I think it’s not needed to introduce Richard Stallman, however: Richard Matthew Stallman, or just RMS, is the GNU project founder. It’s a little difficult to interview someone like Stallman. I tried to make him talk about some technical issues, but he’s extremely concerned about the ideology behind free software. Freedom is his slogan and he defends it as he defends his life.” Read Interview.
Interview with Richard Stallman
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
there is nothing new in this interview…
I respect that RMS does. I think it’s important that someone has the balls to stand up and say
“yeah, gnu/linux is great, but the minute we start accepting propriatary contributions, we’ve negated all our hard work”
I would like RMS to discuss technical matters a bit more, but it’s clear that is not where his main concern lies.
I still don’t understand where he thinks this ‘right’ comes from to do anything he wants with software that he himself did not write.
Also, if he doesn’t use free software, how does he view Flash/Shockwave/Java/Quicktime/etc on the web? Are there open source implementations for all these?
Dears,
Read the Interview with in Brazilian
http://www.brunotorres.net/entrevistas/richard-stallman
“Also, if he doesn’t use non free software …”
What about that OS (kernel) they were working on before they found Linux. Is there any source availible for it?
You said it. I often wonder if he’s even capable of actually doing anything anymore. He really should have stuck to writing code. People don’t want “freedom” and all that shit, they want something that works. Take it as good or bad but that’s the way it is. If his “free software” works, people will use it, if not, they won’t.
I still don’t understand where he thinks this ‘right’ comes from to do anything he wants with software that he himself did not write.
I think the real question is where does this ‘right’ come from for the original author to dictate what I am allowed to do with the software he has given me (either free or for a price)
Legally speaking (in the US atleast) it comes from copyright law. But from an ethical point of view, why am I not allowed to use software however I see fit, including giving copies to others.
“Read the Interview with in Brazilian”
Dude, I guess meant “in Portuguese”.
FGI before posting next time, thanks.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
The Hurd? It’s around, based on mach, going slow. Don’t hold your breath.
This is way off topic so mod me down immediately, but Brazilian Portuguese is regularly referred to as Brazilian in Brazil.
Hmm, Enemy Territory’s source has been released under the GPL i believe. I’m not sure the details of this though because i don’t think you can just “./configure && make && make install” it, but as far as i can tell the code is GPL’d. I know ET is not really “free software” though.
cdn hit the nail on the head about free software. The propriatary software industry wants to userp control of your PC. They want you to pay for software but they don’t want you to own it.
Richard Stallman is one of a very small number of people who seems legitimately outraged by these trends and is willing to do something about it. How people can slight him for this is beyond me.
Mike
I think the real question is where does this ‘right’ come from for the original author to dictate what I am allowed to do with the software he has given me (either free or for a price)
Obviously, if the original author doesn’t give you the source code, you don’t have the right to do anything with it
Anyway, you can’t have the argument both ways. If the original author doesn’t have the right to tell you what you can do once he gives you the software, he also doesn’t have right right to tell you that if you modify the app and distribute it, you also have to distribute the source code.
ethically / morally speaking, copyright hinges on considering original thought / intellectual creation as a form of property in some (but not all) ways similar to tangible, physical property. If you do this, you can regulate the transmission of that thought / creation based on itself; if you don’t, you can only regulate the transmission of specific physical representations of that thought / creation. The concept mostly passes the ‘common sense’ test (if you ask 100 people on the street, most would probably agree that if you photocopy the latest Harry Potter book, sell it for 10 bucks a pop and don’t give J.K. Rowling any money, you’re being bad, and that only makes sense if you consider the *writing itself* to have some kind of intrinsic value). Legally, it can be tricky, and there’s a worrying tendency to push so-called ‘intellectual property’ more and more towards having the *exact same* stature as true, tangible, physical property. This is what the RIAA and MPAA are pushing for, legally speaking.
Anyway, you can’t have the argument both ways. If the original author doesn’t have the right to tell you what you can do once he gives you the software, he also doesn’t have right right to tell you that if you modify the app and distribute it, you also have to distribute the source code.
I agree completely, This is the reason I prefer the BSD licence to the GPL. My opinion is that the only right the original author has is to recive credit for his work.
The concept mostly passes the ‘common sense’ test (if you ask 100 people on the street, most would probably agree that if you photocopy the latest Harry Potter book, sell it for 10 bucks a pop and don’t give J.K. Rowling any money, you’re being bad, and that only makes sense if you consider the *writing itself* to have some kind of intrinsic value).
Yes, but I would imagin that if you asked the same people on the street, most would agree that if you handcopy a recipe from a cookbook and give it to your friend, you’re not being bad.
I don’t think that it’s a human right, but it is the best if not the only way to ensure that we have a truly free platform.
I think you can fight for democracy, for justice, for freedom:
The freedom to speak, to criticize, to live, to breath, to be equal whatever religion or sex you have.
Freedom fighters fight for important matters.
You can’t fight for software freedom. That is throwing mud at people that really fight for important causes.
Fighting for free software, that means comparing yourself to people who risk their lifes. People like GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI, MAHATMA GHANDI, ANDREAS HOFER, MARTIN LUTHER KING, HANS and SOPHIE SCHOLL just to cite a few.
Trying to apply the same terms to free software is ridiculous. It’ just presumptuous.
Free software a human right? Please people, let’s not forget that we’re talking software here! Speaking of human rights: most people on this planet do not even have enough food. I find it extremely overdone and arrogant to use such an important and loaded term such as “human rights” for something as insignificant as a piece of code.
Anyway, I’m getting sick of people who try to force-feed me OSS through a tube, whether his name is Richard Stallman or Joe Sixpack. Proprietary software comes with a license the buyer agrees with; in theory, he knows what he agrees with. The buyer knows that he can’t distribute the program any further. It’s not like companies force people to use closed source software. The buyer actually agrees himself. It’s not my problem that people never read a license. Even if they do, they will probably install it anyway.
Truth is: 95% of the computers uses don’t give a crap.
