Transcript of Talk with Richard Stallman 220
An anonymous reader writes "This is the transcript of the talk with Richard Stallman, the father of GNU in the background of the 4th International GPLv3 Conference being held at Bangalore where RMS is a prominent delegate. He answers questions related to GPLv3, DRM and a couple of other queries."
Is this some kind of... God ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everytime they just say something, it appears as if it was God in person speaking...
No matter what they did (I mean: how many people wrote their own kernel ? be it Un*x or not), I don't understand why they always appear as Gods...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like if I'm a linux nazi, and I praise Linus in all his glory, then obviously I'm "with it" for being a linux nazi. Basically these people have to realize that you either are or are not cool. You can't make yourself cool by association.
Well that and people should REALLY take a look at who actually works on Linux and GNU software. It ain't Linus nor RMS.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they had the fortitude and forsight to stick with and bring to life the projects.
*golf clap*
But they are NOT the reason the respective projects are of any use today. That'd go out to the COMMUNITY. If you want to praise anything, praise the scene. Without the 1000s of developers involved in free software we'd still be using WinXP as the only kernel.
Tom
No value to history conveys no real value now. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no need to be parsimonious with your gratitude. You say that as if we must choose between giving thanks to both the community and RMS and Torvalds. By the standard you endorse we end up essentially saying "what have you done for me lately?" instead of valuing both the community including both men for their work in the past and their continued work on things that matter.
After all, even by the silly logic of valuing what is and not what was, Torvalds and RMS both deserve thanks; Linus Torvalds is still involved in Linux kernel development, despite not writing all of the code in his fork of that kernel. Richard Stallman is the author of the most widely used free software licenses—the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL, and the free documentation license the GNU FDL. And when it comes to the GPL [fsf.org] (the subject of the talk at the heart of this /. thread), Eben Moglen says "there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure".
Re: (Score:2)
It takes smarts, courage and persistence to go counter-culture. For that, I praise the two.
However, they are NOT why the scene is so cool. Look at Hurd. mmm dead duck. How many people work on that? Right. And yeah, LT may maintain the master 2.6 branch but he's not the one contributing the neato features that make Linux worth knowing about.
I think being ignorant and just [incorrectly] blabbing that without LT or RMS that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the worship for the inventors of the hardware which C originally was developed for, or the computer in general, transistor, etc... It's all a fad. Personally I'd rather let the community as a whole know that their work means something than just Linus or RMS.
Not that I don't think they're not important. But given the current situtation, today, they're less important now than ever.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lemme see if I am following this thread:
Kind of puts a damper on a discussion when the mention of someone's name in any context provokes you to to start questioning his entire life work.
Chill out. We know he's a bit nuts, but the GNU and the GPL are an important part of the community, even if some of you wish that it wasn't. I am entirely capable of respecting the man
Join your hands in prayer (Score:3, Funny)
Everytime they just say something, it appears as if it was God in person speaking...
No matter what they did (I mean: how many people wrote their own kernel ? be it Un*x or not), I don't understand why they always appear as Gods...
O Lord Stallman, forgive this unbeliever for his foolish words of blasphemy. We, your true believers, will shun him and send him out from our fold. Once he could visit Slashdot and bask in
Re:Is this some kind of... God ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But how did you get any of that out of either the TFS or TFA? I felt that that was a very down to earth chat with RMS and, although I didn't really learn anything new, felt refreshed after reading it.
I could see maybe the initial writer who introduced the article being slightly guilty of what you speak of but it seems to me you are taking the worst examples of people's, for lack of a b
Demi-Gods perhaps... (Score:2)
Perhaps demi-gods, but not Gods. In response to this and other posts, yes we thank Linus and Stallman for their many contributions, but who and where would they be if not for the efforts of Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Doug McIlroy, and J. F. Ossanna at Bell Labs?
Temper your hero worship with some perspective...
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance, the first two questions covers territory that the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer to use the term Gnods.
