens the nonfree version into playing nice.
He alludes to Java. The GPL implementation is a piece of crud, so nobody uses it. But its existence is enough to prevent Sun from playing at silly buggers. Regardless of the theoretical license terms. If they tried, IBM or some such would just pile behind kaffe.org and grind them into dust.
Thus freedom spreads outwards from comparatively humble free software efforts, de-facto freeing the proprietary software too.
The idea that only free software can improve humanity or betters society reminds me of the socialist progaganda the hippie college students pass out.
Yes! I've always found the idea that closed source in a free market can increase wealth and better society as evangalized by kinder, gentler republican party propaganda to be much more palatable.
Stallman has changed his tune a bit. I saw him give a presentation a few years ago in which he said that it was OK to use proprietary software until there is an open source alternative. He even mentioned a few examples of such software that the GNU project had used in the past.
Corporations can only exert pressure that you allow.
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Stallman also believed that it was ok to use proprietary software for developing Free Software (the idea was that since it was impossible to operate a computer without proprietary software at the time, it must be acceptable to use proprietary software for the purpose of developing Free Software to replace the proprietary software with).
You can only put something in the public domain if you explicitly state so, or you remit your right to retain copyright.
That is, some thing with an (at the time) unattributed author is not considered public domain until such time the author declares his/her intent. Up until that point, you may treat it as public domain with the knowledge that at any time the author could come after you if they so choose (up to the time limitations, anyway).
So it's not really public domain unless you can prove it is. All it takes is one irate person on a project team who disagrees...
GPL helps to protect you from some of that. They can't "take it back" once it's released GPL, as long as you haven't monkeyed with it and rereleased it without attribution or source.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:56PM (#7882946)
In this case it isn't worth your time or effort to fix the problem. But the point is that if it was worth your time and effort you have the option. With closed source software you don't necessarily have the option. So while not everyone may benefit from it there are those who do and appreciate that right.
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 [gnu.org] 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 [gnu.org] 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.
I live in the Third World, and what I can say is that the use of proprietary software IS a form of oppression indeed. For the first time in human history the advance of technology has practically removed all barriers to accessing useful information, but corporations like Microsoft are using the same technology to erect artificial barriers in the name of their profits. They would condemn whole nations and peoples into ignorance and backwardness because these nations and peoples cannot afford to get around their exclusionary measures. As FSF General Counsel Eben Moglen said: "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?" (original article Freeing The Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture [columbia.edu]).
Free Software is not just a "method of software methodology", though open source is, and that I believe is the pons asinorum that most people here on Slashdot cannot seem to get past whenever there's an article about Stallman or the GNU Project. The kinds of arguments I see here whenever such an article comes up always seem to misunderstand the difference in philosophy between the two movements. On the other hand, Free Software believes that the right to share and change software are inalienable rights that no one should be allowed to take away. The fact that it also turns out to be a good methodology for software development is a side issue for people like RMS. The moral courage of a man like RMS to stand up for these principles indeed can be compared to the moral courage that eliminated slavery. Indeed, it is but a different sort of slavery that RMS is standing up against, and yes, there is a war being fought for it right now, and we all are at its forefront. One of the major battles is SCO v. IBM...
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:1, Interesting)
What indisputably exists is a rapidly expanding set of free software which more and more perfectly substitutes for commercial software, and in many cases excels it. Particularly considering its low cost, there is no need to explain the demand for this software. The challenge is, to explain the supply.
It seems to me that among the key sources of supply of "free" software are (1) that rewards not directly compensatory can nevertheless have significant value (e.g. recognition as a good designer, inventor of algorithms, or project coordinator is valuable human capital); (2) that marketing a new piece of code is significantly more difficult and costly than simply handing it out; (3) that normal IT puruits inevitably yield as by-products sections of code that are useful to others but neverthess may be too small or too insignificant to be packaged and marketed as stand-alone software products (see 2); (4) that very many minds working on any given software development problem will generally produce a much better solution than a few minds (this effect is an 'economy of scale'); and (5) the existence of the internet as an inexpensive but effective mechanism by which production may be coordinated and promotion and distribution may be facilitated.
