“This show features an interview with Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement and the man who put the GNU into GNU/Linux. After introducing the concept of free software, Richard offers some trenchant criticism of two tech superstars: the Lord of Linux, Linus Torvalds, and Apple guru Steve Jobs. From there, we move into a discussion of the impact of free software – and freedom more generally – on the evolution of personal and global consciousness.”
“After introducing the concept of free software”
Yes, like Ben Franklin ‘invented’ Electricity. What tosh, RMS defined a way to define free software. He did not invent the very concept of free (libre) software. It already existed in science labs all over the world, since as long as computers were programmable.
He absolutely did not invent the concept of free software; what he and people like him did was protect free(libre) software.
When Computing was the concern of Academics and a few Companies sharing was part and parcel, but becuase mainstream…and thats without the goldmine rush on the Microsoft Platform, code was stolen(sic) are released in binary form.
It was about preserving free(libre) software. The subtlety of arguing that that he moved to preserve this culture, and he invented!? a license to do so.
Edited 2007-02-04 22:21
Preserving free software is a secondary motive of RMS’s first motive – forcing free software. Anybody else could have invented a free software licence (FreeBSD, Public Domain, Apache Licence, Creative Commons), Richard invented a licence designed to force people to use open code and purposely not play well with proprietory software.
The inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the first web server and web browser as well as defined the HTML specification. He made the html spec an open standard, and we have the www as it is now because of that.
Had he mandated that all software that processes HTML in any way _must_ be open source, the commercial boom in the Internet would not have happened, and we would not be talking on this forum now.
Blah…
It is completely impossible to force people to be free. It is equally impossible to force people to use free software.
Nobody forces you to use GPL’ed software or BSD-licensed software. Not even if you are using files created by GPL’ed software. It is impossible to create vendor lock-in using open source and open standards therefore you cannot be forced to use free software/open source.
You can however be forced to use proprietary code due to vendor lock-in which happens when data are created by proprietary applications using proprietary standards.
If you don’t want to use GPL’ed code, don’t use it. If you want to use GPL’ed code, stick to the license.
AFAICT what you really want is FREE (as in GRATIS) access to all the work of FLOSS developers without having to comply with license terms. “Leecher” would be the appropriate term for you.
EDIT: Besides, it’s perfectly possible (and legal) to link GPL’ed code to proprietary code and vice versa. Only in terms of distribution can it be a bit tricky, but this no different than having to pay for a patent license before distributing software using proprietary solutions.
Edited 2007-02-04 22:43
Open Source code, and proprietory code are both tools for a job. Some code I have created is proprietory because there is no benefit to it being open, or it benefits from being closed. I also have an open source project I created myself, giving away thousands of hours of work for free. RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer’s personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.
And with a Creative Commons license you grant fewer benefits than with the GPL.
You are talking bullshit about RMS and the GPL. RMS does not force you to release software under the GPL. And nobody forces you to use software released under the GPL in your projects.
The mere facts you can release software under another license than GPL proves you are lying and trolling.
EDIT: The reason why you use the CC licenses is because they grant _fewer_ benefits to other people than the GPL.
The GPL grants all benefits to other persons with the sole exception of the right to control other persons software. A fair’n’square deal.
EDIT: Oh dear. The zealots are on the run.
Edited 2007-02-04 23:19
“And with a Creative Commons license you grant fewer benefits than with the GPL.”
Come now, that’s rot. My code can be used commercially, inline with proprietary code without having link, modified and mixed with code of any other licence and redistributed how they please.
My requirement is please include my name somewhere in your code. And if they don’t – I’m not going to go out and sue them or tell them they can no longer sell their product.
Why don’t use just use the revised BSD or the MIT/X11-license then?
There are many different CC-licenses and most do not allow for commercial distribution, nor modifications to the original work.
RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer’s personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself.
People who believe that the GPL is business-unfriendly or communist or idealistic are the REAL idealists. There are two people involved in every transaction. Unlike both proprietary and open source software, free software guarantees that the user who purchases your product today will be able to use it tomorrow, even if you fall under a bus tonight.
RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer’s personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.
How does the GPL limit a programmer’s personal right to his own code? Oh, right, it doesn’t, because a) the programmer *chooses* the license, and b) he can relicense the code under another license at any time (though he can’t invalidate previous licenses).