Some of you may think that all that matters is that “things work”, not whether you’re free or not. But look around at how software and copyright/patent law is encroaching into every aspect of life. If we allow freedom to be snuffed out (which is what will happen by default given that software serfdom is so profitable for the “IP lords”), your kids will curse you for your shortsightedness and marvel at the freedoms we used to take for granted. (I can quote a book, retell a folk tale, photocopy an article, forward a news story, record my kids on TV, freely!)
Given that software is written to help mankind and not vice versa I cannot see why one shouldn’t call people who try to push this idea “freedom fighters”.
And btw: Andreas Hofer really wasn’t such a nice guy. Just take a look at HOW he governed Innsbruck – catholic totalitarism at its best… “women? on the street? ihhhh! Better go and show them that they have no beards and thus aren’t really human.. and afterwards let’s visit the church, fall on our knees and pray to ourselves”
Truth is: 95% of the computers uses don’t give a crap.
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the rampant piracy both on the internet and neighbors sharing CDs?
If you said to someone: Here’s a program, you can use it however you like and give it to your friends if you want. Here’s another program, you can use it on One Computer Only and if you own more than one computer, you must buy another copy. If you try and give a copy to someone, you are guilty of a crime.
Which program do you think they’d prefer? People do care, they just don’t know they have a choice. That’s why what Richard does is so important.
Quote @ Darius: “Also, if he doesn’t use free software, how does he view Flash/Shockwave/Java/Quicktime/etc on the web? Are there open source implementations for all these?”
I would make the presumption that he does NOT view these proprietary formats at all. If it isn’t free as in his ideals, he doesn’t touch it. That takes a very strong person to adhere to such strict personal ideals.
Quote @ matej.barac: “What about that OS (kernel) they were working on before they found Linux. Is there any source availible for it?”
Yes – GNU Hurd. Easiest way to get a hold of hurd is with Debian. Visit their main page and you’ll find links and information.
Quote @ cdn: “I think the real question is where does this ‘right’ come from for the original author to dictate what I am allowed to do with the software he has given me (either free or for a price) ”
You don’t have to license your applications under the GPL, nor do you have to use the GPL’d software. The choice is yours. If you don’t like the reason d’etre behind GPL and RMS then don’t use it. Stop bitching about it.
Quote: @ Mike: “Richard Stallman is one of a very small number of people who seems legitimately outraged by these trends and is willing to do something about it. How people can slight him for this is beyond me. ”
Amen! You hit the nail on the head. If you look at every EULA they are so restrictive you can’t do jack shit. Deliberately so. At this point of time, large companies like Microsoft are not enforcing their rights under the EULA, but let me just say if they started doing so, there’d be a lot of unhappy people. My point of view – serves you right for using that sort of software/license. I have no pity.
On a personal note, whilst I do use non free software myself, and I also do realise that RMS is right when he says that it does defeat the purpose (if ever so small) of GNU & FSF, Linux is now part of the economy, and those that distribute it, will make sure it sells, and if that includes proprietary software (non gpl/fsf) then so be it.
I am always bemused by those that complain about it, guys – Linux was *never* intended to be a desktop environment, media centre etc. Its original design purpose was as a replacement for the inadequate Minix operating system (well that’s what Linus thought). Primary purpose – learning the Unix system (or Unix like) on a i386 platform without having to pay expensive license fees for a proprietary Unix, being able to see the src code, modify it et al. That Linux has morphed into its current state is good and bad.
I personally would love to see Copyrights limited to a maximum of 25 years – period. Software patents abolished, or at least reduced to a maximum period of 5 years (5 years in the software world is a long, long time).
I had the very good fortune to see RMS in Sydney a month ago, a talk about FSF and software patents. He’s an utter genius with solid morals and common sense. He totally believes that his ideals are right – and that said, with passion. I also had the good fortune to converse with RMS via email over some ideas that his talk had inspired within myself, he’s very “pushy” and doesn’t have time for anyone that doesn’t share his ideals/morals/goals/views. That’s his choice. I like him. I like what he stands for.
For those that think GNU is a load of bull, remove most of your system commands and tools please. Gone is bash. Gone is sed. Gone is a lot of other things. Now try using your GNU/Linux system and see how far you get. As I said earlier, stop bitching.
Dave W Pastern
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the rampant piracy both on the internet and neighbors sharing CDs?
1) Convenience
2) Cheapness
Do you truly believe that people copy because they care about free sofware and Stallman? Come on, wake up in the real world.
If you look at every EULA they are so restrictive you can’t do jack shit.
Mght be true, and it probably is. But hey, people agree with these EULAs themselves!!! There is no one forcing those people to accept them! The fact that no one reads these EULAs, despite numerous warnings during installs, is not the problems of the companies.
These EULAs would become less restricitive if people would massively stop using them. I don’t see that happen any time soon.
Quote: “Proprietary software comes with a license the buyer agrees with; in theory, he knows what he agrees with.”
And how many people actually read the EULA, let alone understand it, due to it’s legalese? mmm? I’d say that less than one tenth of a percent reads the EULAs – and if you’re busted for illegal copying the “I didn’t read the EULA your honor will get you no where”.
Software piracy is rampant thruought proprietary software. Great eh? Let’s just see all the software pirates getting 25 years in jail for their crimes and see how society starts jumping up and down at it. Cos, that’s what it’s going to take (and it is heading that way). Once the big corporates like Microsloth take care of piracy in the business, they’ll get bored and start targeting individuals. Individuals are easy, they have no lawyers, generally no money, and are usually legally “dumb” (i.e no awareness of the law and how it works).
How many of you have downloaded mp3s from p2p? You’re all software pirates if you have. Doesn’t matter whether it’s one mp3 or multiples. In the eyes of the law you are a criminal. Period. No one seems to like the actions of the MPAA/RIAA, well boys & girls, that’s what’s going to happen, and it’s going to be more and more prevalent. That’s your freedom you’re seeing drift by. Another 20 years or so and it’ will be so “1984” ish it won’t be funny. Hey, i’m 35, i’ve got another 40 years maybe on this dirtball, but I do care about future generations, and that’s why I believe in RMS. Others are lazy, stupid and ignorant and care nothing but about themselves and their own little greedy circles. As long as it’s nice now for them, they don’t give a jack what it’ll be like in 50 years, or for their grand children. Sadly, that’s human nature.
