This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Interesting)
Once developers get into team mode, they are more likely to seize the momentum it can provide. The end result can be improved user friendliness.
Not true. (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, some thing with an (at the time) unattributed author is not considered public domain until such time the author declares his/her intent. Up until that point, you may treat it as public domain with the knowledge that at any time the author could come after you if they so choose (up to the time limitations, anyway).
So it's not really public domain unless you can prove it is. All i
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)
The main concept of this kind of freedom is to give users the power to copy, modify and redistribute a software or a manual. This improves life quality and the karma (not the
If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.
People need to see free software as a social movement. It gives you a chance to be a better human being by sharing your knowledge with your neighboor.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.
And it sounds great in principle. It's in practice that it runs into trouble. Imagine, for instance, that I'm a freelance graphic designer, or do 3D visualization work, or whatever. And imagine that there are features of Photoshop or Quark or Maya or AVS that aren't available to me in the Gimp or Sodipodi or Blender or OpenDX or whatever (actually, I think the latter two are open source but not free software, but anyway). The suggestion above would be to roll up my sleeves and program in those features. But, in our example, I can't: I'm not a programmer. Nor do I have the time to become one and do that work when all my time is spent doing the actual work for which I get paid.
So then the second answer is to ask a programmer friend. But, even assuming I have said programmer friend, and assuming that programmer friend doesn't have something he/she would rather be doing, these aren't trivial enhancements we're talking about and such functionality will take a while.
So then the next suggestion above is to hire someone. With what money? And how can I justify spending ten times or more the cost of some proprietary software package hiring programmers to improve (or create) a free software competitor? Especially when my hypothetical freelance business probably isn't exactly rolling in the dough.
Well, RMS would say that the justification for spending that money to improve free software options is a dedication to freedom. And if it's really not possible to spend that money on that purpose, because I simply don't have it, then dedication to freedom demands foregoing that proprietary option, and simply doing without that feature set. But in my hypothetical case, that means doing without that client, or that income. So much for my hypothetical business; time to find another way to feed my kids.
My example is contrived, of course. For many (most? dunno.) users of proprietary software, free software alternatives exist that will do everything they want, and do it well. But for many others, that's not true. And telling those users to simply forego doing what they want or need to do as a stand for a cause is a very big request. Of course, people have sacrificed their economic health, and much more, for the cause of freedom before. But not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software; rather, it's been the freedoms accompanying equality of race or gender or religious background under the law.
Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing their financial security for that freedom.
Oh, and it shouldn't matter, but just in case it does: I don't have any propriety software installed on my machine, and very little open-source-but-not-free-software stuff as well. I'm not making this post because I don't believe in free software; rather, because I don't think some free software advocates really realize just what big a thing they're asking people to do, and consequently how large a burden of justifying it they have.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
You are partially correct. OSS should not end up costing more than proprietary solutions. Personally hiring 3rd-party developers to improve the OSS you use rarely works.
This is
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Hooking up users and producers is where business, finance, and marketing people live, and they're pretty good at it. Unfortunately, they want to be paid, too, so we're no longer t
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Informative)
Unless, of course, you expect handholding for free, a different case alltogether.....
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).
The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.
On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.
If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software [gnu.org] page):
And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.
RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:
The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).
That's fine. But you should care about freedom.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure if he still believes this.
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman didn't invent Free Software, not by a long shot. He just gave it a name and formalised it.
In the beginning of software, all software was "Free Software". It was traded freely as source code and nobody gave a thought about it. At the time, software was treated a lot like recipes: Sure, you had to pay for the food (hardware), but instructions for preparing the food (software) was written by anybody and given to anybody who wanted it.
It was
So the Win98 community is in good shape, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read today that Win98 is nearly 25% of the desktop clients on the internet.
If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out.
Win98 is not open, and now everyone who drank the coolaid is beginning to feel the effects of the arsenic.
Commercial software is always a ring in your nose. The GPL can also be a ring, but it is lighter and the developing entity generally does not hold the chain as tightly.
Re:So the Win98 community is in good shape, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, actually Progeny [progeny.com] is offering support for Redhat. If you want an up-to-date debian, you use unstable, which isn't. And most aborted sourceforge projects I've seen seem to have been aborted due to lack of interest. So what?