Enough with the anti-GPL FUD. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but drop the logically-fallacious grandstanding.
Edited 2007-02-05 00:23
How does the GPL limit a programmer’s personal right to his own code?
The GPL doesn’t. Ironically, however, the FSF does. You can’t contribute code to GNU unless you’re willing to give up your rights to it.
It has always cracked me up that the FSF is unwilling to accept its own license as sufficient.
The GPL doesn’t. Ironically, however, the FSF does. You can’t contribute code to GNU unless you’re willing to give up your rights to it.
I don’t see a problem with this. GNU is a project, it doesn’t represent Free Software as a whole. Does it mean less people contribute to GNU? Perhaps, though I wonder how much of an impact this really has. In any case, it’s rather meaningless: those who are willing to give up their rights clearly see no problem with this.
It has always cracked me up that the FSF is unwilling to accept its own license as sufficient.
Sufficient for what? Certainly RMS has promoted the GPL and free software – I’ve never heard him say that all software should be part of the GNU project! The important of the FSF is marginal with regards to the actual free software community. Most GPLed programs are *not* part of the GNU project.
I don’t see a contradiction here. Let me use a religious analogy, since that seems to be the most popular ones when discussing RMS and co.: in Buddhism, you have lay people and monks. One could imagine that monks, who follow stricter rules, are more vertuous because they devote their life to religion, meditating and chanting their way to nirvana. However, Buddah himself discounted this notion, saying that a layperson who follows the simple precepts of the religion, and leads a good life while being a productive member of society, is just as praiseworthy as the most dedicated monk.
I see the comparison between people who attribute their copyright to the FSF and those who don’t (but still release their code under the GPL) in a similar light. People who contribute to GNU sacrifice something for an ideal they agree with, but they are no more (or less) virtuous than those who release their code under the GPL while retaining their rights.
Of course, the majority of corporate programmers never get to own their code in the first place…at least in the case of the GNU project it’s voluntary. 🙂
Does it mean less people contribute to GNU?
Yes.
Perhaps, though I wonder how much of an impact this really has. In any case, it’s rather meaningless: those who are willing to give up their rights clearly see no problem with this.
GCC practically died on the vine because of a lack of support. HURD effectively did die on on the vine. GCC was only revitalized because of the EGCS split. Compare the robustness of the Linux kernel, which does not carry the requirement of assigning rights to the robustness of the much older HURD.
In any meaningful way, the FSF’s desire to control the software, in antithesis of their claimed goal of freedom, has hurt their project. It is only through the sheer luck of the BSD/AT&T settlement not being two years earlier that there’s anything left of the GNU.
In any meaningful way, the FSF’s desire to control the software, in antithesis of their claimed goal of freedom, has hurt their project.
…but it hasn’t hurt their claimed goal of software freedom.
I still think the two views are not incompatible. You can both promote free software in general, and have your own side project which, in addition to being free software, also holds the copyright of those who adhere to it.
Honestly, I don’t agree that there is a contradiction here. If they had said that they were for free software, *then* said that only GNU code was worthy of being called free software, then there would have been some hipocrisy. As I see it, all that they’ve done is marginalized that project, not hurt free software as a whole – and therefore they have not acted in a way that is incompatible with their stated goal.
I agree with you on the fact, but not on your ethical interpretation of it (which was the point of my religious analogy). And, yes, I appreciate the irony that this is basically the opposite of the last argument we had… 🙂
yes GCC is clearly dead, Gentoo users everywhere are a little confused.
It can’t be that the gnu project concentrated on the compiler and utilities. or that fsf concentrated on creating mach…or the real killer linus was first!
Or any of the reasons here
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/failure_with_hurd.shtml
seriously
Edited 2007-02-05 04:02
yes GCC is clearly dead, Gentoo users everywhere are a little confused.
No one claimed GCC is dead. Only that the FSF left it moribund and the EGCS fork, followed by the interest from Linux is what saved it.
It can’t be that the gnu project concentrated on the compiler and utilities. or that fsf concentrated on creating mach…or the real killer linus was first!
Nope, can’t be any of those things. First off, the “gnu project” is FSF, so one can’t concentrate on one and then the other on another.
But it was cygnus/redhat that saved GCC because they wanted a compiler for Linux, neither the “GNU project” nor FSF.
