RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM 711
Letter writes "Open for Business has an interview with GNU founder and free software zealot Richard M. Stallman (RMS) discussing the SCO situation, the single RMS-approved free Linux distribution and DRM in the Linux kernel. RMS also describes non-free software as a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'"
Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian are very pedantic about free and non-free. Probably just the right balance in their attitude, as they still allow non-free to be download easily. RMS is just ridiculously over-the-top, and should wake up and smell th coffee.
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, he's not building his own empire, he's demolishing the comercial software empire, the means of doing which you seem to see as an 'empire.'
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess if your definition of power is that lame then OK. To me power is George Bush launching wave upon wave of airplanes dropping bombs on afghanistan and iraq. Power is Bill gates buying the govt of the US., Power is Dick Cheney making sure only Haliburton gets billion dollar contracts in Iraq.
Maybe RSM has more power then you but that's not much of an achievement is it? The fact is that he has no real power especially compared with his enemies. Compare the power of RMS with Bill gates or the Canopy group. His enemies have infinately more power then him.
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you hold the reins of the world doesn't mean you have the power to DO anything with it. Creativity and innovation will always triumph over sheer will to power, given enough time - precisely because they change the whole ballgame. What you're calling "power" is transient - the power to shap
interesting comment. (Score:3, Insightful)
I most definetly think that in 10, 50, 100 years RMS will be viewed as one of the most influencial peop
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I should use the word "legend" instead of "empir
You owe Stallman a beer (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe you're misunderstanding him completely. I think Stallman places an exceedingly high value on software; it's because he sees software as very important and very valuable to society that he is so determined that it should be free. It matters desparately to him.
There's no doubt that Stallman is a difficult person to have around the place, and I'm sure I'd hate to share an office with him. But the older I get and the more I think about what I'm doing the more convinced I am that he's right about most things. In a software mediated future access to and control over software will be essential to active participation in society. Consider the voting machines [slashdot.org] issue. Without open, free, publicly auditable software on voting machines, how can the process of democracy in an electronic age be trusted?
I've always considered the GPL to be a very imprtant document, and I've recently switched from using the BSD license for most of my work to using the GPL. I agree that Stallman is an extremist. But we need extremists and without him we would not have the opportunity to discuss differing purities of free software - because there would be no free softare at all, and we would all of us be microserfs.
In short, you owe Stallman a beer (and so do I)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at his responses to the MandrakeSoft and TrollTech questions. He's not just okay with, but happy with, their selling of software. As long as they don't sell software that locks people into a proprietary solution, there's no harm in it. If you want to spend your money on software, you're welcome to it. He just wants a world where you can never be required to do so, just to interoperate with someone else.
He may hold himself to different standards, such as never buying even open sourced commercial software, but that's a far cry from hating and trying to abolish it.
As far as other rewards go, I'd love to be able to legally play DVDs in Linux. The law doesn't stop me from doing it for myself, but it does make it potentially illegal for me to sell Linux systems pre-configured to play DVDs. In RMS's ideal world that would never happen, which makes me thing it's not a bad ideal.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not GNU that runs embedded devices, it's linux. RMS is waay overboard. Free software is a great thing, I hope RMS doesn't destroy it.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, GNU without Linux can still run on three kernels!
Remove GNU from Linux and you don't have much left... Sure, you've got yourself a kernel, so what?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is probably a symantics game.
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:3, Interesting)
--Part of Linux's appeal is the freedom to CHOOSE. If the *only* software that RMS ever use
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is completely resonable to make decisions based soley on your ethics. To give an example, I have big feet. If the only shoes available in my size were made in 3rd world sweat shops, I would choose not to wear shoes, rather than rationalize "I need shoes and my only option is what comes from sweat shops." My feet would most likely quickly become worn and sore, I couldn't go into many businesses, yet I would still survive.
I see RMS as being disgusted with the proverbial "shoe sweatshops" of the software industry. The companies who pimp and profit at the dire expense of others. I think of his fanaticism as an equivilant to someone screaming "Don't buy Nike's! don't you know where they come from? Don't you know what you're supporting?!?"
It is up to each individual to decide if RMS is full of B.S., if the proverbial sweatshops even exist, but that has nothing to do with the idea of basing decisions off of ethics instead of gratification as being flawed.
--Part of Linux's appeal is the freedom to CHOOSE. If the *only* software that RMS ever uses has to be "free" then sorry, he's missing out.
Your last statement implies that "free" software might be the only thing RMS ever uses. I think it is quite safe to say it is the only thing RMS uses. He is quite the zealot, he not only started Gnu/FSF, but gave up his employment at the time due to his refusal to sign NDA's and use proprietary software. Many of his writings on Gnu/FSF's website reference his complete refusal to use any software that isn't "free" (speach). The whole point of Gnu/FSF is due to refusal to ever use non "free" software.