I personally believe that the cost advantages enjoyed by free software producers are such that free software will eventually drive out proprietary software for all tasks that are routine and widespread. I believe there will remain scope for the development of proprietary software only in applications that are highly specialized or require confidentiality. I believe that this will occur as a market outcome of the self-interested actions of economic agents. So I differ from what seems to be R.S.'s belief that this will require anyone's altruistic conduct.
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software. Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners. The profit motive, which is responsible for the great efficiency of our economy, leaves scant room for altruistic software preferences. As for individuals, R.S. may do as he likes, but I personally feel no obligation to give special preference to free software. Instead, I take into account the costs and benefits of each and use whatever I decide is best for my particular circumstances.
That's why I use free software like GNU Linux, GNU Emacs, the Ion window manager, Open Office, Cdrecord, Gphoto2 and so forth, but also why I use proprietary software like Windows 98, Win4lin, ChessBase, Hiarcs and Bookup (the latter three being chess applications that really have no equal in the free software domain and which, unfortunately, exist in Windows versions only). Oh, and I paid $39 for Opera for Linux, which I think is a very good browser. Detesting Windows as I do, I do not browse, word process or do anything but chess on my Win4lin setup. Someday, perhaps after I retire, I may devote some time to improving the free software that exists for chess. If I do, I will do it for my own entertainment and not for the altruistic reasons proposed by R.S. I admit, however, that I would take keen satisfaction in stealing business from developers who designed software for Windows only.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Interesting)
Once developers get into team mode, they are more likely to seize the momentum it can provide. The end result can be improved user friendliness.
Savannah Compromise? What happened? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not?
a curious quote and comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Isn't it odd that two apparently unrelated, or even diametrically opposed, groups can have such similar sentiments as their "mission statements"? I guess some will claim that my paraphrasing is optimistic or even naieve, but I believe it, and I believe a lot of others do as well.
So, we have now a view of Stallman working on free software as a microcosmic version of the U.S. working on world freedom. Discuss!
Another RMS post (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's Stallman's comments:
""I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says".
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you almost entirely. Except that when you say;
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software
I disagree with you in the context of the state's use of software. It should _never_ be proprietary. Indeed I believe the state should fund the writing/improving of the free version to meet their needs rather than purchase the non-free equivalent. I am happy to limit this requirement to the same category of applications for which you (and I) believe that free software will eventually drive out non free software, however I would be even happier not to limit it at all. The reason why the state should mandate the free solution is that the state is well able to make the long term decision that having these applications will be of more benefit to all citizens in the long run than the short term cost of improving the software or accepting reduced functionality. Indeed, I would argue that it is the duty of rational government to make these kind of decisions.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America??? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about Free software on Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question was modded +5, and I would really like to hear one of the "leaders" answer on it. Here it is as I posted it then...
The question still applies to Free software too. Is it possible to run Free software on Windows, and not get RMS' hackles up? OpenOffice is a great example that runs on Windows. Is it worth it to get the word out about alternative to proprietary software, or is the whole movement about alternatives to proprietary OSs?
Profits below Zero to Negative ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I love free software esp. when it is the underdog. The following comment is only meant in the sense of what will happen if free software becomes the Big Kid on the Block.
I see an analogy with Economic Models where they talk of Perfect Competition and a Level Playing Field leading increasingly towards profits approaching to Zero. It is not really a bad situation in the Creative-Destruction evolution of the market economies.
This economic destination would be perfect if the 'free" software was being written in time that was "leisure" time, or even in "professional" time if it is going to lead to professional and career advancements. Then the concept of Zero Profits is not unreasonable as there are other intangible benefits.
But for many other people the time spent writing "free" software is going to entail expenses - esp. if they they don't have the above two mitigating factors. In that case the programmers are then paying themselves for the software they write - i.e. negative profits.
I know this question has been asked a million/gazillion times. But, hey, it's GNU's 20th Birthday, so why not nostaligically revist it.