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to people in developing nations that can't afford to buy licenses for proprietary software. Those who wouldn't have access to a computer or the internet at all if not for Free
Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Wel
I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:2)
The problem is, if your application is well designed and well documented (as in documentation for users - not just code comments) then there should be little to no need for users to require support for installation and operation.
Which only leaves you coding new features. Which if you code is suitably well written and commented, then it might be cheaper for them to do the majority of small things i
Already and issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should I upgrade to Office XP when Office 97 does everything I need? The only real way around that is forcing your clients to upgrade(which Microsoft has been doing with a number of their products) and that hasn't generated a lot of goodwill with customers.
If your product is "done", then it might be time to move onto creating a new product.
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:2)
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Stallman doesn't encourage comunism or non-profit activies. He encourage the free software for the freedom of the users.
I could explain a lot of things here, but
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Math is free, but we still have mathematicians. Laws are free (usually), but politicians still get paid to write them. Phone books are free, but people still get paid to compile them. Land title histories are free, but employees of title insurance companies still get paid to research them. "Free Software" doesn't mean software developers work for free. It's simply a matter of whether or not you want your job to be recreating stuff made by other people or creating new things.
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Interesting)
All you libertarians out there who trust the invisible hand- it's put up or shut up time.
IT Business (Score:3, Informative)
One day all the leading industries decide to take an open source document system and spend a few million dollars to code in the features they want. That way they'll have an open source(free) document management system and in the long run spending a million to get it up to speed will save them money over paying companies like
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:4, Informative)
The goal of free software is not to create software jobs, it's goal is to promote ethical conduct. Besides, Stallman has never argued it's "bad" to charge for writing code. If someone needs their free software modified, it's perfectly OK to get paid for your work.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. If I have created something, it is mine to do with as I will. I have no ethical obligation to give it away, even if doing so would cost me nothing. Giving it away might well be a very nice thing to do, but that doesn't mean not giving it away is wrong.
People (not necessarily me) think Stallman is "some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot", because they can't see why he would disagree with this seemingly obvious assertion, unless
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer: Software is a Service (Score:5, Interesting)
Software is a Service, not a Product.
By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.
Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.
We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1
And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.
For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.
My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.
You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.
DG
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you almost entirely. Except that when you say;
I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software
I disagree with you in the context of the state's use of software. It should _never_ be proprietary. Indeed I believe the state should fund the writing/improving of the free version to meet their needs rather than purchase the non-free equivalent. I am happy to limit this requirement to the same category of applications for which you (and I) believe that free software will eventually drive out non free software, however I would be even happier not to limit it at all. The reason why the state should mandate the free solution is that the state is well able to make the long term decision that having these applications will be of more benefit to all citizens in the long run than the short term cost of improving the software or accepting reduced functionality. Indeed, I would argue that it is the duty of rational government to make these kind of decisions.
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice explanation. Two points:
One, one part of that economy of scale is that it is very often useful for a company that has taken Free software and modified it for internal use, to release those modifications back to the original project. The advantages are that it is now someone else's job to keep your modifications compatible with new versions of the software, and that some other company may actually improve your code and also release it back, for you to use. The first of those (stay compatible) is my fav
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a universal constant, it's just your preference of what you consider important. You say "Any business should do what best, subject to the la
Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to be the one dissin' RMS, but I think he needs a sanity check or just stop being a "spokesperson" for the Free software community. It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software. This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
all know what I mean), etc
He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)
Thank you for reading this.
Re:RMS.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America??? (Score:4, Insightful)
The average citizen has far more control over my corporation than I have over them. They can refuse to buy. They can open their own competitive business. They can vote in the town I am in to ban my product or my business. They can zone me out of their neighborhoods. They tax my sales and use that money in ways I disagree with. They tax my property. They tax the money I pay my employees. They tax my profits, too.
How is Corporate America a bad thing? Corporations that are friendly with the government are given benefits (cheap loans, tariffs against competition, and even regulating competition out of the business) is NOT a free market, but a mercantilist one. America was never supposed to be mercantilist, it was supposed to be capitalist. Capitalism allows no monopoly, but mercantilism does.
And mercantilism can only happen from government getting involved in economic planning -- ruin from the start.