FSF didn’t concentrate on creating Mach. Mach was a product of CMU, under contract with DARPA.
Bushnell’s being a little self serving in that quote. He owns as much responsibility for the failure of HURD as RMS does. Bushnell originally wanted to roll his own and was very arrogant about who he’d accept input from. He drove a lot of talent away from the project.
The real reason why Linux “won” and the Hurd and BSD-ish projects “lost” the momentum struggle was that Linus Torvalds did a much better job of putting together an inclusive development process and has nothing to do with licensing or wanting to use Mach. (By ’91, anyone who’d used Mach was well aware of the performacne problems and of the poor design choices made in partitioning up BSD kernel into servers.)
So the fact that kernel and code utilities + compiler saved the compiler. I can’t think why when it became a complete OS instead of userland tools it became a success.
The reality is you can’t have one without the other thats the point. Thats why Stallman wanted GNU/Linux.
GNU had the tools, Linus had the kernel. Thats been stallsmans point all along.
I do find it funny that you seriously think that you can say that the tools were not finished first when they where being used with 0.2 of Linux when Hurd launched its first beta.
I’m not aware of Linus + team creating a replacement compiler+Userland could you post a link or reference. Because one the computer in front of me they are all GNU.
Are you trying to tell me that they are not, or Linus wrote then, or Linus’ inclusive development process is why I have a compiler GNU tools here.
You have some issues. Its clear from these and previous posting you have have some personal issues with Stallman, you are trying to rewrite history. Show me the reference where Linus wrote GCC or had a *major* role in its development process. or any other GNU tools.
The reality is you can’t have one without the other thats the point. Thats why Stallman wanted GNU/Linux.
The reality is that I’ve built Linux distros without any GNU components. You don’t even need to use GCC if you’re building for certain embedded platforms.
I do find it funny that you seriously think that you can say that the tools were not finished first when they where being used with 0.2 of Linux when Hurd launched its first beta.
GCC’s still not finished. It’s getting more work now than at any time in its first 10 years. Release 4.3 and 4.3 are being worked on as we speak.
I’m not aware of Linus + team creating a replacement compiler+Userland could you post a link or reference. Because one the computer in front of me they are all GNU.
I’m not aware of anyone claiming they had. However, it’s fairly easy to use RVDS and Busybox to provide the toolchain and userland for a non-GNU Linux for an embedded platform.
Just for fun.
Lets go to Distowatch. I want you to point where in the rankings, a distribution that doesn’t contain the GNU tools is. I’m fascinated.
The reality is you have trouble facing is GNU tools are predominant in the *NIX arena.
I think we are both aware how an embedded platform work. GCC works in Windows. I don’t really understand your point.
So we are both agreed that Linus + Team has *nothing* to do with the userland environment.
Your trying to make out that projects like GCC don’t matter, and you don’t need them. I think your overreaching.
If there is a point here . The only point here is that Linux is a modular environment, and people can swap in and out elements as is their wish. Yeah Linux.
The reality is you have trouble facing is GNU tools are predominant in the *NIX arena.
I have never claimed otherwise. GCC is the most commonly used compiler in *NIX development. RVDS is a remote 2nd. The rest of the GNU suite is prominent in Linux, not used in BSD.
I don’t really understand your point.
I’m fairly sure everyone here has figured that out by now.
So we are both agreed that Linus + Team has *nothing* to do with the userland environment.
Um, no. There are userland components that come from Linux kernel development and aren’t part of GNU. *nothing* is too strong a statement.
Your trying to make out that projects like GCC don’t matter, and you don’t need them. I think your overreaching.
No, that’s not what I’m trying to make out.
GCC mattered. Just not to the extent some people like to think it did. Had the EGCS fork not come along, some other open source compiler would have replaced it. It was there. It was useful. But it wasn’t indispensable.
Nor is it indispensable now.
The point is that the FSF demands too much credit for what they did. They deserve a small amount of credit for a small contribution. They demand credit for inventing concepts the didn’t invent, for tools they didn’t perfect themselves, and for success that would have happened whether they’d been there or not.
You can’t just say “GCC is the most commonly used compiler in *NIX development” go FSF. Its like the words will choke you.
I would love you to list the tools in userland that come from the Linux team and put them next to those from the FSF. So that others can judge for themselves. I still say *nothing*.
So your backpedaling; GCC does matter and linux needed the FSF.