Lastly, I'm not exactly an RMS supporter, but I don't hate the guy either. I do believe in one deciding what their ethics are and standing by them. I also felt your reference to what "RMS might use" put into question his level of fanaticism so I felt obliged to respond that from reading what he's put on Gnu's website, I think it would be a cold day in the seventh ring before he used any software that wasn't "free".
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not very creative (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, people buying servers want an OS they know they can get compatible software with, etc, etc (see the whole Oracle approved distro debacle). So they have an incentive to support (i.e. give money to) a popular distro (i.e. RedHat) so RedHat doesn't go tits up and leave them searching for something else.
And that doesn't e
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I can tell, RMS sees these things in terms of abstract principles, whereas Debian sees them as guarantees that it can offer its users and society at large. Hence RMS comes off sounding "religious" to some, while Debian hies to a document it calls its "Social Contract".
Because it's in the business of offering assurance to its users that they will be able to redistribute and modify the packaged software, Debian has to be exceedingly careful of license conflicts and the like. They took a good deal of heat for excluding KDE until Qt's license ceased to conflict with the GPL. (It's a myth, by the way, that Debian demanded Qt be GPLed. In fact, the problem was that while KDE components were GPLed and Qt's license was also Free, Qt's license and the GPL on KDE could not be simultaneously satisfied.)
The difficulry arises with the GNU FDL because people can add sections called "Invariant Sections" to covered documents. These are portions excluded from the freedom of the license -- portions which future maintainers may not modify. Debian guarantees that the materials you get from its mainline distribution are things you may modify, so obviously Debian can't include FDL Invariant Sections in its mainline distribution.
It isn't a matter of fanaticism, advocacy, or holiness. It's a matter of plain and simple contradiction: Debian can't give something away as freely modifiable software if its license says it isn't -- and an FDL Invariant Section is no more freely modifiable than is Microsoft Word.
If someone says, "I'm making a CD of software that's all BSD-licensed," then obviously they aren't going to include gcc in it. Calling them fanatical or "holier-than-thou" for simply keeping their word, makes you seem to be fanatically advocating hypocrisy and deceit.
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:3, Interesting)
Not trying to bash debian (It's my
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Interesting)
Any section that does not contain subject related content can be flagged as invariant. Companies can add a spiel about what a great company they are and no one is allowed to remove this from the document. Ok, so they get credit. Big Deal.
If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite being the author of most of the content.
Also, if someone decides to translate a GFDL'd document, they are not allowed to translate the invariant section, so they have a 400 page book in spanish with 12 pages of some silly language that the readership cannot understand stuck at the back.
Invariant sections should be removable. (Copyright notices are automatically non-removable)
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately yes. Translation of invariant sections is definitly not allowed.
> The FSF said that [...] it was OK to translate
> it if the meaning didn't change
They said it was okay to "alter its form", not translate it. They could be referring to formatting etc.
> So I guess the same should aply to these
> invariant sections
Allowing translation requires that you trust the translator. If I write an off-topic section at the end of a book that gives my opinions of something, I don't want M$ to have the option of translating it. I wouldn't trust their translator.
My problem is that if I write a GFDL'd document, someone else can add content and add an invariant section. They benefit fully from my work but I can't benefit from their work unless I include the section titled "Proprietary Software Rules!!", or "Why I Like To Sniff Knickers".
Invariant sections should be unalterable but removable.
Ciaran O'Riordan
GPL is minimum required complexity (Score:3, Insightful)
> people use what you produce
Allowing people to use what you produce is simple, protecting your freedom and preserving it for others is the hard task that the GPL trys to solve.
The jungle is "freeer" than the city because I have the freedom to kill. In a society, we trade certain freedoms for other benefits, we trade the freedom to kill for the benefit of a safer living environment. When a freedom is of little use to use, we will trade it lightly.
The
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did he say it was not recommended? Come on people, quit trying to manufacture flame wars. He said he ran Debian on his laptop, for christs sake.
He recommends the Extremadura distribution because it has no unfree software at all. He didn't say don't use Debian, he said it was the best commonly used distribution, but as 'Mr Free Software' of course he has to prefer the only distribution with absolutely no unfree software in it, now that it exists.
Re:Debian not recommended (Score:5, Informative)
Being a Debian maintainer myself, I'm of course absolutely delighted to see a lot of people here in Extremadura to use a Debian-derived distribution, but I have mixed feelings about the fact that it's advertised as a free-software-only distribution when it's not completely true.
RMS disses Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)
Debian is in my mind a scrupulous free-software-only distribution. If they include any non-free software, it's basically in the form of, "Okay, here's a directory of packages people have made to allow easy installation of non-free software under Debian."
