There! Fixed that for you.

REALLY? I didn't know it worked in the US!

Does it work in South American and Asia too?

Well, I interpreted the word 'honour' to mean that Free Software lovers won't give you respect, not that they will violate your rights. So in one sense, they don't respect your right to write proprietary code.

Of course, I believe Stallman does respect your right to write proprietary code. If you work for a company which needs software, you write it, the company owes it, and runs it and Stallman respects that process.

It's just once you cross a 'magic' line that so many people start to misunderstand Stallman. It's when you give (or sell) that software to someone else. Is it right for you to say, "I'm going to give this software to you, but you can't run it on any computer you like, and you can't make any changes to it, you can't let anyone else look at it, and most importantly, you can't share it with anyone else.

There are a lot of people who think it is perfectly ethical to make these limitations. Stallman is not one of those people. Once you give him software, he believes he has the right to run the software for any (legal) purpose, that he has the right to modify the software to run as he wants it, and that he has the right to read the code and learn from it. And as importantly, he has the right to share the software with anyone else of his choosing. He believes he has all these *ethical* rights.

It turns out that he might not have the *legal* right to do all these things. So he follows the law, AND he follows his conscience. And he encourages others to do the right thing. And for this, he is harassed, poked fun of, and maligned. He is called crazy.

He is an idealist, and perhaps he is crazy that the ideals of freedom and of sharing can continue to thrive in the world of software. But I think he prefers to see the world as full of potential, rather than succumbing to despair and fear.

Stallman does not believe is forced sharing, but you are right: that would not be freedom.

Stallman does believe that if you have something (like software) and you want to share it with someone else, you should be allowed to do that. Right now there are laws against that. I can't give you a copy of a non-free program (say, Microsoft Word). Or, rather, I can't share the program without breaking the law.

Name one case where Stallman takes something over the objection of the original creator!? Software? If a programmer writes code and licenses it under the GPL or LGPL or BSD or any other Free License, how can you suggest that the creator did not want to share his work?

Have you read anything that Stallman has written, or have you just been listening to third parties call him names?

Thanks for that, but that's not what I was looking for. I'd like a reference to RMS's last post which contains a personal attack against Miguel.

I found it by finding Miguel's blog where the slashdot comment is repeated, but there is a link to http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/. I followed it, but it has a content-full post with no personal attacks.

The link you just provided is a bit surprising, but it isn't written by RMS. The quote is definitely making the rounds: I read about it yesterday, and Google is turning up many more commentators referring to it.

For example, Thom Holwerda (http://www.osnews.com/story/22225) thinks RMS has 'crossed a line' and the FSF should 'removed him from the stage' and that 'he has lost touch with reality'

It's picked up again by aross who thinks it's hard to believe, but also seems to accept it at face value. http://www.fosslc.org/drupal/node/550

It seems to me as a spectator that name-calling is very alive and well here, as is the postured over-reaction on the part of non-participants. Miguel offers this somewhat dippy comment: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Sep-23.html about how God loves all creatures, including Richard Stallman. The funny thing is, he suggests that RMS might want to talk about how to improve 'Free and Open Source Software', as if RMS has never made any suggestions in that line.

Could you give a reference, please?

I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.

I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.

Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.

In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.

I'm not sure I follow your version of history. If you're talking about the history of 'content' then some of the oldest existing business models do not depend on charging for content. Radio stole recorded performances and gave the content away for free. Eventually they had to pay composers (but not performers), and that's still the business model used today. They don't charge for content, and the content isn't famous (on slashdot anyway) for being good. But people still consume it, so they get advertisers. Broadcast TV doesn't charge for content, yet the same business model is in play here too. So 'back in the day when ....' does not refer to a time when providers charged for content universally.

Yes it's true that some business models 'back in the day' charged for content, just as some do today. And yes today we have some companies trying government intervention and/or litigation as a way to get the money, just as we did 'back in the day'.

You seem like someone who would enjoy (and benefit from) reading Lawrence Lessigs' book Free Culture (see http://www.free-culture.cc/toc/) which details some of the history of 'mere copyists' and content 'pirates' who are today's litigants. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't really think you have a strong grip on the history of content providers. And since I'd like you to succeed in convincing the people who hear you, I think you'd be better off with more historical fact, rather than historical romanticizing.

Just my .02 cents (worth even less these days since George Vaccaro got done with Verizon)

It's Apple //e.

Apple ][ and Apple ][+ are correct (IIRC) but the //e was always //e.

As someone who changed his name (in the US) I'd like to modify your perspective a bit.

My name is what I say it is among my friends, but that's it, and that's true only because I'm a nice guy. I say my name is 'Ben' so they call me 'Ben'. Not 'Benjamin' not 'BJ' not 'Dude' or 'Bud' or 'Junior'.

I had one acquaintance who liked the name 'Benny' better. I told her I didn't like that name but it made no difference to her. My name stopped being what I said it was and became what *she* said it was, at least as far as she was concerned.