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RMS.. Corporate America = America??? (Score:2)
GNU/Richard Stallman (Score:2, Funny)
GNU/But GNU/I GNU/am GNU/could GNU/be GNU/wrong GNU/on GNU/this.
Re:RMS.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. Without people like Mr. Stallman, The free software movement would not be where it is today. His "problem" is that he envisions a perfect world where all software is free. This is a noble goal, but the reality is that this will never be. There will always be need (and a market) for non-free
Re:RMS.. (Score:5, Informative)
He doesn't "hate" Debian at all. That's patently untrue. He has said [ofb.biz] however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Re:RMS.. (Score:2)
Re:RMS.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice. Debian strongly encourages Free Software. Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux. However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software. He's so wrapped up in the concept that not sharing your source is an inherently Evil idea that he forgets that true Freedom includes the option to shoot yourself in the foot.
I dislike the polarized, fanatical "either with us or with the terrorists" stance that he takes towards proprietary software. I don't like it in politics, and I don't like it in the philosophy of software development. Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.
He's certainly more civil nowdays than to openly claim to hate Debian, but he certainly doesn't think it's good enough, and that's pretty much the parent poster's point.
You should read what RMS actually says. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your evidence of this is where, exactly? I don't see him telling people they shouldn't write any particular program. I see him telling people that if they intend on distributing the software they are writing, they should distribute it as free software.
Actually the GNU project predates the development of the Linux kernal by
Re:RMS.. (Score:2)
Yes, he's extreme in his vision of a software utopia. But if Free software is a good thing, it's not completely unreasonable to say an only Free software rule might be a great thing - and it's usefull to have someone around who insists that's the way things should be, if only to make the moderates look, well, more moderate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not only GNU turns 20 (Score:5, Funny)
linux.com? (Score:5, Funny)
Hurd... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hurd... (Score:2, Funny)
Don't mention the HURD.
Re:Hurd... (Score:2, Funny)
He's already accomplished a great deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
They've demonstrated not only that it is possible to roll your own system (GNU/Herd, GNU/Linux, EMACS, and the myriad utilities), but also why it is necessary. What must come next in this new era of DRM are those who can create their own hardware, free of the oppression and lock-in that tomorrow's systems will have. But we will not ask ourselves what we can run on our homebrew hardware, because an answer is ready thanks to the efforts of the Free Software Foundation.
Why homebrew hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's already accomplished a great deal. (Score:3, Funny)
GNU/Hurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)? If not, does Stallman think that developers can create drivers for proprietary hardware that are at least as good as, if not better than, those provided by the manufacturer?
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
Re:GNU/Hurd (Score:3, Informative)
Linux is licensed under the GPL. Hurd is licensed under the GPL. Neither has any exceptions or additional grants. GPL goes as far as the copyright does. Everything that is derived from Linux and Hurd will have to be GPL. Now it happens to be that not all kernel modules can be considered to be derived from Linux so whatever Lin
Re:GNU/Hurd (Score:2, Funny)
So, it'll be like trying to get people to migrate from Windows to Linux?
Somehow, I don't see that driving adoption of GNU/Hurd. But, then again, I don't see Hurd coming out any time soon.
mod me troll -1 but... (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS still doesn't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If most people's expectation of software was to create "cooperation and community", RMS mmight be onto something here. But the truth is that most people and businesses want software that fulfills a particular need (or set of needs).
As long as RMS continues to deny the purpose of software for most people, free software will never meet the needs of the masses.
Where to go party? (Score:4, Informative)
Savannah Compromise? What happened? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not?
Black & White vs shades of gray (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have read his writings, he has fairly convincingly argued from first principles that software should be free. I, and many others, have read this and been inspired, because the world he ultimately wants to live in is about co-operation and sharing.
However, RMS often leaves people behind with his extreme on/off view. This sentance is pivotal:
This is seriously distorting his already bent definition of "free". Freedom, as he defines it, can be applied to software (and with a bit of work books, music etc) and while you might argue with the word used it's a useful concept to have.
Here though, he applies the word free to users, and this is a different thing entirely. Worse, he asserts that all it takes is one piece of non-free software to spoil his utopian dream.
