RMS Views on Linux, Java, DRM and Opensource 546
An anonymous reader writes "All About Linux is running a transcript of a recent talk given by Richard Stallman at the Australian National University. Stallman discussed various issues facing GNU like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Digital Rights Management, about why one should not install sun's java on your computer, his views on Opensource as well as why he thinks people should address Linux distribution as GNU/Linux."
You have to feel for the guy (Score:5, Interesting)
But the more he goes around criticizing other concepts (open source) and other people who make his world possible (Torvalds), if not perfect, the more he will alienate them and the farther away his dream will be. It's impossible for Stallman to realize his vision on his own. He needs Sun and Java and Torvalds and ESR and Red Hat and everyone else. At this rate however... calling Linus insufficiently political is not going to win him any more fans. And more fans is exactly what he needs.
Java bashing... (Score:1, Interesting)
"If you do install it, you are putting yourself at risk of creating other problems for other people. There are people who are so attracted to java - they think this idea that will run on all platforms is so exciting - that they stop paying attention to things like what to pay attention to."
Wow, you make it sound so evil, Richard. I've made a living out of writing Java software for the past 5 years and I'm always very happy to know that the software I develop in Windows will end up running on a Linux server. Of course, we could just remove Java and run Microsoft Windows Server 2003 instead..? Would that make you happier?
Yep... this is why... (Score:1, Interesting)
Second, news flash for RMS, even "free" software in large business is FAR from free, hell in some cases the support for "free" software is sometimes even more expensive to deploy, support and manage than oh, say Windows. ANd that cost delta doesn't cover the cost of licensing for Windows... go figure.
Old boy out for another canter (Score:3, Interesting)
By now a great number of highly talented people have contributed a lot to Linux. It's rather revealing that only one of them hogs the limelight and witters on about "the community" all the time. Your community but not necessarily mine, RMS. The fact that I use GNU/Linux gives you no right to speak on my behalf.
RMS is absolutely correct. (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again, RMS demonstrates that being right isn't the only thing; hell, in this age, being right isn't (worth) any thing.
We owe him, but he is crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
But sorry, RMS, you are crazy and I hope your dearest wishes do not come true. RMS believes the only acceptable licenses are the ones he wrote; if he had the power, he would make it illegal to ship software under a proprietary licence. (How do I know this? Eric Raymond publicly challenged RMS about it and RMS did not respond, and I believe it was because ESR was right and RMS didn't want to say it out loud. Google for the words "Freedom Zero" to get the context of all this.)
Somebody asked RMS how can software writers make enough money to live. RMS said that he would be in favor of a "free software tax" to pay the salaries of people writing free software. If it was illegal to ship software under a proprietary licence then maybe you would need something like this, but I do NOT want government involved in deciding who gets to write what software for pay. The free market is better.
Only RMS could think that government paying of salaries to selected software writers is more free than people deciding what software to write and what licence to ship under.
Actually that's an important point. RMS wants to maximise freedom for the USERS even at the expense of the PROGRAMMERS. He is willing to constrain the freedom of a programmer, because he wants all software to come with source code.
The worst thing about RMS is that he doesn't care about anything else as much as his particular ideal for free software. Of all the Linux distros out there, you would think he would recommend Debian GNU/Linux, right? The only major distro that actually puts "GNU/" in their name?
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major [distrowatch.com]
But in an interview he recommended some obscure Linux called Extremadura or something like that, because he had read somewhere that they only provided GPL software.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg02
If you set up a default Debian system, you will only have free software; Debian's "main" servers have nothing RMS would not approve. But Debian has for years had a server called "nonfree" where you could get things like Netscape Navigator. If you know what you are doing, you can set your Debian system to pull packages from "nonfree", and for this crime, RMS snubbed Debian in favor of the other one. And it turned out that the onther one isn't actually freeer than Debian; RMS had heard it was so, but it wasn't, really.
It's sad that RMS can't even say something nice about Debian, the closest thing the world has seen to what RMS says he wants, because they aren't PERFECT and if they aren't PERFECT they aren't good enough for RMS.
RMS, thank you for kick-starting the free software movement. Thank you for GCC, EMACS, and the other GNU utilities. But you are crazy.
The RMS illusion (Score:1, Interesting)
The freedom Stallman believes in is an aristocratic one. Freedom, sure, but for those with the resources. But instead of rich political families doing whatever they want while the masses are entirely unfree, we have software developers with all the opportunity to be free and end users we none of the opportunity
Yet when it comes to something we all can do in a fully literate society, read and write, freedom doesn't apply. This post [debian.org] specifically:
This motivation by pragmatism, not freedom. We have heard long and hard 'bout how we cannot cosy up to companies just because they make out life easier with non-free software, and yet we can compromise our freedom for plain-text publishers? And, if there were a shortage of programmers, could we make software non-free in order to lure them in as well? This post: [debian.org] Is it just me, but shouldn't they be more free?Re:Is it just me ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I consider it well. It tells me a lot about the motives of RMS and the FSF. When Qt was "free to use", it wasn't good enough. When the KDE Free Qt Foundation guaranteed that Qt would always be free to use, it wasn't good enough. When Qt was released under an approved Open Source license, it wasn't good enough. Even when it was finally released under the GPL, RMS STILL DEMANDED AN APOLOGY!
Re:We owe him, but he is crazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget the GNU C Library. This is a massive project, and it plays a very key role in allowing GNU to be a Unix replacement.
How recently? If I recall correctly, this is an suggestion that dates back to the earlier years of the GNU project. It was used as an example (amongst many) that there are other ways to fund software development.
The tax approach is an ugly one, but I would still find it preferable to living in a proprietary world. Fortunately the free world has since demonstrated that it can flourish without this idea.
I would prefer not to live in a society that provides special powers for small group of people at the expense of the whole.
If we abolish copyright on software, programmers will not have lost a freedom, a privilege/power will have been taken away. As for the 'freedom to withhold source', it is a freedom I'm willing to part with, just as I'm willing to part with the freedom to kill another human being. (I'm not saying I value the former restriction more so then the later) Every society has at least some restrictions on individual freedom for the benefit of everyone, the debate is on which ones. A freedom is not inherently a good thing, there are always costs to weight against the benefits. RMS engages in some pretty thoughtful cost-benifit analysis in Why Software Should Not Have Owners [gnu.org] and Why Software Should Be Free [gnu.org].
That being said, we probably don't need a law requiring source distribution, abolishing software copyright would probably be sufficient. The cultural change accompanying this could turn source distribution into a social norm requiring no government enforcement.
He wants a lot more then that! You should be able to make changes to that source code. You should be able to share those changes with others, which benefits them and it can benefit you if the others make and share an additional change that builds on your own.
There's more. Given a universal information processing machine, some bytes that make that universal information machine do something useful, and a friend who would like a copy, most normally socialized people will utilize the copying capability that this machine excels at. In cyberspace this kind of behavior is as natural as breathing is in the real world. RMS thinks it should be legal.
Also restricting the use of a program with a restriction like 'educational use only' or 'company with less then or equal to 5 employees only' is unacceptable too.
No, he would of read (incorectly) that they only provided free software.
Re:Is it just me ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any new idea is asked two questions. The first is asked when its weak: WHAT KIND OF AN IDEA ARE YOU? Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of hundred, be smashed to bits; but, the 100th time, will change the world.
Idealists don't understand compromisers, compromisers don't understand idealists. Idealists don't live very harmoniously in the world, compromisers don't change the world. Stallman decided to go for change. You say rigidity and stubborness, others say integrity and persistence. I think it's one of those cases where 'it takes all types'.