No package is indispensable in Linux. Do you use GNU!? multiple kernels, multiple Desktops, multiple Shells, thats without the browsers, office suites, application X.
At the same time each of these rely on each other Kernel+Shell+X+WM+Tools to create it. None of these projects live in a vacuum . Thats the wonderful world of Linux.
Again the FSF can *demand* nothing. Did they get too much credit!? Did they get name; and the influence from it, clearly not. The reality the name is wrong Linux is wrong. Linux is simply bigger than any single project. It should be an ancient name meaning collection of precious stones…thats catchy.
None of these projects live in a vacuum.
That’s where you’re wrong.
Linux in a Vacuum:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4356841803.html
That’s a load of crock. The FSF demands that you turn over your copyright to them because that way they can avoid the mess of hundreds of people owning the copyright to the code-base. Look at the Linux kernel: they can’t change the license on the kernel even if they wanted to.
That’s a load of crock. The FSF demands that you turn over your copyright to them because that way they can avoid the mess of hundreds of people owning the copyright to the code-base.
You’re saying the same thing in different words. They want you to give control of your code to them because they don’t trust that you’ll do what they want when they decide to play games with the license.
Look at the Linux kernel: they can’t change the license on the kernel even if they wanted to.
Sure they could. The will to do so isn’t there, and many of the people claiming it can’t be done don’t understand copyright law well enough to know what the remedies for the problems they raise are, but if Linus Torvalds wished Linux licensed under a different license he could accomplish it in six months.
“You’re saying the same thing in different words. They want you to give control of your code to them because they don’t trust that you’ll do what they want when they decide to play games with the license.”
Thats a lie. Giving control to someone requires you trust that person. Its a one way street but the other way around, and they haven’t played games with the license they have updated it, and its the first time in *15 years*
“Sure they could. The will to do so isn’t there, and many of the people claiming it can’t be done don’t understand copyright law well enough to know what the remedies for the problems they raise are, but if Linus Torvalds wished Linux licensed under a different license he could accomplish it in six months.”
Absolutely changing the license is something that could be done in 6 months <insert sarcastic comment here>. The only way that would be the case is if every developer wanted it that way, and apparently they don’t unless your saying the only reason that Linux is not GPL3 is becuase of Linus. Seriously 6 Months, 2-5 years would be a conservative estimate with large rewrites.
Edited 2007-02-05 06:07
“You’re saying the same thing in different words. They want you to give control of your code to them because they don’t trust that you’ll do what they want when they decide to play games with the license.”
Thats a lie. Giving control to someone requires you trust that person.
You seem to have read the sense of my sentence backwards. Yes, giving control to someone requires trust. But the FSF isn’t giving control, it’s taking control.
Absolutely changing the license is something that could be done in 6 months <insert sarcastic comment here>. The only way that would be the case is if every developer wanted it that way, and apparently they don’t unless your saying the only reason that Linux is not GPL3 is becuase of Linus. Seriously 6 Months, 2-5 years would be a conservative estimate with large rewrites.
If every developer wanted it that way it’d be done in a week. You’re making the same mistake that most people who argue about relicensing Linux makes. There’s no reason why the relicensed system has to emerge fully functional. It’d be easy to get three or four key players to agree with Linus on a different license (I didn’t say GPLV3, by the way) and produce a usable but less than complete Linux. Once Linus decided to do that, in less than six months enough other developers would realize that whatever was left behind wasn’t Linux anymore and would convert to the new license.
You wouldn’t need them all. You probably wouldn’t need more than a dozen of the current active developers.
You get shaker with every post.
“You seem to have read the sense of my sentence backwards. Yes, giving control to someone requires trust. But the FSF isn’t giving control, it’s taking control.”
They are going to make a mint on the new Harry Potter Book then, and lets face it the RIAA, MIAA aren’t going to be a problem as the FSF operates under different copyright laws as the rest of us.
“If every developer wanted it that way it’d be done in a week.”
And thats the rub, the more people are involved in making a decision, there will always be feet dragging, complaints. the inevitable questions, as well as a whole host of people who cannot be found or are dead. The kernels pushing 20 years Its simply too large a project.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html
the results are out of date, but seriously its *bigger* now. but seriously a week…think again. Make a better response.