And No they aren't. They are incredibly bright, well educated programmers. They are leaders of very important software projects. RMS is also the founder of FSF. Creator of GPL, Head of the Church of Emacs, and several other things. I've heard both of them described as assholes, but I tend to think they are both not.
When they speak Concerning GPL issues or Linux , like EF hutton, people l
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[struggles manfully to find meaning in acronymity]
Gods Not Odiferous Dweebs ??
Re: (Score:2)
>
>[
>
>No, seriously: what would God need with an Operating System?
> [
>
>Salt, anyone?
RMS: That's GNU/salt to you, puny mortal!
Deb, Ian: And no fair starting with anything but sodium and chlorine.
Re: (Score:2)
Why a blog? (Score:3, Informative)
No need to read the article... Yet good form RMS. (Score:3, Informative)
Although, I was interested to see how an interview that takes place outside of the mainstream tech media unfolded. There was no discussion of a FSF/RMS vs. Linus Torvalds/Linux headbutting. Nothing at all about why there is much contention of v3. That being said, I found it admirable that he did not take the opportunity to express his opposing views in this one-sided piece. Many would take such a chance to bash the oppositions arguments.
Re:No need to read the article... Yet good form RM (Score:2)
English, m**-f** , do you speak it? (Score:2)
To an audience in Bangalore, no less. WTF?
>;K
My HERO (Score:2, Funny)
He has been protesting evil surveillance technology such as RFID for years. And there are few other people who have contributed more to free software and humanity in general as he has.
Take a look at his past speches: http://www.fsf.org/events/past-rms-speeches.html?b _start:int=0 [fsf.org]
And remember his protest at the UN Summit: http://www.secureidnews.com/weblog/2005/11/21/rich ard-stallman-protests-at-un-world-summit/ [secureidnews.com]
(a
Re:My HERO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
--
Q
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--
Q
Re: (Score:2)
Besides getting side tracked on a monopoly tangent, what specific part of a single world government is evil? Now obviously any such arrangement would have to be a fairly loose arangement like the US originally was (but even mo
Re: (Score:2)
I'll not digress into the problems inherent in ruling heterogeneous cultures, which became apparant after the misguided nation-making-by-crayon that took place after WWI. I'd say the best chance for peace is to separate the various cultures geographically and give them self rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UN isn't evil. It isn't about world domination or any other such tin-foil-hattery.
It is, however, a HUMAN institution, run by real people - which means that it is far from perfect, and not everything it does is optimal.
There is much room for reform in the UN, but "evil"? No way.
DG
Re: TorrentChannel (Score:2)
New World Order and the Alien Agenda -
http://torrentchannel.com/new_world_order_and_the
Re: (Score:2)
1) Badges at corporations. Let you unlock doors, pay for your cafeteria lunch without cash, etc.
2) Replacement for bar codes in businesses. Greatly speeds up the inventory count.
Which of those uses is "evil" again? Oh wait, neither of them. It's just a handy new technology that's useful for a lot of things.
Anybody who is opposed to RFID as a technology is a wacko. Can it be abused? Yeah, potentially... so can serial numbers and bar codes. To remove all th
Re:Ones man Hero is an others Dictator. (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't have a lack of understanding. He knows why people don't want to share. He merely disagrees with them at a very fundamental level. He disagrees with the concept of information as property.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Richard Stallman or Bill Gates? (Score:5, Funny)
2. You're locked in a room with Richard Stallman and Bill Gates and have only a gun with two bullets in it (which you normally secrete on your person in case you ever get locked in a room with Richard Stallman, Bill Gates, etc). They both clear their throats to speak. What do you do?