I think considering Debian to be anything less than pristine free software is vaguely silly.
Re:RMS disses Debian? (Score:5, Insightful)
You completely miss the RMS's point, and the difference between FREE and OPEN. (This is of course a simplification.)
RMS's stanbd point is that non-free software is inherently a bad thing; doesn't matter if it's "superior" in terms of functionality or quality - it's inherently a bad thing.
Open software says Open software will, inherently, evolve into the best software - lowest bugs, best functionality etc etc - but whilst there is better non-Open software it's ok to use until Open catches up.
That difference in view point is something very few people, it seems, who ramble on the subject and about RMS, understand.
RMS has always, and I suspect always will be, completely consistent in his view point. The only variable has been peoples (lack) of understanding that RMS/FSF != Open software. Edward
Someone's missing the point, but not us... (Score:4, Informative)
No, I don't think we do. You keep implying that we don't see RMS's philosophical point, and that we think he's making some claim about "free-as-in-RMS" software being better than "non-free" software. I assure you, we (or at least I) understand his arguments perfectly; we (I) just disagree with them.
The problem is that most of us aren't going to accept that free-as-in-RMS software is a good thing if it can't produce better products than the current commercial (or other, free-as-in-beer) offerings. He claims that non-free stuff is inherently evil, IP has to go, etc. But unfortunately, if free-as-in-RMS doesn't come up with the goods, I see no reason to agree with him. As long as that's the case, clearly the commercial software world, current IP laws and other targets of RMShate do offer an advantage to the community as a whole, so why should we give them up just to match his code of ethics?
Re:Someone's missing the point, but not us... (Score:5, Insightful)
<br><br>
Then you see no reason to agree with him at all. You don't truly agree if you're only compelled by the practical benefits. You should look at their arguments and ask yourself whether or not you think that non-free software is truly unethical. If not, you're in the open source camp.
Re:Someone's missing the point, but not us... (Score:5, Interesting)
With GPL'd software, the distributor has to give the user what they want or the user will find a new distributor. And if a software package does things that users don't like - the package will be forked.
I can trust GPL'd software not to:
If the software did these things, it would be forked.
Free Software is practical, OpenSource (which is usually a mis-used term) generally means short sightedness. When an executive allows a companies data to be managed by a piece of software they have no control over, they are being impractical. For practicals sake, people should demand Free Software.
Ciaran O'Riordan
He may not care (Score:5, Insightful)
The free software movement is like a group of people who decided to become vegetarian out of ethical concerns about animal rights. Not everybody thinks like them and they're practical enough to understand that. But suppose a Free Vegetable Movement starts a foundation to make vegetarian utensils, publish vegetarian cookbooks and so forth, and get a lot of followers. If non-vegetarians now start also using the recipes, that's fine with them. There's even a splinter "open vegetable movement" of people who don't care about the animal rights issues but have discovered the benefits of eating more vegetables (such as having fewer heart attacks). The OVM may have mixed meat/vegetable diets but the FVM doesn't want to have anything to do with that.
What's happening in these threads sounds to me like non-vegetarians somehow claiming the vegetarian foundation is foolishly restricting people's options because it won't link to restaurants that serve meat dishes, and no longer recommends a particular cookbook with good vegetarian recipes, because that cookbook also has meat dishes and there's now finally a comparably good cookbook which is 100% vegetarian. IMO it would be crazy for the veg foundation to do anything else, given its values. All you can decide is that its values are not your values. Asking them to turn against their very principles by also presenting the "meat option" is ridiculous (do you also ask your xtian church to present the "satan option"?). They did a lot of work making their cookbooks and recipes what they are, and the changes you're asking for show that you're trying to impose your values on them, not the other way around.
Re:I don't care if he doesn't :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS's political rants (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I think RMS would call me apolitical because my primary reason for being involved in open source is that I think it is a better development model. However, there is a deeply political side of me that has a vision and political agenda behind my support of open source. It is in no way as one-sided or as focused as RMS, but I can see where he is coming from.
IMO, I think that the real battle of our lifetime is the battle over proprietary vs open systems and information. This goes beyond computing and affects everything from our food supplies to our software. The problems include companies such as Microsoft holding the rights to the filesystems that are the lifeblood of companies and companies such as Monsanto holding the patent rights to foods which could become the lifeblood of countries. It is also about the CTEA and fighting against perpetual copyright of our cultural icons.
The thing is, though, copyright has its place if it is not overextended. And I am so confident in this that I don't even care that much whether a distro recommends non-free packages. As long as customers start to see the difference. That is important. In fact, it is GOOD IMO, that Mandrake, RedHat, etc. offer commercial software with their distros because it shows the contrast and can help people see why free software is important. On this point, I disagree with RMS.