Updating my own Post for Kernel 2.6.20
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 5,197,352
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,594.41 (19,132.97)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months) = 8.83 (105.93)
(Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule) = 180.62
Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 215,383,714
(average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
SLOCCount, Copyright (C) 2001-2004 David A. Wheeler
SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the GNU GPL.
SLOCCount comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, and you are welcome to
redistribute it under certain conditions as specified by the GNU GPL license;
see the documentation for details.
Please credit this data as “generated using David A. Wheeler’s ‘SLOCCount’.”
“It’d be easy to get three or four key players to agree with Linus on a different license (I didn’t say GPLV3, by the way) and produce a usable but less than complete Linux.”
No it won’t.
Edited 2007-02-05 08:23
FSF don’t want you to turn over the code. They recommend it if it is to be a part of the GNU project. And this is primarily due to protection of copyrights.
But FSF does not demand you to hand over the copyrights just because you release code under the GPL. And not all software copyrighted by FSF is under the GPL. Some is BSD but still with FSF as copyright holder.
The Linux kernel can only change the license if all copyright holders agree on this. A logistical challenge at best.
FSF don’t want you to turn over the code. They recommend it if it is to be a part of the GNU project. And this is primarily due to protection of copyrights.
They don’t “recommend” it. They require it. Says so on their web site.
The Linux kernel can only change the license if all copyright holders agree on this. A logistical challenge at best.
This is the first of several mistakes people make in discussing the status of the kernel license. I’d have thought that anyone familiar with BSD Lite would understand the alternatives.
“This is the first of several mistakes people make in discussing the status of the kernel license. I’d have thought that anyone familiar with BSD Lite would understand the alternatives.”
And is that what its always about, the hate; the lies. The BSD kernel. Its easier to create a figure of hate rather than discuss sensibly the reasons why someone might choose one thing over another.
The reality is the FSF doesn’t kick cats, no matter how much you say they do.
The only thing you have said with that statement and I agree with it. Linux has become a Marginal project withing Linux. Its a good one but its only part of a whole ecosystem of software that make up a Distribution, of which many of the programs belong to the FSF.
And is that what its always about, the hate; the lies. The BSD kernel. Its easier to create a figure of hate rather than discuss sensibly the reasons why someone might choose one thing over another.
Ooookkkaayyy…
The BSDLite comment was offered simply to make a point about how people go about changing the license on code when not all players are interested in the new license.
It’s got nothing to do with BSD versus Linux.
The reality is the FSF doesn’t kick cats, no matter how much you say they do.
How, exactly did we get from my observation that it’s ironic that they demand control to your assertion?
I never accused the FSF of anything. I never claimed they did anything wrong. I merely said it was ironic that they demand other people give up rights.
“The BSDLite comment was offered simply to make a point about how people go about changing the license on code when not all players are interested in the new license.”
Just out of interest
1) Whats was the size of the kernel then.
2) How long did the rewrite take.
3) How many people where involved.
4) What was the motivation for doing so.
You made a comparison I *want* to see you follow this through.
Edited 2007-02-05 19:11
You made a comparison I *want* to see you follow this through.
Why, so you can quote me out of context and accuse me of lying again?
Anyway, none of those questions are relevant to the thought exercise. The more interesting questions are
1) Who would go along with Linus if he decided to switch?
2) How much functionality would be lost from those who didn’t?
3) How much of the lost functionality would be worth replacing?
That’s a much more interesting problem than plugging LOC into a COCOMO model and I suspect you’d be very surprised how little of what mattered would have to be redone.
Thats fine. I don’t care which model for assessing the scale. Seriously I don’t. Hell I really don’t care where you get the numbers from. But I’m going to say the the kernel is *big*. The kernel has a lot of maintainers over its many years lifespan.
It was one week…then it was 6 months…my estimate goes to years.
Thats without the potential pitfalls, of which there are lots. List those.
I even like your questions. I’m certain that finding the answer to those questions will take at least six months if not longer.
But I’m glad you raised the questions…answer them.
I’m publicly goading you to put “the record straight”
Here are you questions answer them
“1) Who would go along with Linus if he decided to switch?
2) How much functionality would be lost from those who didn’t?
3) How much of the lost functionality would be worth replacing?”
It was one week…then it was 6 months…my estimate goes to years.
Actually, it was 6 months. the one week comment was in the unlikely case that all the developers agreed to the change.