A. Shoot Bill, hoping he hasn't got a tablet device (or the XP Security Vulnerability notes) crammed up his blazer
B. Shoot Richard, hoping he hasn't got the notes for his speech in front of his heart
C. Shoot Richard AND Bill and take your chances
D. Shoot yourself, twice, for getting into such a contrived situation
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
RMS dodged the question (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it seems like RMS totally dodged the question. What is "...there are many people who don't have to make money" supposed to mean in this context? I'm sure there are people that don't have to make money, but most people do have to make money, and I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance. It seems that he believes F/OSS's noble goals will be corrupted if Linux gains momentum in the corporate world, but don't we have the GPL to prevent just that? Ultimately, corporate support will help secure the foundation of F/OSS -- I'm thinking of IBM and Sun, and the corporate support behind OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why on earth anyone feels like it is up to the FOSS community to provide them with some kind of framework for building a successful business around FOSS is beyond my ability to comprehend. FOSS does not need to support business models, it does not exist to do so, and most of us do not care if anyone is ever able to turn a profit using it in any way at all. We are all tired o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple fact is that if you want the mainstream world to join your movement they need to be able to make money at it.
What makes you think that mainstream acceptance is what people who are part of the FOSS "movement" want? I've done open source software development, and I couldn't care much less about whether it goes "mainstream". I like the software more than the other options out there, so I got personal satisfaction out of working on it. As an added bonus, I knew that other people were benefitin
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think I'm stupid enough to think that everyone who is part of the FoSS movement (which, by the way, includes myself) has the same opinion?
Anyway, clearly RMS wants mainstream acceptance, which is why he continues proselytizing to the mass media, and as such your comment is incredibly arrogant. I wasn't talking about you. (You're so vain, you probably thought that comment was about yo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance...
Because he knows that's a road to failure. If people have to depend on free software for money, then the whole thing will eventually collapse, because there just won't be enough money to pay enough people to support a software industry based on free software.
Given that, he has to push a (pardon the use of the word) Communist model based on unpaid volunteers.
It will be interesting to see if in the future people will grow weary of their work bein
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you get from "People freely choose to contribute effort to this project" to "COMMUNISM!"?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you exploit somebody without coercion? If Free Software somehow goes all Darth Vader and "alters the deal", people who disagree with the alteration will stop volunteering. [...] How do you get from "People freely choose to contribute effort to this project" to "COMMUNISM!"?
Communism is not based on coercion. It only ends up that way. But if you look at the theoretical goals of Communism, it's very close to the Free Software model.
Re: (Score:2)
(snicker) As opposed to being exploited by their corporate overlords? (see EA, intellectual property laws, NDA's, outsourcing, etc.)
You're not being exploited at all. You knowingly enter into a contract -- as equals -- with your employer. They give you money in exchange for work. In fact, considering employment laws, I could argue that the "corporate overlords" are exploited far more than employees.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Heh, go right ahead. I could use a good laugh.
Re:RMS dodged the question (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that Stallman believes that making money by doing bad things isn't acceptable. To him, morality (remember that Free Software is a moral issue to him) sufficiently justifies a Free Software approach.
I don't see evidence that he's opposed to economic acceptance as a whole any more than antislavery folks are opposed to economic activities as a whole. They're only opposed to economic activities that they consider morally wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just not what's important to him at the moment. My guess is that had the interviewer pressed the issue he would have expounded on his philosophy fu
Re:Put his ass out on the street, then (Score:4, Insightful)
...then his viewpoint is shared by an overwhelming majority. Most people have no problem prohibiting whatever their personal moral code says is wrong. Real, honest-to-goodness "live and let live" is rare. Up to a point, that's fine; I think that murder is not a morally acceptable way to make a living, and I encourage you to find other means of support. I doubt Stallman considers non-Free Software to be as bad as murder, but he clearly prefers that you find other means of support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is the wrong person to ask such a question, Free Software never was about money and never will be, its about Free Software and little else. Its a philosophical concept and not an economic model, especially not one that could make you more money then closed sources. Its kind of like asking a free speech activist how to make a profit from that kind of activities, which is however simply not the goal of such doings.
The OpenSource movement started wi
How better to convey that the question was silly? (Score:2)
Most people already know how to make money and they do it without programming computers. People already know that not every activity they take on needs to make them money. When computing was young, people in computing made money by selling their expertise just like plumbers, mechanics, electricians, and carpenters do (just to name a few expert professions). I can see how you
Rich people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RMS might be a pain in the arse sometimes, but is not loaded.