Dave W Pastern
>Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the rampant piracy both on the internet and neighbors sharing CDs?
Actually, most people who does that don’t want to pay for their software. I really don’t think they care that much about if their software is free/open source or not, I know my friends and neighbours don’t, anyway.
ROFL! Is this guy nuts? Who the hell cares about the freedom of some bytes when human being themselves arent even given full rights in this world. Is he out of his mind? Why would a average joe user give a rats rear about the rights of a piece of code, all they care about is whether of not the code does the job. PEOPLE, computer is a TOOL, not a RELIGION. It either does the job, or fail. I can so guarantee that RMS wont make a difference in this world even to the day he dies. (Linux would have been as successful if it werent free software, but still open sourced)
– This is way off topic so mod me down immediately, but Brazilian Portuguese is regularly referred to as Brazilian in Brazil.
NO! It’s not!
Quote: “These EULAs would become less restricitive if people would massively stop using them. I don’t see that happen any time soon.”
I’d love to agree with you, but unfortunately I don’t view the world with rose tinted glasses. Even if software wasn’t abused (i.e pirated), the EULAs would still be in place, still be morally offensive, legally restrictive etc. The large corporates do not even remotely care about you and me – we’re bunnies to them, something that they can make easy money from, and control. Period. That will never change, partly because it’s human nature to **ck over anyone else in your way.
Sorry Eugenia, I couldn’t think of a way to say the saying without using that particular word – I tried to make it potentially as unoffensive as possible.
Dave
James
But look around at how software and copyright/patent law is encroaching into every aspect of life.
Examples?
zerf
Given that software is written to help mankind and not vice versa I cannot see why one shouldn’t call people who try to push this idea “freedom fighters”.
I think most software is written so that the author(s) can put food on the table and feed his family. If it does help mankind, that is just a nice side benefit.
Mike
If you said to someone: Here’s a program, you can use it however you like and give it to your friends if you want. Here’s another program, you can use it on One Computer Only and if you own more than one computer, you must buy another copy.
That is only true sometimes. I have several pieces of proprietary software that allows me to install it on as many computers as I own.
Which program do you think they’d prefer?
Depends on how good the free one is. If it’s half finished and crashes constantly whereas the non-free one doesn’t, they may be tempted to buy the non-free one, or at least pirate it.
David Pastern
And how many people actually read the EULA, let alone understand it, due to it’s legalese? mmm? I’d say that less than one tenth of a percent reads the EULAs – and if you’re busted for illegal copying the “I didn’t read the EULA your honor will get you no where”.
So in other words, it’s not important for people to know what they’re agreeing to. From what I hear, that’s why Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the desktop market – because people don’t know about alternatives, and are apparently too lazy to look for them, so let’s have the government split up Microsoft.
Software piracy is rampant thruought proprietary software. Great eh? Let’s just see all the software pirates getting 25 years in jail for their crimes and see how society starts jumping up and down at it. Cos, that’s what it’s going to take (and it is heading that way).
Good, I hope it does. At least then, companies can’t use piracy as an excuse for sky-high software prices.
How many of you have downloaded mp3s from p2p? You’re all software pirates if you have.
I don’t have a single illegal mp3 anywhere on my computer or on portable devices either.
No one seems to like the actions of the MPAA/RIAA, well boys & girls, that’s what’s going to happen, and it’s going to be more and more prevalent. That’s your freedom you’re seeing drift by.
Well, let’s look at it this way – if people would stop stealing music/movies and boycotted both of these entities, they wouldn’t exist very long, now would they?
”
ROFL! Is this guy nuts? Who the hell cares about the freedom of some bytes when human being themselves arent even given full rights in this world.”
he was talking about free software which enables the freedom of *humans* to do more things with software than what typically is possible through proprietary software.
if you dont understand the point stop blabbering. you havent contribute anything worth telling as much he has have you?
In general, I think it’s a good thing that most people aren’t as ideological as Stallman. On the other hand, I believe it is crucially important that we have people as dedicated and ideological as Stallman.
Those who don’t see why his movement is so crucially important, or say “people don’t care about freedom” or “people just want stuff that works” are being short sighted. I mean after all, Mussolini did make the trains run on time! With regards to software, these people seem to underestimate it’s importance. Our society is transforming into something that is literally fueled by computers. There is one in your microwave, several in your car, and there is one in your DVD player or HDTV. The government services handling your critical records are often entirely automated by computers. Even our voting mechanisms, instruments fundemental to the integrity of our governments, are being computerized.
In such a world, it is just irresponsible to just say “the only good software is the software that works the best.” Software allows companies to control people in ways they don’t even realize. The more and more you let other people exert control over you, the bigger the danger is that they well take advantage of that control.
Let me give you a simple example: the computer code in nearly every car is closed. Normally, this is not a problem. However, if you ever need to get diagnostic information out of the computer, you need to know the special codes the onboard computer uses, and without the source code, the only way to find out is to get the information from the manufacturer. This has allowed the manufacturers for cars to exert an unforseen influence on buyers — they basically get to control who services their cars by controlling who get’s access to the diagnostics codes. This is a small matter, sure, but it’s a very clear and commonplace example of how easy it is to exert influence on people by controlling source code.
Another example: through DRM, the media companies can have enormous influence on aspects of your computer life entirely unrelated to their business. DRM, basically, works only on Windows or Mac. By DRM’ing all their content, and by companies like Apple, Real, Microsoft, etc, playing along by integrating DRM into all their codecs, they effectively (even if unintentionally) decide what platforms you have to run on.
To the question of “software as a human right”: History shows us that it is never a good idea to trust your freedom to others. The vast numbers of people outside the West are dubious, and rightly so, of basing their livelyhood on software written (even if well-meaning) programmers in the US and Europe. Remember that the sovereignty of your nation *is* a human right, and in this age of pervasive computing, the impact of software on this right should not be underestimated. More concretely, it is fast becoming true that people need access to software in order to participate in the global economy, and when that software is controlled by others, and when you can only use that software on the terms of others, well, that is a very dangerous thing indeed. Hunger might be an immediate and pressing problem, but hunger is caused by poverty, and the only way to really fight hunger is to lift your country out of poverty. The information age has the potential to allow lots of countries, those who don’t control large industrial complexes, to nonetheless pull themselves out of poverty. By allowing external entities to control software, they give them control over their own destiny.