I think a lot of people like the idea of free software, but we're willing to accept compromise. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Free software have inherantly good vibes because we're not imposing arbitrary limitations on what people can do with what we made (which is ultimately beneficial) but it's not like I'm a slave to the machine because I use the NVidia video drivers.
Yeah, I'd like to have free drivers, but Alan Cox himself has said he cannot think of a way to justify NVidia freeing their code - their fears of what would happen to their business if they did that are justified, he thinks. That's good enough for me. In this case, it just isn't practical. I don't like it, but that's life.
RMS sees it differently. That alienates people.
Re:Black & White vs shades of gray (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, though, that he seems to be proven correct every single time this comes up. Remember when BitKeeper restricted their license [berlios.de], effectively prohibiting anyone from contributing to the Linux kernel and, say, Subversion? Or when Darren Reed re-interpreted the license to IPF [deadly.org], forcing the OpenBSD team to remove it from their system? Or any of the other stories on Slashdot where a closed-source company lures users and developers with gratis copies of their new, shiny product - and then changes licensing terms once everyone's hooked?
The fact is that if you use non-Free software, then you are beholden to the whims of someone else. I always recommend Free software solutions to my employer when remotely possible, not to save a few pennies, but to ensure that we have the right to use our systems as we see fit, not as someone outside our business allows us to.
RMS is loud, obnoxious, and irritating to a lot of people. He's also right almost every time when he warns of the dangers of non-Free systems. Although you might not like the delivery, the message seems to be dead accurate.
RMS and Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
God Bless Linus Torvalds for making it usable.
RMS = William Wallace? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Mr. Stallman defines freedom in the same way I do. I don't think Mr. Stallman's concept of morality is anywhere near mine either. I just can't take someone seriously who tells me that non-free software is morally un
Re:RMS = William Wallace? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The open source community is much better off gaining credibility and notoriety by making better software and being an inclusive place where developers and tinkerers hone their craft than by suggesting non-free software is immoral."
...And this can happen quite easily, as more developers and managers realize that open-source and free-software are not bound at the hip.
I think many would agree that open-source can be an extremely effective development methodology - I have benefitted both personally and
Re:RMS = William Wallace? (Score:4, Informative)
That's the core of your misunderstanding. Open Source is not the same [yukidoke.org] as Free. The concepts are orthogonal. While Open Source is about pragmatism, Free Software is about morality, and it's not reasonable to expect arguments about practicality to influence someone's moral beliefs.
The ideals you mention belong to the Open Source movement, and your thoughts will be most welcome there. RMS and his co-believers will not agree with you, ever, and you need to know the differences between the groups to understand why.
First line... (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else start thinking up new lyrics to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band when they read that first sentence? Perhaps a new Free Software Song is in the making....
Re:First line... (Score:5, Funny)
a curious quote and comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
The current U.S. administration says (my paraphrasing):
The most effective way to strengthen the world for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free peoples. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Isn't it odd that two apparently unrelated, or even diametrically opposed, groups can have such similar sentiments as their "mission statements"? I guess some will claim that my paraphrasing is optimistic or even naieve, but I believe it, and I believe a lot of others do as well.
So, we have now a view of Stallman working on free software as a microcosmic version of the U.S. working on world freedom. Discuss!
Re:a curious quote and comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom right now in the USA is only limited to what can make them more money, not other countries that might limit/threaten their freedom.
By this I DO NOT mean in a direct assault on freedom itself, but by affecting the standards of living in the USA. The recent exposed plan in the 70/80's to invade oil rich countries to protect their oil needs is only one example. Need I mention DMCA and other laws to protect the corporate companies rather then the cons
RMS is before his time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my $.02.
Re:RMS is before his time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I think the GPL is a good idea. But what really turns me off about GNU is their casting of the GPL as some sort of ideological crusade between good and evil. Nobody is being oppressed or having their human rights violated by using proprietary software. The market should be allowed to decide which model should prevail (or if both should coexist), without being tainted by some sort of acquired "morality".
I believe future historians will judge RMS as having done about as much harm as good.