And that experience is replicated with other 'non-friends' like governments. If I want to get a mortgage and buy a house, or if I'd like to drive a car, or travel to a different country (like the UK) the name 'Ben' will not work.

The United Kingdom will not allow me to enter their country without documentation. My government will not grant that documentation with 'any name I choose to call myself'. In practical terms, my name is what the government calls me; it isn't what I call myself (or tell others to call me)

Hi!

I agree with many of the other suggestions found here, and I'm not trying to repeat any of them. I'll suggest that your reading list contain a bit more information than people are generating here. Consider adding to the bibliographic information on your list details like:
* Are there exercises? With answers?

* What are the pre-requisites for attempting to read, and for best understanding. Be honest here, a student can always decide to ignore your 'best advice'.

* Is this a mainstream topic, or (currently considered) a sideline.

* Contents include statement of theorems? Includes proofs? Rigorous or intuitive?

* Is the book mostly on a specific mathematical subject, a range of subjects, or mostly not mathematical (but history, or entertaining instead)

I think if you aren't going to assign reading, but you want to make the book list enticing, you'll be more successful with this kind of information. Your students may not yet have the sophistication to know that so called math books can have a huge range of styles.

A way you might collect this information over time is to require a book-report from the student that contains the answers to those questions a requirement to collect your extra-credit. Then either edit it or include it wholesale into your bibliography.

I'm a big fan of the following books:
**********
*Geometrical Vectors, Gabriel Weinreich, 1998
  Exercises, no answers
  Contains statement of theorems, with intuitive proofs.
  Subject matter: Specific to one area: Vector Calculus. This is a non-standard perspective on a mainstream area.
  Prerequisites: For reading, some mathematical maturity. For best understanding, exposure to the standard treatment of Calculus or Vector Calculus.
ISBN 0226890481

**********
*What is the name of this book? Raymond Smullyan, 1986
One several logic puzzle books
  Exercises (puzzles) with answers
  No theorems
  Subject matter: one area: Predicate Logic
  Prerequisites: For reading: none. For best understanding: Exposure to predicate calculus, or other basic symbolic logic
  ISBN 0671628321

Of course it'll be suggested elsewhere, but I haven't see it yet: Alice in Wonderland, just for fun. (And I can't help but emphasizing Godel, Escher, Bach)

My dad bought me this one...
**********
*The Mathematics of Juggling by Burkard Polster, 2002
  Exercises
  Theorems, with proofs
  Subject matter: Juggling Patterns and Bell Ringing. These are not mainstream subject areas.
  Prerequisites: For reading: strong mathematical sophistication or dedicated experience juggling (real objects in your hands) For best understanding: I wouldn't know... I don't think I've got it. :-)
  ISBN 0387955135

**********
*The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics, Trachtenberg
I found this book for a few bucks on a sale rack somewhere, but the hardback is selling for about $80 on amazon. Ouch!
It has the sad and gripping story of Jakow Trachtenberg, who was a prisoner in a work camp during WWII. That is where he developed this particular system of mental arithmetic. There are no 'theorems' but the system is justified almost well enough to be proved in the text (after several chapters that have only an explanation of the technique).

If your students are now like I was then, then some like math, think they are good at math, but aren't the best at adding and subtracting. It always felt like I should be better, and I would have loved a way to get better.

ISBN: 0313232008

Hope this helps. I'd love a copy of your compiled list! Consider posting it back to this Slashdot topic, if you have thick enough skin to weather the inevitable criticism. :-)

You could build an Golomb ruler of any length you want pretty easily in a different way. Put ticks at 0,1,3,5,7,15,...2^{n}-1

(I think)
This is a Golomb ruler of order n with length 2^{n)-1. Proof: We need to show if we pick four tick marks, and the distance between the first two equals the distance between the second two then the points are equal.

Pick points nm and pq. Let's also assume that np.
I can assume nm because I measure distances between different points, and I can assume np because the pairs of points are different. (If n=p, and m!=q, then I'll have to renumber my ruler from the other end)

if (2^{m}-1) - (2^{n}-1) = (2^{q}-1) - (2^{p}-1) then

2^m - 2^n = 2^q -2^p, and then factor out the largest common power of 2, which is 2^n

(2^{m-n} -1} = (2^{q-n} - 2^{p-n}

m-n != 0, so the left hand side is odd. But q-n!=0 and p-n!=0 so the number on the right is even.

(2^{m-n} -1} =2^{p-n} * (2^{q-p} -1)

m-n != 0 (because nm) so the number on the left is odd.

p-n != 0, so the number on the right is even. This is a contradiction, showing that my n,m, and p,q cannot measure the same distance.

QED.

The problem is to get the order high, you have to have an exponentially longer ruler. Instead of length 480 for order 25, my ruler is 2^25 - 1 = 33_554_431