Even to those here in the US or Europe, the existance of free software is a crucial protection. Remember, people never appreciate protections until they need them, and when things are well, they don’t like to think about what’ll happen when things are no longer going well. It is a fact of history that nothing good lasts. When something does go wrong, and the shit does hit the fan, you’ll be grateful for every single bit of control you have over your own life.
Hunger might be an immediate and pressing problem, but hunger is caused by poverty, and the only way to really fight hunger is to lift your country out of poverty.
I think you’ll find hunger is caused by lack of food.
That lack can be cause by a number of reasons. Poverty, famine, abuse and war being some that spring to mind.
If we want to alleviate hunger then we improve abundance and availability of food. Poverty represents no part of the solution.
I still say there’s something creepily ‘cult High Priest’ about RMS. It’s good to have radicals around to challenge current practices, but I can’t help thinking there’s a trip to the mothership at the end of this FSF trip.
Why not compile a list of things to ask Stallman. Maybe some here at OSNEWS could email him and then get it published.
My question would simply be “Do you still program? Bugfixes, on a project, HURD
?”
Good to see someone like Stallman out there. For some, I guess his views are somewhat extreme. But let us not forget that “the other side” hase many such people. People that want you to pay for everything, lock you into their own properitary world, trying to suck the most money from you.(No, Im not in particular thinking Microsoft). Having someone advocating for the oposite is GOOD.
I agree many people don’t have food or medicine.
I think the way his idealogy fits in best is the following article. This is where free opensource software works best.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3974407.stm
Free software means software that respects the four essential freedoms. Freedom 0: freedom to run the program; 1, the freedom to study the source code and change it; 2, the freedom to make copies and distribute them to others; 3, the freedom to publish a modified version.
4. Freedom to take this code and make a closed source commercial product out of it? Competetive advantage?
If he believes in 0 to 3, he should use licenses much like what BSD uses, and forget this GPL.
For one simple reason. A business can never have a reason to be superior to their competitors because they have to opensource there advancements. What is the results? We are all stuck in a service based business model.
If people object to my statements, please rip right through me with your rebuttals. I would love to see what Stallman would have to say.
His mentality in software development is Not Built/Invented/Cloned Here mentality. If this statement is wrong prove me wrong. I want to be proved wrong and educated.
What was wrong with BSD that they decided to promote Linux? I would like to know?
BSD is meant to be the Free UNIX.
I should also say I have never used BSD, so I am not a BSD fanboy.
The GNU tools are excellent BTW but why did they have to adopt Linux. Is the BSDs too restrictive?
You’re being very shortsighted about hunger. Hunger is not just an immediate feeling, it’s a chronic disease. Food can temporarily mitigate the disease, but the only way to cure it is to eliminate the underlying cause. That cause, in nearly every case, is poverty.
Consider a poor country like India. Hunger is a very major problem there. Whenever people talk about India investing in space travel or nuclear research, people inevitably bring up the question “why do that when people are starving?” It is exactly this sort of point that Thom Holwerda brought up, and it is a deeply flawed one. You can never solve hunger by spending lots of money to feed people. You’ll get a good feeling by providing some immediate relief, but ultimately, they’ll just need food the next day. The only way to solve hunger is to eliminate the poverty that prevents people from feeding themselves.
The information age allows people a way out of poverty. These people have little capital. They can’t afford enormous industrial complexes or sophisticated financial or trade markets. Computers, by comparison, are cheap capital, and offers a promising way to improve their economy. Allowing foreign companies to control software, just as they already control the industrial complexes and financial markets, are a risk they cannot take.
I would ask RMS how does he feel about terrorist, paedophiles, abusers, criminals using “free” software? do they have the same rights to use “free” software just as any other law abiding citizen? especially for malicious purposes?
I’m sure the creators of the internet and even the Web never envisaged Porn being the most successful/downloaded/viewed subject on the net?
None the less RMS is a brilliant individual, and is the philosopher.
Quote @ cdn: “I think the real question is where does this ‘right’ come from for the original author to dictate what I am allowed to do with the software he has given me (either free or for a price) ”
You don’t have to license your applications under the GPL, nor do you have to use the GPL’d software. The choice is yours. If you don’t like the reason d’etre behind GPL and RMS then don’t use it. Stop bitching about it.
Actually, I was bitching about proprietary software and restrictive EULA’s, not the GPL. I respect RMS and his ideals, and for the most part agree with them.
I have no problem with the GPL and think it’s a good counter balance to current copyright law(ironic since the GPL relies on copyrights). The point I was originally going for is if the author couldn’t restrict you in how you use his creation, then the GPL wouldn’t be needed, since you can redisribute and modife the software all you want. If the author doen’t give you the source, then decompile/reverse engineer/reimplement, and then make it better.
“4. Freedom to take this code and make a closed source commercial product out of it? Competetive advantage?
”
How about the freedom to NOT having my program used to add proprietary extensions to compete with myself.
“For one simple reason. A business can never have a reason to be superior to their competitors because they have to opensource there advancements. What is the results? We are all stuck in a service based business model. ”
if your only advantage is proprietary code in ANY business you better shut shop quickly
“What was wrong with BSD that they decided to promote Linux? I would like to know? ”
stallman doesnt promote linux. he promotes hurd. Linus himself told in a interview that if any BSD licensed operating system was in a good state(technically as well legally) he wouldnt have bothered to write linux.
“The GNU tools are excellent BTW but why did they have to adopt Linux. Is the BSDs too restrictive?:”
stallman’s answers are best summoned in gnu’s philosophy section. you can go and read them when you have time. the one related to this questions are
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
the first basically explains why copyleft licenses like gpl are better than bsd for majority in RMS point of view. he also explicitly supported relicensing of ogg vorbis libraries from LGPLl to BSD. see
http://old.lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
So he isnt againt bsd as a whole.