I’m publicly goading you to put “the record straight”
So you can distort it again? I think not.
Its pretty clear you pulled that figure out of the air.
*nobody* reads these, posts down the bottom of the page so seriously. Whats wrong with you and Stallman…and don’t give me any of that garbage you gave me before.
A child could see through those arguments.
Its pretty clear you pulled that figure out of the air.
No it’s not. It’s clear that I’m not going to defend it here. I gave my reason, and you don’t believe it. Stalemate.
*nobody* reads these, posts down the bottom of the page so seriously. Whats wrong with you and Stallman…and don’t give me any of that garbage you gave me before.
There’s nothing “wrong” with me and Stallman. I’ve known him since ’84, and I don’t think he should take as much credit as he claims. That’s all there is to it.
Its “secret” is just not good enough.
Linux is magnificent. Its a remarkable achievement. Its not been done by one man…or even ten men, but thousand working countless hours. Stallman is one name amongst many, who holds some influence. Its of under no doubt he deserves credit. Does he or anyone deserve to be crediting for Linux…absolutely not, Like it or Loath it he was a pioneer *his* name is on the manifesto, who *deserves* the credit, the thousands who did the work, and nobody knows their names.
I read an article a long time back arguing that the reason Linux hadn’t gone mainstream, was the lack of a recognizable public figurehead. I don’t think it can have one. Everyone is a small cog in the Linux universe, and I personally think its better for that
“I never accused the FSF of anything. I never claimed they did anything wrong. I merely said it was ironic that they demand other people give up rights.”
So your not accusing the FSF of anything and they have done nothing wrong…excellent, and yet it has been worth your time focusing on them all this time. I have to say that perhaps your time could be better spent on something else.
By the way *demand* thats actually a lie isn’t it. You know what for something thats *voluntary* they seem to do a awful lot. Maybe they could *demand* that Vista remove DRM from their OS, or Demand they use Open Formats. The reality is I’m sure your aware is they can *Demand* nothing.
yet it has been worth your time focusing on them all this time. I have to say that perhaps your time could be better spent on something else.
It’s my time, and I spent it in a way that suits me. Since I was setting the record straight, I’d have to say I spent it more productively than you did with your distortions and accusations, but how you spend your time is up to you.
WTF is BSD Lite? If you refer to the Linux kernel that’s a quite offensive term and another prove of your trolling.
The Linux kernel is GPL and nobody but the copyright holders can change the license unless otherwise stated in the license.
The fact there are other kernels around doesn’t change copyright laws.
WTF is BSD Lite? If you refer to the Linux kernel that’s a quite offensive term and another prove of your trolling.
BSDLite was the first BSD variant that became completely free of AT&T intellectual property. It was called “Lite” because all of the AT&T code had been removed from it and enough replaced so that it was a usable Unix. It was mentioned in this context as an example of how you change the license on your software when not everyone who contributes to that software wishes to change licenses.
The Linux kernel is GPL and nobody but the copyright holders can change the license unless otherwise stated in the license.
Very good. Now, perhaps, you understand the BSDLite comment.
Let me spell it, just in case: The Linux kernel is large and complex, but the vast majority of the code that makes it work is the property of a very small number of developers.
If Linus wanted to relicense it, he could do precisely what the BSDLite guys did. He could gather permission from those who would agree with his choice of license, excise the code from those who wouldn’t and restart from there.
Based on a lot more sophisticated analysis than a LOC count and application of a COCOMO model, he could do this and have a usable Linux under a different license in six months if he so chose
“If Linus wanted to relicense it, he could do precisely what the BSDLite guys did. He could gather permission from those who would agree with his choice of license, excise the code from those who wouldn’t and restart from there.
Based on a lot more sophisticated analysis than a LOC count and application of a COCOMO model, he could do this and have a usable Linux under a different license in six months if he so chose”
Then show me, 6 months is a long way from. 1 week and a few developers. Show me the more sophisticated method. Because the reality the COCOMO method is not good enough…becuase its not based on something as *complex* or *critical* as the kernel. In reality the manpower requirements are conservatively put at 3X that.
I’d like to know what the rest of the world will do. Its computing. The world is not going to stand still while Linux puts its License in order.
Maybe the FSF can Demand that they stop development for 6 Months…a year…5 years.