He also makes a point of avoiding the kind of people you describe above.
If you ever met him you would realise that he doesn't give a crap about money (which might be part of the problem).
he is co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Old and stale non free FUD. (Score:2)
Ah, the power of non free propaganda. People's heads are so filled with stuff that is at odds with their own experience. They might as well have asked, "How do I make money with a computer?" Of the bazillions of ways to do that, only one of them is the non free way and very few people really make money that way. Really, ask yourself, do you or anyone you know make most of their money writting non free code? Why is it that so many people feel the need to support a model so few people are involved with?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd wager that a fair proportion of Slashdotters either work for such a company or know someone who does.
By the way, "writing" only has one T in it.
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine
Ah yes, the Bill Gates letter. Gates complains that people aren't buying the product he has for sale and instead are copying it, meaning his financial investment is not being recouped; free software advocates cla
Re: (Score:2)
Note that this is merely my conjecture, I'm not Bill Gates so I've got no idea what actually went on
Re: (Score:2)
Strange.
I would have said that gainful employment is all about solving other people's problems.
India and Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
A collection of miscellaneous links about OSS developments in India.
Indian President Advises Open Source Approach [slashdot.org]
President Of India Advocates OSS [slashdot.org]
Indian President Advises Open Source Approach [slashdot.org]
Stallman Goes to India (and meets the President) [slashdot.org]
and finally, more recently...
Indian State Logs Microsoft Out [slashdot.org]
I'm hoping to see more active participation in OSS development from India, as more of it's educated masses come online. Computer and internet usage has surged among the middle-class only in recent years, with improvement (albeit gradual) in infrastructure.
A raw treatment to RMS ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is neither the time or place for people to ask a Why? to RMS about free software. Sure, it was a place to ask a Why GPL v3 or about DRM licensing or patent protections, but the questions that were asked was almost total bullshit. Yet again, I'm not speaking from personal presence there - I've just talked to people on irc and read their blogs.
Was one of those weeks when I wasn't in Bangalore ... but RMS was in Kerala (where I am now) and the discussions here were more practical than those quoted from Blr. The ones here were really about the freedoms and mostly by students or political decision makers versus the armchair activists from the software industry.
(I (was ( (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Time to burn karma (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. He doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for him, free and open source software wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
Re: (Score:2)
This is very important to remember. If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System - http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org]
Remember, the "Linux" part of GNU/Linux only refers to the kernel, which is made by Linus Torvals... that's just one piece. The rest was pieced together by mr. Stallman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're using the GNU operating system, along with X.org, Mozilla, and QT/KDE.
Remember that the "GNU" part of Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux only refers to a small set of command-line utilities - that's just one peice. The rest was put together by many volunteers across the globe.
I'll call it "GNU/Linux" when Stallman calls it "Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux." Until then, he's just being hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a paid programmer, RMS is not your friend.
Re:Time to burn karma (Score:5, Interesting)
But yeah, Stallman really doesn't care that much about the interests of the professional programmer in particular. His goals are for the freedoms of computer users in general, (people in general, ultimately) and if proffessional programmers have to take a paycut or enter a new field entirely, so be it. Making proprietary software is (as he sees it) unethical, so why should they feel entitled to make money that way? Of course, if you asked him, I imagine he might say that programmers are (ultimately) better off with free software but small paychecks than they are with decently sized paychecks but unfree software because unfree software is just that bad.
RMS versus Linux (Score:2)
What's interesting is that many (probably a strong majority) of people who develop free software developed their skills (and their bank accounts) building proprietary software for big, evil corporations. And much GPL software has been (and continues to be) donated or financially supported by these companies. And much GPL software is modelled on successf
Re: (Score:2)
YOU CAN'T READ, CAN YOU? (Score:2)
SpacePunk, ignoring Stallman and falling into the trap: "Yes, people can make free software. No, people cannot make a living if that is all they do."