Re:RMS's political rants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RMS's political rants (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference seems subtle at first-- the user doesn't see that much difference... And that is OK. It gets rid of the culture shock.
But now look at it from an IT manager's perspective or that of a software developer. These pe
Re:RMS disses Debian? (Score:5, Funny)
Thankfully if you want to be reminded of the error of your ways you can install the Virtual RMS package [debian.org] - which will send you mail if ever you install non-free software!.
Re:RMS disses Debian? (Score:5, Interesting)
TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software?
RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.
I refer you to http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html and look under the "Collections of Free Software" section.
su with wheel group (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:su with wheel group (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:su with wheel group (Score:5, Informative)
auth required pam_wheel.so group=wheel
It's not there by default, but you can add it yourself, so it's a non-issue.Re:su with wheel group (Score:3, Funny)
Re:su with wheel group (Score:3, Informative)
$ info su (RH8)
-uso.
zealot? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:zealot? (Score:4, Informative)
: eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something : FERVOR
synonym see PASSION
eagerness, ardent interest, fervor, passion... Yeah, those all fit pretty well
Also, note that fanatic probably doesn't mean what you're thinking...
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
Again, excessive enthusiasm fits pretty well. The intense devotion is probably critical rather than uncritical, but I'd say zealot is a pretty good fit.
Re:zealot? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree with the FSF on a number of points. I take exception, however, at the unwarranted insults I've seen directed at them. Especially since the majority of the hecklers I've seen here on Slashdot have never contributed a line of open-source code in their lives.
Re:zealot? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. You must become a programmer first before you get that special "Critical Guy" ID card that lets you interject your opinion about the operating system you use on your own computer. Linux and anything involved is only for programmers, and only they are allowed to discuss and decide its future. All matters are only open to a small cross-section of the community.
Come on, that's silly.
Re:zealot? (Score:3, Informative)
I run a small free software project. Nothing makes me feel better about working on it than emails from happy users. They increase my productivity indirectly by giving me a sense of achievment. I also welcome *polite* bug reports, feature r
Re:zealot? (Score:4, Funny)
While I understand your point, I find this statement a little amusing. It's like saying "the majority of people heckling Manson have never killed a single person in their lives."
Re:zealot? (Score:5, Insightful)
He believes in ideals to the point that they become inapplicable to the real world, and so becomes as limiting as the commercial world he so despises. That's the reason some people tend to dislike what he has to say, because of its fundamental contradictory nature. He preaches against limitation and yet imposes it.
Re:zealot? (Score:5, Insightful)
the news, it appears to me that, in the long run, RMS is correct more often than
his hecklers.
Seriously, who thinks that OSS would be in a stronger position now if the GPL
had never been written?
At least RMS is consistent (Score:5, Insightful)
Like any other outspoken issue-perfectionist, this grates on those who are less tough about that issue. But make no bones about it, he would be less respected in the end if he compromised.
So be it.
Free is... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that, of course, is that GPL'd software isn't really free (as in speech). It's just a different set of requirements governing distribution and modification, and it relies just as much on copyright law for protection as any closed source, commercial product.
If some code were completely free, then anyone could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished.
The GPL is a great way for people with a shared philosophy to gain mutual benefit from their labours. I have absolutely nothing against that, or their right to protect their agreement via the legal system should that become necessary. If they produce software that is better than commercial alternatives, and choose to give it away, good for them. If not, well, we users can always choose to spend our money buying an alternative we prefer.
But please, calling this "free software" is just as much a misleading propaganda term as calling copyright infringement "intellectual property theft". It's about time a better term was coined.
Re:Free is... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your definition of 'free': "anyone could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished." maximizes freedom for yourself. I think personal freedom is necessary in a free society.
The 'free' that RMS believes in maximizes freedom for all, not just you. Here's how:
In essence, the GPL is a legal hack of the copyright system in order for it to behave closer to the perfect world RMS has in mind.
Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael suggests that modern man has lived a simple agrarian lifestyle for 100,000 years. He states that "Civilization" really got started around 10,000 years ago when somebody got the idea that you can control people by locking up the food. RMS made it his life's work to make sure this doesn't happen in the information age.
Re:Free is... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
All those freedoms are provided by the BSD license. It's even more free because it doesn't require you to open source your code in certain circumstances. It's true that the GPL is more free than copyrighted code without a license and you may certainly use the name "More free than copyrighted software without license". However, to qualify for "Free Software", you should be able to argue that the license is the most f
Re:Free is... what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I don't care about anyone's "IP" "rights", including my own:
Information does not exist independent of its impression on a substrate. Your "intellectual property rights" amount to a demand for control over my PHYSICAL property of the substrate. I take my physical property rights to be much more important than your "intellectual property rights", which amount to government interference with my physical control of my physical property - I would not presume to tell you what to do with your substrate and any associated information.