For one simple reason. A business can never have a reason to be superior to their competitors because they have to opensource there advancements. What is the results? We are all stuck in a service based business model.
Not completely true. The only companies that should be making money from code are programming compainies. This can still work with free software.
Example: Jibba Inc. manufactures widgets. They need software to run there systems. They higher a software development house called Code ‘R’ Us(CRU) to produce this system. CRU can take an existing free system and modify it (or, if none exists, create one from scratch). When completed, they deliver the system and the source code, under a free licence to Jibba Inc. The benefit of this for Jibba Inc. is that they don’t need to rely on CRU for their system. If for some reson CRU tanks, they can higher another company to maintain the software.
RMS is been stuck in a GOTO loop for 30 years.
Nothing can be ‘free’ unless RMS decides it is free.
BLAH!
This old dude is irrelevant and out of touch with reality.
By DRM’ing all their content, and by companies like Apple, Real, Microsoft, etc, playing along by integrating DRM into all their codecs, they effectively (even if unintentionally) decide what platforms you have to run on.
NO, they effectively decide what platform you can play their codecs on. It’s their codecs, and they have every right to do this. If you don’t like it, build your own codecs and stop bitching about theirs.
See, that’s the thing … if you think a piece of software has too much control over people, you can start your own company, hire programmers to build and even better solution, and hwen you’re done, you can release it as Free Software so that everyone else can freely use what you spent so much money developing.
– This is way off topic so mod me down immediately, but Brazilian Portuguese is regularly referred to as Brazilian in Brazil.
NO! It’s not!
Well, it is so in Portugal…
On the subject of Stallman’s ideals, it seems sad to me that there are only six operating systems out there based entirely on free (libre) software, and only two are Linux-based.
See the FSF page here:
http://www.fsf.org/links/links.html#TOCFreeGNULinuxDistributions
I’ve often thought about installing one of these, if only to show me unambigiously how far the free software movement has to go. If one of these OSs becomes usable to the average person, we have fulfilled our mission.
@Darius: “Also, if he doesn’t use free software, how does he view Flash/Shockwave/Java/Quicktime/etc on the web? Are there open source implementations for all these?”
Yes. It is possible. I do that. Check swfdec, gcjwebplugin, libquicktime. Since software patent is no-op for RMS, no problem doing mp3 encoding, also since DMCA is shit, DVD playback is non-issue. gcjwebplugin is particulary good. Do try it! Irony here is it is so good at displaying applets because Java applet world is largely stuck at Java 1.1. (Guess because of whom?)
”
Nothing can be ‘free’ unless RMS decides it is free.
”
a bad way to go about do a technical discussion is attacking a person rather than considering what he has to say. he clearly has written rules on what he considers free software. the list from fsf done by Eben(lawyer) is as follows
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
whether or not you agree with him, telling that “rms” decides whats free is entirely wrong.
Stallman has taken it upon himself to redefine the word “free”
I grew up in a community whose other members committed crimes as serious as murder. The city of New York, with its 8 million inhabitants, had hundreds of murders each year, mostly committed by people who lived in the city. Violent assaults and robberies were even more common.
Other evils involving information rather than physical violence were common also. For instance, some New York police regularly lied on the witness stand, and even made up a word for it: instead of “testifying”, they described court appearances as “testilying”. Some New York programmers fell into the lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software: they offered other people attractive software packages without source code, and exacted a promise not to share them with anyone else.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html
Nice one Dick. You lump in proprietary programmers with murderers and perjuring cops.
The guy is a nutcase, plain and simple. Too bad, because I actually agree with him on the gestapo-like mandatory biometric IDs that the UK and other places are trying to push through.
Debian – outside the non-free repository, which you don’t need to use – Mandrake’s freely available editions, and Fedora all contain 100% free / open source code. They all appear to work rather well…
Debian and Mandrake aren’t on RMS’s list presumably because of Debian’s available non-free repository and Mandrake’s commercial software in paid versions. I don’t know why Fedora is there. If this isn’t the reason, he’s gotta be using some really restrictive criteria.
Of course, that should read “I don’t know why Fedora isn’t there”.
What am i missing in slackware that is non-free?
mike: dunno. Does it include pine or pico, by any chance?
Thank you! I’ve been saying that for ages
rms wants the free stuff to be entirely seperate. fedora.redhat.com doesnt really qualify in that aspect. slackware ships with java and netscape and mp3 libraries too i believe
The mp3 libraries used by Linux distributions are entirely free software. Their legal ambiguity stems from patents, which RMS’s concept of free software doesn’t really cover.
“I mean after all, Mussolini did make the trains run on time!”
It’s a common saying, but apparently he didn’t. http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm
“If we want to alleviate hunger then we improve abundance and availability of food. Poverty represents no part of the solution.”
Not true at all. This is what the old example of either giving someone a fish or teaching them to fish is about.
” would ask RMS how does he feel about terrorist, paedophiles, abusers, criminals using “free” software? do they have the same rights to use “free” software just as any other law abiding citizen? especially for malicious purposes?”
Well, in a sense yes and in a sense no. They have the exact same right to use software in this way as you have to use a hammer to murder your wife, or a gun to shoot the guy across the street, or whatever. The act is illegal / immoral, not the implement.
“The main difference between free software and open source is in the philosophy; “open source” has become the label for a philosophy like that of Torvalds, which does not present itself as an ethical issue.
Ok Dick, so Torvalds isn’t ethical than I guess.”
That’s not what he said at all. He said that Torvalds doesn’t see the freeness or otherwise of software as an ethical or philosophical issue but as an issue of convenience; this is what Linus would tell you himself, if you asked him. RMS is simply stating the accepted perception that he is an idealist and Linus is a pragmatist.
You’re being very shortsighted about hunger.
No, I think it’s you who is being shortsighted.