Stallman never said "THAT IS ALL THEY DO". He has never said that. He never will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For some reason, he has a following in which he's revered as a "hero" and a "patriot." Apparently, using the word "freedom" over and over in int
Re: (Score:2)
He says people shouldn't be paid to write software that is then sold under a non-free license.
He has no problem with people being paid to write custom software, so long as other people get a chance to add on to it or modify it.
He specifically recommends that programmers would be paid to maintain and operate, and modify software for business and other entities, by selling support plans and so on.
Re:Time to burn karma (Score:4, Interesting)
In Stallmanland, there are two distinct categories of software:
The second is the problem a lot of people have. Currently, much infrastructure software is proprietary. Things like operating systems come into this category. Everyone needs one. It doesn't make sense for everyone to write one than it makes sense for everyone to pay someone to lay a road in front of them as they walk. And, once the costs of development are paid, it doesn't make sense economically to keep paying for it. It does make sense for people who need new features to pay to have those developed, and for people who need security to pay for periodic security audits.
It is easy to see how bespoke software would be developed in Stallmanland, because it is exactly the same as how it was always developed; and this represents about 90% of the software market. Infrastructure software is slightly different. Some would likely come from academia, much like Mach and BSD UNIX. Some would come from individuals scratching an itch and releasing their code, some from corporations employing someone to scratch their itches (see IBM, Sun, and Novell's funding of Free Software for examples).
The first poster likened Stallman to Lincoln. This is not entirely inaccurate; both were trying to help people who had had their freedom taken away. Stallman is trying to help more people, Lincoln was trying to help people who had had more freedoms removed. The difference, perhaps between a police officer catching a spammer and a murderer. A murderer who kills one person takes 91980000 person-seconds of life (assuming that the person would live for 70 years). A spammer who takes a minute and a half from a million people does the same damage to society. If you are the person being murdered (or enslaved), then it makes a huge difference to you, but overall the impact is similar. Stallman may well end up having an enormous impact on future society. Personally, I hope he does.
Writing code is wealth creation ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people are paid to create software - custom software for some particular customer's needs. For me, the act of writing of software is the process of creating wealth, not the act of selling it. Enough companies make their living just producing code rather than licensing the same code over to a million customers.
Now, when I create something out of nothing, I expect to be paid. But that doesn't go against any Free Software concept to be remunerated for work, but it does go against a few of mine if you merely sell licenses instead of the work done. Proprietary firms do exactly that, they sell you the use of some code, but not the code itself. And RMS might be a hardliner, but we need those in moderation too - because otherwise the rational people among us will accept compromises which might be harmful in the long run ... (yes, I'm talking about ESR).
In short, with free software, you get what you pay for and sometimes a few developers whom you didn't pay for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think he is sick of hearing the proprietary software shops of the world tell him, and any tech trade rag that will listen, that it's impoosible to create software unless you spend a ton of money. The GNU project, Linus's kernel, the BSD's and numerous other examples have proven that to be completely f
Re:Time to burn karma (Score:4, Interesting)
JA: How do you react to the opinion that non-free software is justified as a means for raising dollars that can then be put into the development of completely new software, money that otherwise may not have been available, and thus creating software that may have never been developed?
Richard Stallman: This is no justification at all. A non-free program systematically denies the users the freedom to cooperate; it is the basis of an antisocial scheme to dominate people. The program is available lawfully only to those who will surrender their freedom. That's not a contribution to society, it's a social problem. It is better to develop no software than to develop non-free software.
So if you find yourself in that situation, please don't follow that path. Please don't write the non-free program--please do something else instead. We can wait till someone else has the chance to develop a free program to do the same job.
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
JA: Such as?
Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.
JA: What is the distinction there?
Richard Stallman: Non-free software is meant to be distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as you're respecting your client's freedom.