As to your straw-men about drug manufacture: Don't be absurd. First off, you have no idea what would happen without IP, as you don't have a parallel earth on which to experiment. I reckon drugs would still be developed, since there'd still be a market for them. The business might become a bit more cutthroat, and industrial espionage a little more "fun", but people would still want drugs, would still be willing to pay for drugs, and I would bet drugs would still be manufactured.
Likewise, software would still be developed. The vast majority of software is written to serve a purpose inside some organisation, the commercial boxed-product software world is a tiny fraction of the real market, and wouldn't really be missed. If anything, programmers would be richer, since we can actually write new code, and would be free to reuse any and all old code as we saw fit, as opposed to the current situation where asshole "businessmen" who, thanks to "IP" laws they paid to be passed, just sit around getting richer and exploiting naive and socially unaware geeks (I've copped on to their little game, and am quitting my job - I might go get a business degree and use their suit-fu against them...)
Re:Check the definition of freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the GPL does compel me to behave in certain ways if I use the "free" code. That's my point. As your dictionary definition suggests, free implies a lack of compulsion, and yet this "free" code carries extra requirements with it.
Re:At least RMS is consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
One man's nutcase is history's next great thinker.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds communist! (Score:5, Funny)
So anything not free is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division?
My MP3 addiction finally has a flag bearer.
"www.linex.org could not be found" (Score:4, Funny)
RMS promotes his views too strongly. (Score:5, Insightful)
He refuses to have anything to do with anyone who even has the slightest relationship with a non-free program. In effect he and his cohorts are effective enforcing their beliefs on others or cutting them completely off from their organization.
How can you promote "free software" when you don't promote the "freedom to choose". Personally I think a person or company should be allowed to use free as well as non-free software together without reprimand from RMS and his organization.
It's better to use some free software then no free software, and RMS is effectively limiting his friends and support by enforcing his views on them. Maybe he needs to learn to respect that some people might want to go down a middle ground, and the results of doing that can be great neverless. For example, OS X, a brilliant combination of free as well as proprietary software.
Strong beliefs are okay... (Score:5, Funny)
I find his stance re: Debian rather amusing in light of the fact that, when I was a grad student there, I caught him on the third floor of MIT LCS in 1998 playing Master of Orion at one of the Mac's in the hallway. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that---I play loads of non-free games and use one non-free application once a year (tax prep software)---but I'm surprised he's not having an ulcer from the contradiction.
Cheers,
Kyle
Re:RMS promotes his views too strongly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does RMS even understand physics? It takes "work" to change random states of bits into useful tools and information. Work doesn't come free. Working a material good out of rock, wood, sand, etc, and working bits out of random noise, turns out to be equivalent.
People who do "work" probably are more deserving of the prizes. The betterment of one's self should always be our higher goal. Be contructive, not destructive. Lend a helping hand to those who are trying, but don't offer any favors to those who are not. In the end, everyone gets their just rewards.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Non-free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Argh! Goddamnit, if I see that argument one more time I think my head will explode. That argument only holds up if the company in question could charge $1 million for the software to the first purchaser. Of course, said first purchaser will be mightily *pissed off* when everyone else gets it for free.
I get paid by the hour. Anything else means I'm getting paid for work I didn't do.
That works great for creating a w
Slashdotted (Score:4, Informative)
August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected."
RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don't like it to fork all our important software. The problem is complicated by the fact that most users have not yet ceased to consider Windows a viabl
The interview is down... (Score:4, Funny)
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
For example. "Bill Gates noted closed source zealot and pro-monopolist met with shareholders today."
Hmm, doesn't seem right does it? Leave the defamation to commenters, we do a plently well on our own thanks.
RMS should be revered (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is pedantic, painfully self-righteous, and needs a shave. But he is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, a genius, and a mind to be treasured and revered.
As a programmer and the developer of many free applications, RMS is for me a hero, someone who has anticipated many of the problems I would face in protecting the viability of my work.
He once refused to accept a t-shirt with our team's logo on it, but he's a great man nonetheless.
Re:RMS should be revered (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is a lot like what the Founding Fathers of the USA must have been like twenty or thirty years after things got running. He is worthy of respect in many of his actions and intentions. He clearly had the skills, intelligence, and drive to breath life into his beliefs, many of which the majority of us have at least some level of agreement. But this doesn't mean he's perfect. We can admire Jefferson's brilliance while shaking our heads at his ownership of slaves.