Your solution to providing people with food is to make them richer. This does not solve the problem. If people can afford to pay more, prices will go up, those with the least money will not be able to afford the new prices and we’re right back to the same old problem. Your solution (Reducing poverty) does nothing to attack the rules of supply and demand. The only way to feed people, and to ensure that they continue to be fed, is to make sure food is available in such abundance that it becomes effectively worthless. In short you attack the problem not by reducing poverty, but by reducing the cost of food to a level which people can afford.
Western countries have millions of cars driving around. Is it because we are all exceedingly wealthy? Supply has vastly increased with the effect that cars have reduced in price to a level where they are affordable by nearly everyone.
We have vast numbers of people using computers in the home. Would that have happened if computers still cost a couple of thousand dollars each? No. Once again supply has resulted in a corresponding fall in price.
I do believe that the poverty suffered by a large portion of the world must be deal with. I can’t read about thousands living in conditions which I find abhorrent and just ignore it. However I don’t believe hunger can be attacked without increasing supply sufficiently that local prices are forced to fall to levels commensurate with local income. Raising income to match the price of what is currently an insufficient supply is futile in my opinion.
At a time when more and more of our cultural, economic and sociopolitical interaction take place through software, to fail to see free software as a human right is pure blindness.
People, we are voting on election machines whose code we cannot see. And do you really want all of tomorrow’s cultural output -when it begins to be delivered in high definition DVDs or god knows what other media to be locked up behind proprietary licenses?
Additionally, Free Software holds the potential to bring knowledge to millions of people and to allow them to create their own knowledge by having the tools to tinker, learn and express themselves. Are you people claiming that someone ought to have privatized the printing press? Because software is the second printing press, it is the platform that will allow the efficient and equal dissemination of works of art to all corners of the planet.
RMS is a principled honest man and he has my respect. Much more so than all the losers who benefit from the openness that his way of thinking brought about, yet have the gall to engage in character assasination.
Hoverda, if you don’t like free software, stop using it. Tell your friends at SkyOS to remove every piece of free software that’s on the system. That’s what a man that follows through on his ideas and principles does. Not doing so is tantamount to being a self-serving hypocrite.
Not true at all. This is what the old example of either giving someone a fish or teaching them to fish is about.
There are plenty of poor people who know how to fish. What you can’t teach them is how to catch fish when there are no fish to be caught.
I have to say that I pretty much agree with most of Stallman’s views, although I do not share them when if comes to calling Linux “GNU/Linux”. The fact is that a lot of software, under many different licenses, can be included in a Linux distribution; not just GNU software. And don’t forget, GPLed software does not equal GNU software. I suspect that the real cause of all this is some underlying bitterness that the Linux kernel stole the Hurd’s thunder.
I also believe that Stallman should have thought of a better term than “free software” to describe what he was trying to achive. I think the favorite I have seen is Libre Software, although I would have suggested Freedom Software
. Also, I think that he is right about the differences between Free and Open Source software.
Unlike Stallman, however, I do believe that commerical software has it’s place. There is no “one size fits all” solution.
“It’s no secret that Stallman is bitter about the success of the Linux kernel and people refusing to call it GNU/Linux no matter how much he screams.”
come on. I have personally talked to stallman about Linus and he is very appreciative of linus skills as an *engineer*. however he also wants linus to be more supportive of free software by not using things like bitkeeper. he has a point there and it has nothing to do with gnu/linux vs hurd or something silly like that. it entirely about idealogy. see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
and the naming gnu/linux is claimed because of the fact the many of the core stuff has been originated from gnu and for emphasising the ideals. not because linux distros are full of gnu stuff. if you want to argue that way calling the whole thing “linux” is even more unfair because linux, the kernel is even smaller part that gnu stuff in a typical linux distro.
I dont agree with the naming either but my reasoning has to do with not doing it earlier. the “linux” name has struck very early. if rms wanted to talk about it he should have done it a bit earlier. he was pretty late about trying to rename it and it really hasnt caught on due to this
“RMS’s concept of free software doesn’t really cover.”
it does though he doesnt talk about that in this interview. see
http://old.lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
http://lwn.net/Articles/106921/
Hypocrites,
Let me explain in naive terms who a hypocrite is. A hypocrite is that person who says one thing but does another. A liar is to a thief, as a hypocrite is to an assassin. She is that person who tells you honey is sucks, yet baths in a jacuzzi of honey in her hidden lair and grows fat on it.
You seriously can’t be a GNU/Linux user and have the nuts to call someone a dick because he is trying to protect your digital freedom. That’s synonymous to the Indian’s calling Gandhi a prick. Or Southern Africans calling Mandela a dick head. Or African Americans calling Malcom X, or Martin Luther king Jr, a looser.
Virtually every GNU/Linux user owes this man some form of gratitude or another. It won’t hit us now, but in future when every aspect of our lives is run or ruined by computers, you’ll begin to appreciate the effort of this man. A hypocrite is that ungrateful beast who uses free software and grew the balls to insult RMS.
Your loving friend,
Truth
About GNU/Linux – I think its pretty crazy to insist in that. I mean there are many vital parts of the system. Linux is just one, GNU tools are just one. There are many others. Its just inconvinient to say GNU/Linux. I mean I could also call my Linux-Installation GNU/REISER/QT/GTK/PYTHON/KDE/JAVA/PORTAGE/GENTOO-Linux or something!
Its just inconvinient to say GNU/Linux
Then do what I do and just call it “GNU”.
the world’s current production of food is more than sufficient to feed every person in the world.
“Are you people claiming that someone ought to have privatized the printing press?”
Well, why not? Were it invented today, it would be patented. In fact, I believe an arrangement was made for the patenting of the first printing press produced in England. Patenting physical inventions is a well-established process which appears to function rather well. Patents expire.
If you don’t like it, build your own codecs and stop bitching about theirs.
That’s my point exactly! The software companies control what platform their codecs run on. That’s why it’s vital to have open source codecs you can turn to in order to free ourself from the constraints imposed by commercial companies.
Your argument is flawed from an economic perspective. Food production is a perfectly competitive market. If demand causes prices to go up, then production will increase until the price goes back down to the marginal cost of producing the last unit of food. Indeed, in practice, the supply of food *far* exceeeds the demand for food (because there is only so much food people can eat), so the supply isn’t constrained any way. Indeed, in the largest food-producing nations, prices must be kept artificially high, because there is so little profit in food production. Increased demand would just likely result in reduced agricultural subsidies, with no change in price.