Re:RMS is before his time. (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in the Third World, and what I can say is that the use of proprietary software IS a form of oppression indeed. For the first time in human history the advance of technology has practically removed all barriers to accessing useful information, but corporations like Microsoft are using the same technology to erect artificial barriers in the name of their profits. They would condemn whole nations and peoples into ignorance and backwardness because these nations and peoples cannot afford to get around
Another RMS post (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's Stallman's comments:
""I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says".
Re:Another RMS post (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS has done a lot for free software.
He has written significant amounts of it.
He doesn't want Linux called GNU/Linux, he wants a GNU system with the Linux kernel called GNU/Linux.
Think of this like buying a GM vehicle (system) with a Honda engine(kernel). You wouldn't call it a Honda, Likely either a GM, or GM/Honda vehicle.
The SCO mess is a temporary trivial harrassment, not really a serious problem. They have no proven claims, and unless they actually document one, they will probaly collapse under IBMs countersuit.
GNOME? (Score:4, Insightful)
GNOMErs gleefully point this out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
I don't have a problem with the license choice, just the hypocrisy.
Re:GNOME? (Score:3, Insightful)
Others in the GNOME community may push the non-free angle of the above, but this doesn't make RMS or other FSS proponents hypocritical.
Re:GNOME? (Score:3, Informative)
"Because it's part of the GNU system."
GNOMErs gleefully point [LGPL] out as the major selling point for GNOME over KDE.
There are many reasons why GNOME fans like GNOME. That is only one, and certainly not one that motivates RMS.
Bruce Perens has cited that as the reason why GNOME is better for a business distribution. He believes that if businesses want the option of running proprietary software, a business-oriented distribution should provide that option. RMS belie
What about Free software on Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question was modded +5, and I would really like to hear one of the "leaders" answer on it. Here it is as I posted it then...
The question still applies to Free software too. Is it possible to run Free software on Windows, and not get RMS' hackles up? OpenOffice is a great example that runs on Windows. Is it worth it to get the word out about alternative to proprietary software, or is the whole movement about alternatives to proprietary OSs?
Profits below Zero to Negative ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I love free software esp. when it is the underdog. The following comment is only meant in the sense of what will happen if free software becomes the Big Kid on the Block.
I see an analogy with Economic Models where they talk of Perfect Competition and a Level Playing Field leading increasingly towards profits approaching to Zero. It is not really a bad situation in the Creative-Destruction evolution of the market economies.
This economic destination would be perfect if the 'free" software was being written in time that was "leisure" time, or even in "professional" time if it is going to lead to professional and career advancements. Then the concept of Zero Profits is not unreasonable as there are other intangible benefits.
But for many other people the time spent writing "free" software is going to entail expenses - esp. if they they don't have the above two mitigating factors. In that case the programmers are then paying themselves for the software they write - i.e. negative profits.
I know this question has been asked a million/gazillion times. But, hey, it's GNU's 20th Birthday, so why not nostaligically revist it.
I guess, all I am asking is that if the users are going to benefit from "free" software, and that becomes the dominant mode of software usage, how are the large number of programmers going to be compensated directly or indirectly -esp. the ones who are not Hobbyists and Resume-builders.
any last words ..... freedom! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.
All or nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about a more gradual approach? So what if someone wants to run Weblogic and Oracle on Linux instead of Weblogic and Oracle on Windows? Maybe the transition to Tomcat and PostgreSQL on Linux is too much for them right now, for technical or political reasons. Maybe they'll switch eventually.
Or, maybe they won't. Isn't it still a positive change, a change providing more freedom? Would RMS rather that that user just stay on Windows forever, using no free or open software at all? I realize that RMS in his ideology above all else, and certainly above any pragmatism, but this kind of transition is a win for everyone. Even if the example user never switches to 100% free software.
RMS still doesn't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Any given set of software will succeed in the marketplace when it presents a greater value proposition than all the other options. Linux has been growing like gangbusters in the server space because it represents a better value than proprietary Unix, and more recently, Windows servers. Linux is starting to make inroads on the corporate desktop for the same reason: customers are beginning to see the lack of value in Microsoft's offering (think ratio of price to functionality), so as free software's value proposition continues to become more attractive, more customers will make the jump.