Another analogy I think is useful (if I can be allowed to pigeon-hole him some more), is Sigmund Freud. Freud is respected in psychology for what he was: a brilliant man who moved things forward a great deal. And, similarly to Freud, we can look at the contributions RMS has made with gratitude without believing he is right about everything. No one today really believes that Freud's theories were totally accurate models of reality. But many of the concepts and methods he introduced still have relevance and utility today.
Finally, for those role-playing geeks out there, I have one more analogy: Gary Gygax. He deserves respect for what he did for the genre, but will fall well short of any expectations placed upon him by those experiencing the emotion of "reverence".
It is very tempting to state the RMS, or anyone, is either "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". The reality is that he is a complex person with ideas with which not all of us agree. That doesn't mean we can't look up to him for what good he has done, but to proceed beyond this to "reverence" would be a form of hero worship that would only cloud one's ability to evaluate his statements today.
Slashdot effect... (Score:5, Funny)
Article Text from SLASHDOTted site (Score:3, Informative)
GNU Questions: RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
Date: August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT Topic: Free Software
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected." RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don'
"Freedom" and "freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual interview is already slashdotted, but from the discussion it seems that he reserves his endorsement for the "GNU/Linex [linex.org]" distribution (Linex's site also seems to be down at the moment -- collateral slashdotting?), because it doesn't even provide the option of installing "non-Free" packages. This is just nuts -- it's clear to me why RMS uses the word "Free" instead of "free" at this point: because the meaning of "Free" (and I defy anyone to give a consistent definition of the way that RMS uses the term, aside from "Whatever RMS thinks it should mean at the moment") has shifted so far from what any reasonable person would expect the word "free" to mean.
(As an aside it's funny to see people denouncing michael for describing RMS as a zealot. For goodness sake FSF-guys, michael is on your side. That kinda attitude doesn't bode well for how this comment will be moderated, I suspect.)
RMS and the Vampires (Score:5, Insightful)
No ethical compromise is possible with such a thing - some evil is all evil - that's why he won't support even "conveniance" non-free software or those that associate with it.
I see his point but I still don't know where I, as a programmer, am supposed to earn my mortgage payments. Telling me to become a marketing droid is not a reasonable answer.
TWW
Earn a living the long honoured way. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the way most programmers earn a living.
Mutual Defense Clause? (Score:4, Insightful)
ftp.gnu.org (Score:5, Interesting)
No comments about emacs? (Score:5, Funny)
Ambiguity, or double standards? (Score:3, Funny)
Whoops, maybe he shouldn't have previously mentioned both Windows and StarOffice in the same interview. I'm now vaguely motivated to go and purchase both. Thanks Richard.
My First GNU/Post (Score:4, Funny)
GNU/Ultrix, GNU/HP/UX, GNU/SunOS 4.x, GNU/SunOS 5.x and more flavours of GNU/Linux than I can
remember although I started out using GNU/SLS with kernel 0.9.x.
GNU/Linux has progressed so much in such a relatively short amount of time that I am in awe at
where it is today.
To GNU/gentoo. Then I remembered someone on cola mentioning a new distro named GNU/gentoo.
Once this stage has been reached GNU/gentoo is as easy to maintain as any GNU/Linux distro I know.
There is excellent documentation on the GNU/gentoo website. There is an excellent GNU/document
describing the USE variable which should be read before installing GNU/gentoo.
Apart from everything being compiled from source so that it is optimised for your hardware and the
USE variable to tailor the type of system you want, GNU/gentoo has another little gem. This is the
GNU/gentoo init system. It is based on the excellent GNU/SYSV init system but enhances it and
makes GNU/gentoo a class apart from any other GNU/*nix system I have administered. To be brief,
GNU/gentoo init GNU/scripts allow you to specify GNU/dependencies. There is no need to GNU/worry
about S script numbering as in GNU/SYSV or where GNU/you place the startup code in GNU/BSD type
GNU/init scripts (I'm referring to GNU/BSD 4.3 here. I don't GNU/know if the free GNU/BSD's have
changed GNU/things).
To summarise: GNU/gentoo is a very special GNU/Linux distro. It may not GNU/be for the the
GNU/Linux GNU/neophyte (I'm sure GNU/someone posted to GNU/cola recently that GNU/gentoo was their
first GNU/Linux GNU/install) although if GNU/you read the GNU/docs and GNU/understand what is
going on GNU/gentoo is an excellent GNU/distro.
GNU/Support GNU/is GNU/excellent GNU/via GNU/the GNU/gentoo GNU/forums GNU/and GNU/mailing
GNU/lists.
I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
Does he also believe that non-free architects, authors, musicians, is a 'predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division.'