With regards to your argument about the cars, the reason we can afford so many cars *is* because we’re so wealthy. Huge supplies don’t happen magically. They happen because we have so much wealth, measured in real goods, that we can afford to make that many cars, and that the relative value of those cars is small compared to a person’s individual wealth. The same thing with computers, although it’s a slightly different situation. Prices are low because supply is high, but the underlying reason supply is high is because the relative cost of producing a computer, in terms of value in real goods, has been reduced.
Your argument is flawed…
You don’t understand!
This isn’t about logic.
It’s about emotion.
You want to feel peace
as you stick your 27th distro in your puter
and feel like you’re helping the world.
But from an ethical point of view, why am I not allowed to use software however I see fit, including giving copies to others
Some people rely on the sales of software they write to put food on the table. just giving away copies of the software kinda makes it hard to make a living for the people who wrote it.
I don’t think its a question of ethics so much as a question of economics and survival.
would make the presumption that he does NOT view these proprietary formats at all. If it isn’t free as in his ideals, he doesn’t touch it. That takes a very strong person to adhere to such strict personal ideals.
God I hope the guy isn’t really like that. I don’t consider someone like that to be *strong*. I view them as short sighted and close minded.
Well. Isn’t that embarrassing. My post was meant for Err, not Eu. Sorry for that Eu!
How many of you have downloaded mp3s from p2p? You’re all software pirates if you have. Doesn’t matter whether it’s one mp3 or multiples.
Downloading mp3s makes me a software pirate ? I thought I was just stealing music! You mean there is software in the file also! Holy shit! How do I unpack it ?
In the eyes of the law you are a criminal. Period.
Yes. If you steal something you are a criminal according to the law. Is this a surprise to anyone ?
No one seems to like the actions of the MPAA/RIAA, well boys & girls, that’s what’s going to happen, and it’s going to be more and more prevalent. That’s your freedom you’re seeing drift by.
My freedom ? My freedom to what ? Steal the work of other people and not pay for it ?
Another 20 years or so and it’ will be so “1984” ish it won’t be funny.
Thats what people were saying 50 years ago. Somehow we managed to keep most of our freedoms in that timeframe.
Hey, i’m 35, i’ve got another 40 years maybe on this dirtball, but I do care about future generations, and that’s why I believe in RMS. Others are lazy, stupid and ignorant and care nothing but about themselves and their own little greedy circles. As long as it’s nice now for them, they don’t give a jack what it’ll be like in 50 years, or for their grand children. Sadly, that’s human nature.
Hey I’m 30 and I’ve got a few years on this rock too. I care about the freedoms of my children and I’d like to think that my kids could grow up and take a job doing something like, oh I don’t know, writing software and make a living at it like I do now.
Thats why I think there is a balance in the OSS and proprietary software worlds. Both can co-exist and in places where one dosen’t fit the bill, the other is available.
downloading music isn’t theft, whatever the music labels would have you believe. the act of theft implies depriving someone else of something. downloading music is more…misappropriation, or unauthorised duplication.
When completed, they deliver the system and the source code, under a free licence to Jibba Inc. The benefit of this for Jibba Inc. is that they don’t need to rely on CRU for their system. If for some reson CRU tanks, they can higher another company to maintain the software.
I work for a small development company of code monkeys and we operate very much like this. We deliver the software and the source and the customer has the right to do whatever they want with it. Repackage it, sell it, hire other engineers to work on it – WHATEVER – they simply paid us to write the original version but they retain full rights to the code we produce for them and if we aren’t available / out of business / high on crack etc. etc. they can take their code and go elsewhere.
Thats just good business sense for our customers and its a very big selling point for us. No strings attached code development. We get paid and they get source code they can use.
We do this everyday without the GPL and without turning something as simple as providing a service/product into some religious crusade.
downloading music isn’t theft, whatever the music labels would have you believe. the act of theft implies depriving someone else of something. downloading music is more…misappropriation, or unauthorised duplication
How so ? By downloading the music I just deprived the record labels of $20 and the artist isn’t getting his royalty on that CD sale.
There would be no need to label something *unauthorized* if there wasn’t a negative effect on someone or something.
My freedom ? My freedom to what ? Steal the work of other people and not pay for it?
Well, there are two sides to that coin. DRM gives companies the ability to enforce licensing, but at the same time, it gives them all sorts of other controls. For example, every time a Linux user watches a DVD, they’re breaking the law, because of the css decoder. Does that make any sense? Once I’ve bought the damn DVD, why does the company care where I watch it? Fundementally, DRM is control over information, and even when that control has legitimate ends, it’s always a dangerous thing with a lot of potential to be misused.
The difference between theft and license infringement is a matter of semantics, but AdamW *is* right. Downloading music isn’t theft any more than photocopying a library book is theft. That doesn’t make it legal, but it does mean that it’s governed by a different set of laws.
DRM gives companies the ability to enforce licensing, but at the same time, it gives them all sorts of other controls.
Agreed. I’m not advocating DRM. I’m simply saying that downloading music without paying for it is stealing from someone.
For example, every time a Linux user watches a DVD, they’re breaking the law, because of the css decoder. Does that make any sense? Once I’ve bought the damn DVD, why does the company care where I watch it?
Again agreed. I think thats one of the real problems with how the current laws are written and interpreted in relation to intellectual property. I also think its one of the downfalls of DRM.
Fundementally, DRM is control over information, and even when that control has legitimate ends, it’s always a dangerous thing with a lot of potential to be misused.
Very true.
This last tidbit really got me thinking…
The last question I made was the same as I’ve made to Joel Sposky. The question was: Which are the three most promising technologies in the IT world in your opinion? Tell a little about them.
Mr. Stallman just said: “I have nothing to say about this question.”
Is it possible that this guy is so deep in the *philosophy* of free software that he has totally lost touch with the world that uses software ?