RMS seems to think that computer users will suddenly say "oh, I want to be liberated from the chains of proprietary software!" and make the jump because they value freedom. In the end, they don't care. They just want to get their work done with the least amount of effort required. This is why Open Source PR campaigns have succeeded where RMS's efforts have failed: the message was presented in terms of value to the user rather than as a philosophical abstract that your typical IT manager simply doesn't care about.
Yes, there are people who value software freedom as an end in itself. I happen to be one of them. But unless Microsoft starts slaughtering puppies or something, there aren't going to be enough of us to make a difference. Software freedom, for the rest of the world, is a means to an end: that end being "software that doesn't suck" (as ESR once put it), and that lack of suckage is being brought on by the benefits of collaborative development we already know about.
RMS was a visionary. He started the free software movement, and he contributed a brilliantly built compiler suite and a bunch of other tools. But his PR has been a 20 year disaster, and it is definitely time for him to step down.
Re:RMS still doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Software is a tool to get a job done. People do not turn on their computers to experience freedom. They turn on their computers to write, communicate, calculate, or whatever.
[SNIP]
Free speech thrives at UNCENSORED! BBS - http://uncensored.citadel.org [citadel.org]
Tell me, then, why should we care about Free Speech but not Free Software? I can buy perfectly good outlets for my speech, as long as I'm rich, what's the problem? I don't want to
Popularity vs. Freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care how much you hate profit and business, they get things done.
Competition (Score:4, Interesting)
He alludes to Java. The GPL implementation is a piece of crud, so nobody uses it. But its existence is enough to prevent Sun from playing at silly buggers. Regardless of the theoretical license terms. If they tried, IBM or some such would just pile behind kaffe.org and grind them into dust.
Thus freedom spreads outwards from comparatively humble free software efforts, de-facto freeing the proprietary software too.
Heresy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey RMS, didn't they offer intorductory logic at MIT?
Seriously, there is no logic to the above statement, it is totally bereft of value as a supporting argument. Particularly since it is patently false.
What should have been said is: Users cannot be free until the M$'s and RMS's of the world let them make their own software choices free of obfuscation and misrepresentation.
Do you really seek to abridge the rights of end users to use the product which does the job best for them? Do you seek to abridge the rights of developers to dispose of their work as they see fit?
This argument is more akin to religious extremism than reasoned argument. I do not debate your right to have strong (and wrong) opinions. I will hotly debate the conclusions you would have people draw from your opinions.
Your assertion about the Invidious Video Driver Et. Al demonstrates this clearly. Your position seems to indicate that using any non-free software to resolve a problem is somehow wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth. Given two pieces of software X and Y where X is non-free but conforms to the requirements, and Y is free but does not satisfy all requirements, that users should select Y over X, despite the fact that X performs the required job and Y does not. This is where the argument gets it's religious flavor. What other term can I apply to a position which exhorts users to deny the evidence of their senses in the pursuit of some (likely unattainable) Xanadu?
As for those who create software, who has the right to determine how they dispose of their property? Your position on this is merely the antithesis of the Microsoft/SCO position. Nor is your position any more tenable than theirs. Microsoft/SCO assert that free software is somehow immoral, and you assert the opposite. I suggest that neither of your opinions matter a hill of beans.
It is unseemly for anyone who purports to support Free, as in freedom, to seek to villify developers for exercising their freedoms.
The simple fact of the matter is that your extremist position is no more valid than the extremist positions of your antagonists. Like most such positions, it has no place in the real world. In the real world, you seek solutions which work, regardless of their dogmatic purity. Several times in the last century people tried superimposing dogma over reality, by and large those experiments failed. Those that still are with us have had to yield to reality to continue to exist.
There is no one "right" answer in the free v. non-free software debate. The "right" answer is not blanket dogma, but the result of an unbiased analysis of the situation, and a choice based on that analysis and the constraints of the real world we live in, wether you are a producer or a consumer of software.
It pains me to see how misunderstood RMS is on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
If RMS was never born, BSD would be closed/proprietary. So would KDE and gnome wouldn't exist. The GPL wouldn't exist and the face of Free software would be completely different.
"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less he's
apt to look foolish in retrospect." --Quentin Tarantino
Thats true. Ever try to debate religion with an agnostic? it aint easy!
Linus takes this approach with Free Software. Its hard to find fault with anything he says because he says very little. He is a good diplomat; he unifies the clans and presents a pleasant face for bussness.