I fully believe Stallman's goals do NOT stop at software.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
> authors, musicians
He distinguishes between technical works, works of art, and personal expressions. His "must be Free" mandate only applys to technically useful works.
He believes that non-commercial distribution of all works should be allowed. Some works should be alterable, some shouldn't.
He admits to not having a solution that he's completely satisfied with for non-software works.
GNU/LinEx (Score:3, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new Free Software using Extramaduran overlords.
Seriously, WHOTF are these guys?
He may appear like a pill but he's got a point. (Score:3, Interesting)
RMS: Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps. Much of our community focuses on practical benefits exclusively, and that doesn't show other users a reason to keep moving till they reach freedom. Users can remain in our community for years without encountering the idea. As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.
TRB: Do you have any closing thoughts you would like to share with Open for Business readers?
RMS: A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it.
Though at one point (when he goes at Debian) I was about to consider this guy a real prick I changed my mind. After finished reading this interview - which gives a good insight into RMS for those who don't know him or his motives that well - I must say that he has a rock-solid point in case.
I allways like to say: Thought is free. And with machines around that somewhat emulate basic algorithims of human thinking we have to be very carefull not to permit companys to patent thoughts.
RMS actually does make sense when he emphasises his Freedom thing. Oh, sorry, was that GNU/RMS?
RMS is a practical man (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the world of software today and trace how much impact he has had. Emacs, gcc, gdb. The GPL. The idea that people can give away what they want, and other people (or the same people) can charge money for making distros and providing support.
Entire companies operate now in the intellectual eco-sphere that Stallman invented.
To be sure, several other people have also had an impact bigger than Stallman's. So what? Out of the millions of people who have spent their careers working with computers, he's easily in the top 0.1% of impact -- of people who made the world more like the way they want it.
That's practical.
Re:RMS is a practical man (Score:5, Insightful)
> bigger than Stallman's
It's also worth noting how unlikely Stallman was.
Bill Gates has had a bigger influence on the world, but anyone could have predicted him. If he was never born, there would be someone else in his place.
Would there be another RMS if this RMS was never born?
His biography is really interesting, and of course it is Free. (www.faifzilla.org)
Ciaran O'Riordan
What of Interoperability? (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness, I think RMS has a good concept. Free software is a great idea. However, implementing free software would require changing the thoughts of every person in the entire world so they see that free software is a good thing. Take the following, for example:
TRB: One difficult thing for end users is proprietary codecs and plugins. Two examples that seem especially prevalent are Macromedia Flash and Real Networks' RealMedia files. Without these technologies, a lot of interesting content becomes unavailable. What do you think the short-term solution for this problem is?
RMS: I think we should modify browsers to encourage and help users to send messages of complaint to those sites, to pressure them to change.
Why? Media-types think flash and real media are a great technology. RMS is suggesting taking a step backward through this suggestion. What purpose could it possibly serve? Unless you can change the mindset of the folk at Real and Macromedia, you're stuck. Comply and remain interoperable or just don't view it.
By this same argument, folk should quit using Quicktime, WMV and WMA. Does anyone see thing happening anytime soon? I think not. People will go where their technology takes them, be it a Mac, Windows, *nix or *BSD user.
The key, at this point, isn't to subjugate the masses and foisting Linux on them. It's to make Linux interoperable with the other operating systems first. After Linux has gained, say, 50% of the market, then Linux can make demands. As it stands, if every Linux user were to send a letter of complaint to every site that used Flash, RealMedia, Quicktime or WM*s, people will probably more or less laugh. What purpose does it serve to suggest alternatives when there is no reason for said people to switch?
Linux is great. But it isn't so great that it will inspire change in the mind of everyone in the world. At least, not yet. ;)
Linux has always had DRM of a sort (Score:4, Funny)
I just lost a lot of respect for him. (Score:4, Interesting)
"When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations."
Practice what you preach, brother.
Re:I just lost a lot of respect for him. (Score:5, Insightful)
but he runs Deb on his laptop because it was "the best at the time." what fucking bullshit. if it's so important to you, switch distros right-fucking-now.
Look I have more issues with RMS than most, but I think you are going one step too far. It's not like he would have anything from the debian release that is not free on his machine. It's like,... building a house, at the time you built it the company you bought the wood from sold both old growth and plantation wood products. They didn't actively promote old growth wood, but they would get it if a customer demanded that particular wood, so they were the best "ethical" provider available at the time. However you only used plantation wood products in your house so you complied with your ethics. And now, if you were building again, there is this new company that offers no old growth wood at all, so you could use them even more comfortably, indeed you might recommend them at the expense of the former company. The situation with Debian and LinEx seems the same to me so there is no reason to switch distros for him in order to remain consistent with his stated ethical position.