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
any last words ..... freedom! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
Re:RMS.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:GNU/Hurd (Score:1, Interesting)
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
as the free software movement continues, we are beginning to see a new kind of problem--the problem of hardware, such as the nvidia issue. it is my belief that eventually hardware, like software, will become free. but since there is an important distinction between hardware and software (hardware needs to be manufactured, packaged, and distributed, as opposed to software, which one only needs to post on the internet for others to use), i believe that the following will happen: we will begin to see groups of 'hardware hackers' working on projects to create open hardware, and post the schematics on the net. then, hardware manufacturers (perhaps working in tandem with the hackers) will take the specs, manufacture the goods, and sell them cheap (only enough to cover *manufacturing* costs and make some profit).
the cost will be cheaper because they will, in effect, have no R&D costs, which for hardware companies such as intel and others, account for huge percentage of their operating expenses.
this, i believe, will have a tremendous effect on the hardware industry, just as open software had, and continues to have, on the software industry. will these hardware companies be making less money? of course. they will evolve into redhat-type companies, mainly doing the manufacturing and support of their products. their profit margins will be lower, no doubt. their will fire their engineers. in the short term, we may consider that to be bad, but the hardware and software is too important and too integral to every aspect of life today (and even moreso in the future) to be held in a stranglehold by proprietary interests. which is why the free hardware movement will succeed, despite its seemingly anti-capitalist nature.
i'm not saying that everyone hacker will have their hardware manufactured. they would have to have the clout that, say, the kernel project does. and the beginning will be especially hard, since the designers will have to prove to the manufacturers that the hardare is reliable. the establish the necessary clout, members of these open communities will have to start small, funding these projects with their own money. and once again, we will drag this nation, kicking and screaming, to the same benefits it sees from open software.
Re:GNU/Hurd (Score:2, Interesting)
Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)?
Hurd is microkernel based. The concept of "binary modules" doesn't exist. Nvidia would live in user space.
Actually, I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I think what I said is somewhat true :).
Re:mod me troll -1 but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Interesting)
All you libertarians out there who trust the invisible hand- it's put up or shut up time.
RMS still doesn't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Any given set of software will succeed in the marketplace when it presents a greater value proposition than all the other options. Linux has been growing like gangbusters in the server space because it represents a better value than proprietary Unix, and more recently, Windows servers. Linux is starting to make inroads on the corporate desktop for the same reason: customers are beginning to see the lack of value in Microsoft's offering (think ratio of price to functionality), so as free software's value proposition continues to become more attractive, more customers will make the jump.
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care. They just want to get their work done with the least amount of effort required. This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference. Software freedom, for the rest of the world, is a means to an end: that end being "software that doesn't suck" (as ESR once put it), and that lack of suckage is being brought on by the benefits of collaborative development we already know about.
RMS was a visionary. He started the free software movement, and he contributed a brilliantly built compiler suite and a bunch of other tools. But his PR has been a 20 year disaster, and it is definitely time for him to step down.
It's a question of ethics (Score:2, Interesting)
I pose this single question to the
Already and issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should I upgrade to Office XP when Office 97 does everything I need? The only real way around that is forcing your clients to upgrade(which Microsoft has been doing with a number of their products) and that hasn't generated a lot of goodwill with customers.
If your product is "done", then it might be time to move onto creating a new product.
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple makes money off free software. Redhat is making money of free software. IBM and HP and Sun all have plans to make money off free software. The small developer still has every opportunity to write shareware, put any necessary public licenses on it, and probably do as well or bad as ever.
The IT administrators will still make money. Someone has to maintain the machines. And companies have show that they want free software, but still are willing to pay for the convenience of having someone else manage it and maintain it. So developer still will have jobs. And the frameworks will still need to put together into vertical applications, although most commoditized horizontal applications, like the word processor, will predicable be free.
And the question is, how many people make money now programming. It becoming an increasingly small number. Again, if you programming as part of an administrator function, or creating custom interfaces for corporate, that stuff will still be a paid position. if you doing OS development or app development at MS or Apple, your job may be in jeopardy. But what of it? How many small developers have they put out of business because these companies integrating previously paid-for products into their OS and gave it away. What is the difference between this and giving away an OS?