The next point is that programmers are a tiny fraction of employment in the computer field. Suppose somebody developed an AI and no programmers were needed anymore. Would this be a disaster? Would all the people who are now programmers be doomed to unemployment for the rest of their lives? Obviously not, but this doesn't stop people from exaggerating the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, and there is a significant source of paid programming work that he is (intentionally?) not mentioning. It's when a company that develops some software product for internal use recognizes that it would benefit if the product is released to the public, even if it is only bug reports that it's going to get, and even if they can never hope to sell (er, should I have said license?) the program.
I myself have participated in several such projects. Moreover, I'm always actively on the lookout for things th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Hitler is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. Hitler doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for Hitler, anti-semitism and the Aryan movement wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
(just a joke,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
People kept refering to me as a crank, so I looked it up, it's a useful tool for starting revolutions
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he would rather be called GNU/dick.
Not a dick, something else... (Score:2)
Perhaps it would better said that he chooses to ignore the real world and that his utopian goals are, well, anti-social. Yes, it would all be bery nice if we could live in a world free of responsibilities and simply pursue our hobbies. Work at Starbucks and write free software on the side. The real world is more complex. Support a family of 4 (well) as a Barista? I think not. Perhaps all books should be free as well...
Don't get me wrong, I like Stallman, but he needs to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very historically significant (Score:4, Funny)
I will never, ever forget the way I felt when I first heard Lincoln's immortal words: "Be excellent to one another, and party ON, dudes!"
[
Can I have a moment, please?
Re:One sentence told me all I needed to know (Score:4, Informative)
You didn't consider the context. Stallman was arguing against the belief that "if people aren't paid, they won't write code". He was mentioning the fact that most FLOSS code is written by nonpaid volunteers, while only a minority are paid.
He did not say that developers shouldn't be paid for their efforts. In fact, his GPL says the opposite: you can write free software and make money from it - by selling warranties for it, or media with your software on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. He was asked about the economic impact, and his immediate question is "why are you concerned about economic impact?" Well the simple answer is that most of us live in capitalistic societies in which we need money. Pretty much everyone needs money. Now, who are the developers who can afford to work for nothing? They have to be in pretty special situations. I'm thinking the disabled are high on the list, but if they have a salable skill, why should We The People
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that there is something in his manner that implies 'money isn't important'. He is an idealist; it makes him seem out of touch with the need to make a living sometimes. I would NOT go to him for career advice, I'm with you on that (which does not contradict the fact that I value his ethical stance and I agree with much of what he believes in).
Still, he doesn't say "develop
Re: (Score:2)
He is talking about the 1.000.000 angry penguins who just like to code in the afternoon. Not about the average human.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Stallman has never suggested that software developers should not be paid. In fact he's said many times that FLOSS creates economic opportunity. He's even detailed how its earned him some decent consulting fees.
You can see him discussing that on Google Video: http://video.google.com [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 [kerneltrap.org]...
Stallman is NOT against paying devs (Score:4, Insightful)
> Is that so? "The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job. [- Stallman]"
Stallman is not against making money for writing software. As I said elsewhere in this topic, he would probably support e.g. FLOSS developers getting paid by governments. What he is against is non-free software. So, it follows that he is against getting paid for making non-free software. He is also against paying money for non-free software, using non-free software, teaching people how to use non-free software... you get the point.
Why is the parent modded insightful? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all fine and good. I'll do that as soon as someone volunteers to come and clean my house and mow my lawn. If someone's willing to free up my time I'll be more than happy to donate the software I create with that time.
--
Q
Re: (Score:2)
And that is true. Without the monetary incentive, many will undoubtedly leave the field, but many will still stay - and Free Software will still propsper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Claim 1: Many people don't have to make money. Correct.
Claim 2: Even if you have to make a living, not everything you do has to make money. Not true for everyone, but certainly for the average working human being.
He nowhere states that devs should not profit from programming. However, I agree that he feels that devs should freely contribute.
Anyway, your poorly supported conclusions show that you need to improve your logical reasoning.
Re:Why is this posted... (Score:5, Funny)
*ducks*