RMS is wrong: Extremadura LinEx *is* Debian (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm calling you out, Richard Stallman. You claim that the GNU project website will not link to the Debian project because the Debian project provides for the description and download of non-Free Software. Yet, you can recommend a Debian install?
Most certainly Extremadura Linux contains the standard dpkg/apt facilities. Just like with a standard Debian install, a user must explicitly specify that he or she would like access to the seperate repository which contains non-Free Software, in order to access these repositories with the apt system. This is done either at install (in the case of a standard Debian GNU/Linux install), or after install by modifying the
The default of a Debian GNU/Linux install is to provide for the installation of only software which is Free Software.
Extremadura GNU/Linux no doubt provides in its package management system to describe non-Free Software, and to provide for the download and installation of non-Free Software. These are the same reasons that you have stated you will not link to the Debian project from the GNU project website.
Mr. Stallman, how dare you take a stab like this at the Debian project.
RMS is inconsistent on non-software copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that share many of Stallman's political and ethical goals and committments, but I question his committment to the apparent grounds of his ideals in the case of non-software copyright issues.
RMS does not appear to believe that the right to Freely modify and redistribute "software" is an absolute right, and likewise does not believe that one's moral obligation to make "software" available in a form which is Free is an absolute right.
I agree. This is not an absolute right. It is a right which arises from more basic rights of all humans, and this obligation from obligations to satisfy these more basic human rights.
Stallman appears to ground our moral obligations regarding copyright, like myself, on the value that those rights which these obligations satisfy have to society at large.
Unfortunately, Stallman openly appears not to be consistent on these grounds concerning novels, music, video games scenarios, and certain embedded software.
See this 1999 interview [unam.edu] as a reference.
That an "offer to obtain the source" of a piece of software be provided is not an obligation to those who can not benefit from obtaining the source code, but rather it is an obligation to society, that the source code be made available so that those who can benefit society by obtaining the source code, can obtain it. It must be offerred to every one, because the original software distributor has conflicting interests and can not be trusted to, and may not even be capable of, properly determining which individuals or institutions particularly can benefit society by obtaining the source, so as to provide it only to these individuals and institutions.
For this reason also, I disagree with Mr. Stallman. I believe it is unacceptable that source be provided only to those who are also distributed a binary or other copy of the application. All institutions and individuals must have the right to request and obtain a copy of the source -- whether or not they have been distributed another copy of the software -- again, at a fair price for the material cost of doing so, and within fair time constraints.
If you have written a piece of software, the source of which could benefit society were a copy of it obtained by some individual or institution, then you are without excuse for not providing this source at a fair material cost and within reasonable time constraints. Whether or not you actually distribute your software does not significantly affect your obligations to advance and better society, which you has a software creator have the full ability to do. It is because of society that you are alive, have prospered, and have had the sort of education and upbrining which you have had, and so in the sort of environment which you have been in. To say that these obligations to society only arise when you actually distribute software, is at the very least to give the appearance of inconsistent, arbitrary demands and goals. I can see no justification for them.
To the other matters which he is asked to comment on in the above interview:
Being able to modify a novel, to make it suitable for a more particular audience or culture, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to modify a musical composition, to make it better, more satisfying, or more targeted, is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
Being able to correct, maintain, or modify embedded software is a good which we are without excuse to fail to advocate.
RMS, on the rocks ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dying of math and graphics (Score:3, Insightful)
This might help: your thinking may be free within a system, but your still bounded by that system.
You may view your thinking within Lightwave as free, but only as far as Lightwave will allow you to go. You own the Lightwave software, but who controls the Lightwave software? Beyond what has been built into the software, you have no control. So n
*ahem* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing I know how to use Maya and 3D Studio Max, then.
So now your used to the Lightwave program, price goes up, what do you do? Go find another proprietary software package or pay up?
I may switch, I may buy the newest version. Depends on what the exact circumstances are, but get this -- neither option is revolting to me.
This may be difficult to understand, but I have no desire to code my own graphics or mathematics site of applications. Nor do I wish to spend time manually adding features to what I already use. With respect to such programs, I am an end user; I am willing to learn the most popular software tools in my field -- there are several different non-free programs out there that I can learn and develop a wide range of skills with. And guess what? They're actually good enough for their intended purpose.
When was the last time you heard someone complaining about Maya's or Mathcad's lack of features? Or them hindering productivity? You don't hear such complaints because the programs, while proprietary and non-free, are (1) fantastic at what they do and (2) if one weren't to someone's taste, there are plenty of other choices. Don't like Mathcad? Try Maple, Mathematica, MATLAB. You'll have to pay, but there's a reason those programs are priced as they are -- they work well, they took effort, and they're the best.
Read Hemingway travel and get unignorant then. (Score:3, Informative)