The only problem with this is there are important things that need to be said! RMS is the one saying them. He gets down and dirty despite it being a position of less dignitty. He is not socially conscious enough to be diplomatic, he is blunt and to the point like a laser and i respect that.
There are 2 types of GNU users:
-Those who use it because they feel its the best tool for the job, the Open Source Movement
-Those who use it because they feel that Freedom is a philosophically superior position, the Free Software Movement
If the situation was reversed, and windows was Free and GNU/linux was closed, I would be a Windows zealot. So, in a way, the license is more important then the code.
Its unfortunate that some newbies have the impresson that he is trying to take credit for "linux". He deserves more credit then he is asking for. Also unfortunate, that its easier to understand Linus' contribution then his, because his is more complex.
He is not trying to "steal linux". He is the granddaddy of us all, and where he leads i will gladly follow.
Mutually Exclusive Freedoms (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, I can choose to write free software or closed software. It's my choice, and I like it that way. I have nothing against the free software movement, but I disagree with RMS when he suggests that I shouldn't have the freedom to develop software and try to make it a commercial product of it. Why should I only be allowed to market services like installation and support?
Software developers should be like academians? OK. Not all mathematicians share their advances. I know some who develop proprietary models of the stock market for an investment company. It's not for everyone, but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose such a pursuit.
And what makes software so special? Shouldn't hardware be open? Aren't chips mostly designed with source code now? Aren't production costs getting so low that they are essentially commodities like software?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Stallman misundersood (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that in every single one of those cases, the critics did not really get RMS's point and what he is trying to say.
Most of the questions being raised are actually answered (almost literally) in the documents in the GNU Philosophy [gnu.org] documentation.
I'll list some of the common misunderstandings anyways, and answer them as I understand Stallman's approach:
How are we going to make a living?
See the Why Software Should Be Free: Economics [gnu.org] argument.
Its immoral to release non-free software, and therefore it should not be done. If you cannot make a living writing software without resorting to immoral deeds, by all means do something else to make a living.
Also note that Free Software can cost money (First copy, packaged copies, supported copies, etc), and that programmers can still work on Free Software by-contract.
He is evil because he does not support Debian/etc only because they support non-free software.
That's not true, he has supported Debian, even throughout times in which they supported non-free software. Thing is, now that non-free software is no longer essential to a system, Stallman believes we should move to the next step and use purely Free Software. Now that there are 100% Free GNU/Linux distributions, he recommends those instead.
Why is Stallman opposing the choice between Free and Non-Free software?
Because that choice implies that using and creating Non-Free software is acceptable, a view that is not agreeable.
Why is he persuing the GNU/Linux naming issue? Its just words!
Because words are important. Labelling a GNU system with a Linux kernel GNU or GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a matter of proper attribution of credit. As one of the main authors of GNU, he is totally within his rights to ask for the deserved credit. He believes that raising awareness to "GNU" (rather than just "Linux") will make people aware of the Free Software movement, rather than just the Open Source movement.
Software does not require Freedom. Users don't want Freedom when using software.
This is analogous to claiming that Speech does not require freedom. Lack of Freedom in software means that when your neighbour asks you to share some piece of software, you have to refuse. It means that if you are a programmer, and want to create modifications, share insights, be inspired to create new works, etc. you are out of luck.
It means that if you are not a programmer, you cannot ask your programmer friend, or hire a programmer to do these things for you.
It means that the vendor has some degree of control over your life, and that directly translates to lack of freedom in an increasingly important part of people's lives.
Software is there to fulfill a need, and if Closed/Proprietary software fulfills it, then it should be used.
Using Closed/Proprietary software is morally unacceptable and should be replaced by Free Software.
Re:Open Source and Broader Community (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for two little facts:
The general population doesn't install new plumbing fixtures either. But only a fool would buy a house where all the pipes were kept locked away with only one plumber having the key.
OK mods... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's a question of ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The conflict between OSS & IP (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no inconsistency here. It is hard to charge for free (as in speech) software because without the monopoly power that proprietary software owners have it is hard to persuade people to pay. That is just a consequence of basic economics, not a contradiction between what Stallman says and what he does.
Am I the only one who found that particular spoone