Look at it this way. We can get water for almost nothing out of the tap. We can get fresh fruit and vegetables for almost nothing out of the ground. We can get quality music for almost nothing by going to the local bar. We can go out and live life for almost nothing and have fun with a walk in the park or a playing ball. And yet we pay large sums of money to have other people do these things for us, or to give us what we consider a value added manifestation. We are willing to pay for things we can get for free, if the product is marketed properly and the opportunity costs allow it.
Answer: Software is a Service (Score:5, Interesting)
Software is a Service, not a Product.
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.
We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1
And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.
For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.
My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.
You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.
DG
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, though, that he seems to be proven correct every single time this comes up. Remember when BitKeeper restricted their license [berlios.de], effectively prohibiting anyone from contributing to the Linux kernel and, say, Subversion? Or when Darren Reed re-interpreted the license to IPF [deadly.org], forcing the OpenBSD team to remove it from their system? Or any of the other stories on Slashdot where a closed-source company lures users and developers with gratis copies of their new, shiny product - and then changes licensing terms once everyone's hooked?
The fact is that if you use non-Free software, then you are beholden to the whims of someone else. I always recommend Free software solutions to my employer when remotely possible, not to save a few pennies, but to ensure that we have the right to use our systems as we see fit, not as someone outside our business allows us to.
RMS is loud, obnoxious, and irritating to a lot of people. He's also right almost every time when he warns of the dangers of non-Free systems. Although you might not like the delivery, the message seems to be dead accurate.
Competition (Score:4, Interesting)
He alludes to Java. The GPL implementation is a piece of crud, so nobody uses it. But its existence is enough to prevent Sun from playing at silly buggers. Regardless of the theoretical license terms. If they tried, IBM or some such would just pile behind kaffe.org and grind them into dust.
Thus freedom spreads outwards from comparatively humble free software efforts, de-facto freeing the proprietary software too.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes! I've always found the idea that closed source in a free market can increase wealth and better society as evangalized by kinder, gentler republican party propaganda to be much more palatable.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America??? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure if he still believes this.
Not true. (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, some thing with an (at the time) unattributed author is not considered public domain until such time the author declares his/her intent. Up until that point, you may treat it as public domain with the knowledge that at any time the author could come after you if they so choose (up to the time limitations, anyway).
So it's not really public domain unless you can prove it is. All it takes is one irate person on a project team who disagrees...
GPL helps to protect you from some of that. They can't "take it back" once it's released GPL, as long as you haven't monkeyed with it and rereleased it without attribution or source.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:1, Interesting)
Stallman misundersood (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org] 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 [gnu.org] 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.
Re:RMS is before his time. (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in the Third World, and what I can say is that the use of proprietary software IS a form of oppression indeed. For the first time in human history the advance of technology has practically removed all barriers to accessing useful information, but corporations like Microsoft are using the same technology to erect artificial barriers in the name of their profits. They would condemn whole nations and peoples into ignorance and backwardness because these nations and peoples cannot afford to get around their exclusionary measures. As FSF General Counsel Eben Moglen said: "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?" (original article Freeing The Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture [columbia.edu]).
Free Software is not just a "method of software methodology", though open source is, and that I believe is the pons asinorum that most people here on Slashdot cannot seem to get past whenever there's an article about Stallman or the GNU Project. The kinds of arguments I see here whenever such an article comes up always seem to misunderstand the difference in philosophy between the two movements. On the other hand, Free Software believes that the right to share and change software are inalienable rights that no one should be allowed to take away. The fact that it also turns out to be a good methodology for software development is a side issue for people like RMS. The moral courage of a man like RMS to stand up for these principles indeed can be compared to the moral courage that eliminated slavery. Indeed, it is but a different sort of slavery that RMS is standing up against, and yes, there is a war being fought for it right now, and we all are at its forefront. One of the major battles is SCO v. IBM...