Is it possible that this guy is so deep in the *philosophy* of free software that he has totally lost touch with the world that uses software ?
Of course. When you’ve got a religion to head up, any real-world software development is of no concern.
C’mon…methinks you guys have to learn how to respect your benefactor.
Do you guys slant and hate your good parents, who exhausted their lives and money to raise you, because they are old? No, I don’t think so.
Being able to read other people’s source code is a nice thing, not a “fundamental freedom”.
Anyway, the guy surely doesn’t deserve to be hated (I’ve seen some hateful comments), he’s just a bit nuts. Lock him up.
And if you really value freedom and liberty, use the clean, simple, academical, apolitical BSD license (or equivalents like the MIT one). And if sometimes it happens that you don’t like to divulge your code, simply keep it for yourself: in a free country, it’s not a crime.
And if you really value freedom and liberty, use the clean, simple, academical, apolitical BSD license (or equivalents like the MIT one). And if sometimes it happens that you don’t like to divulge your code, simply keep it for yourself: in a free country, it’s not a crime.
Now that’s true freedom.
If someone takes your code and ads extensions good luck to them. If they choose to help your project, well thats there freedom of choice. As long as someone packages the software nicely for download. You have the freedom to use it.
Bill Gates: The software company he created with Paul Allen to sell software was Microsoft, undoubtedly the most influential force in the history of personal computing.
Microsoft OS software runs on, well, 90% of PCs in the world. This software is proprietary. Bill is really wealthy now, and can afford to spend billions of dollars on good causes.
Steve Jobs: he revolutionized personal computing with the launch of the Apple Macintosh computer. Almost 5% of PCs run Mac OS. Mac OS is proprietary OS. Steve is rich.
Linus Torvalds: he did the original development of the Linux OS. He is still prominent person in Linux development. Linux software is under OSS/Stallman approved license.
IBM alone in just one year made 2-3 billion dollars on Linux related sales.
Linus is salaried employee of Transmeta (scratch this), of some non-profit foundation. His wealth can not allow him to spend billions helping people all over the world.
Well, boys and girls, who is more free from these three, and how come a hardware corporation can make billions on ‘freedom software’ throwing just a bone to its creators?
what does he do? telling over and over the same boring stuff. freedom, in a land where Bush gets reelected? People don’t care about free speech, they want free beer. but stallman is as religous with his GNU as Bush is…
And I give a fuck about GNU/Linux. It’s Linux, just Linux. We don’t call it KDE/Linux or Gnome/Linux or X11/Linux. GNU is just a small portion of a typical Linux installation.
AdamW: the world’s current production of food is more than sufficient to feed every person in the world.
That may be true, but that production isn’t actually reaching the poorer markets, it’s just not profitable to ship non-specialist food more than a few hundred miles.
Rayiner Hashem: Your argument is flawed from an economic perspective. Food production is a perfectly competitive market. If demand causes prices to go up, then production will increase until the price goes back down to the marginal cost of producing the last unit of food.
Flawed and shortsighted, thanks for the compliment. Your entire comment is flawed, and it should be obvious why. If what you said was actually true then there would ALREADY be no hunger because people would be able to afford food. The reason there is hunger is because there is insufficient supply in the local markets to meet demand, it isn’t any more complicated than that.
Both of you seem to have made an assumption that I’m advocating external markets should be providing the food (Eg the fish/fishing remark). I’m NOT. I’m saying that local supply should be boosted to meet local demand wherever possible. I’m saying that local conditions need to be altered in such a way that food production can take place on the required scale.
How about the Ethopian famine? Did they starve because they had all suddenly become poorer? NO. They starved because the local farmers were unable to produce any food thanks to drought.
How about the Somalia famine? Was their starvation caused by poverty? NO. It was caused by a civil war and drought that made it impossible for farmers to continue producing food.
How about the starving in Zimbabwe? Have they suddenly become poorer? NO. The farmers have been either driven out or killed, and their farming industry has been devastated. The Zimbabweans are no richer or poorer than before, the only change has been one in abundance of food.
I could go on, but hopefully my point has sunk in by now.
It’s all very easy to live in a Western country and presume that starvation is caused by people being unable to afford food. After all, we are surrounded by it, it’s advertised to us every day, it’s constantly available, so to not have it must mean we can’t afford it. Right?
Fact of the matter is that compared to the vast larders of the West the starving nations of the world have access to a nice coffee, an expired jar of mayonnaise and half a breadstick because that’s all the supermarket is selling.
Last comment by me on this, I think we’ve trashed the thread enough.
>> This is way off topic so mod me down immediately, but
>> Brazilian Portuguese is regularly referred to as Brazilian
>> in Brazil.
> NO! It’s not!
Thank you so much for clarifying this.
I’d love to see a record of how many lies are spread on this webpage per day…
>> These ideas of freedom are generally associated with the
>> name GNU, not with the name Linux
> Not only is the guy an asshole, but he has an ego the size
> of Texas.
Why don’t you get a little more insulting?
By downloading the music I just deprived the record labels of $20 and the artist isn’t getting his royalty on that CD sale.
People who download mp3 music wouldn’t buy the CD anyway, or they haven’t got access to a reseller.
>>> This is way off topic so mod me down immediately,
>>> but Brazilian Portuguese is regularly referred to
>>> as Brazilian in Brazil.
>>
>> NO! It’s not!
>
> Thank you so much for clarifying this.
>
> I’d love to see a record of how many lies are spread
> on this >webpage per day…
Well, yours is one! As I said above, Brazilian Portuguese is referred to as ‘Brazilian’ in Portugal. In fact, ‘Brazilian Portuguese’ isn’t used anywhere, it would be ‘Português brasileiro’ which sounds odd because it seems to juxtapose two adjectives. The official designation, which *nobody* employs because it sounds stupid though not confusing as the latter is ‘Portuguese of Brazil’. As for Brazilians they simply refer to their language as ‘Portuguese’, no doubt wondering why, just as american school kids might wonder why is their language called ‘English’.
Now either leave this alone or delete all the language related comments.
everytime an article on stallman gets posted here, theres a religious war
It’s funny to watch. You people crack me up..