BTW: They don’t force you to anything. And you don’t have to “hand over the copyrights”.
What FSF does it making a contract with you. They get the copyright, and you get the promise that the license won’t change – ever. Let it be Revised BSD, MIT, LGPL or GPL.
What FSF does it making a contract with you. They get the copyright, and you get the promise that the license won’t change – ever. Let it be Revised BSD, MIT, LGPL or GPL.
No you don’t. If you got such a promise, then they wouldn’t be able to switch GCC and so forth over to GPLv3 without permission.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00678.html has a copy of the assignment contract. There’s no such language in it. There is a promise that the source code will always be available, but comment about the license under which it will be available.
“Preserving free software is a secondary motive of RMS’s first motive – forcing free software. Anybody else could have invented a free software licence (FreeBSD, Public Domain, Apache Licence, Creative Commons), Richard invented a licence designed to force people to use open code and purposely not play well with proprietory software.
The inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the first web server and web browser as well as defined the HTML specification. He made the html spec an open standard, and we have the www as it is now because of that.
Had he mandated that all software that processes HTML in any way _must_ be open source, the commercial boom in the Internet would not have happened, and we would not be talking on this forum now.”
What you say is a lie about 30 minutes in. He also discusses *control* using proprietary software. Oddly your argument is about Open standards not licensing of software.
Whats interesting is the example given where the abuse of standards has helped create a monopoly by Microsoft.
Its *nothing* to do with stallman. The only way I can think this being used is in an argument aginst DRM and proprietary software.
Yes, like Ben Franklin ‘invented’ Electricity. What tosh, RMS defined a way to define free software.
Indeed. I think that the GPL and the way it works is a totally sensible license for the good health of any project that has its source opened ;-), which is why Linus picked it, but RMS has some serious delusions of grandeur about what he and the FSF have been responsible for.
The simple fact is that without the rise of Linux the free software world would still be in the middle of the Hurd wonderland, and RMS and the FSF has ridden very much on Linux’s back and wants to claim credit. Yep, a lot of important userland tools are GNU projects, but Linux based operating systems would have been developed with them or without them.
“Yes, like Ben Franklin ‘invented’ Electricity. What tosh, RMS defined a way to define free software. He did not invent the very concept of free (libre) software. It already existed in science labs all over the world, since as long as computers were programmable.”
Defines free software at about 4 minutes listen to it. what you say is a lie.
The FSF distinguishes in general “Free” software from “open” software. The latter term has been used to refer to the type of software that you refer to, which existed before the FSF. However, the FSF did pioneer the concept of open software that could not be closed, and the use of the term “free” to refer to such software.
into it and it hadn’t started.
I’ll pass.
What a nutjob.
nice way to show your gratitude.
without him, or people like him, you would with almost certainty not be enjoying the internet and other computer related technologies as you are today.
without him, or people like him, you would with almost certainty not be enjoying the internet and other computer related technologies as you are today.
Stallman and the FSF had nothing to do with creating, developing, popularizing, or commercializing either the internet or modern computer technology.
All the FSF ever did was a partial reimplementation of an existing operating system that they haven’t to this day finished.
I agree with your comment but I think what he (Marc) intends by “introducing the concept of free software” is that Marc was stating what happened in the interview rather than referring to the action of Stallman revealing to the world the concept of free software.
Please substantiate your comment. Tell us exactly who is the nutjob and why this person is a nutjob. Otherwise your comment is ambiguous at best and deserves to be modded down at worst.
Tell us exactly who is the nutjob and why this person is a nutjob.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I’ll give it a shot. Stallman is a nutjob because his idea of freedom in software has become so perverse that it now includes provisions that prevent people from implementing certain technologies using free software.
Freedom, in the general sense of the word, implies that people have the right to do things that you find disagreeable. The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so. But free software doesn’t mean that the free software community gets to pass judgment on what people do with the software.
There are many free software programs that are predominantly used to break the law. But we don’t pass judgment. Bram Cohen shouldn’t be held responsible for the way people use BitTorrent, for example. But neither should TiVo be held responsible for how they use Linux. Their DRM is free software, redistributable under the terms of the GPL. What they do doesn’t make Linux less free, it makes TiVo’s service less free. If this makes you mad (and it should), then use MythTV.
The GPLv2 is a copyright license. It sets forth the terms under which you can distribute copies of the software. These terms pass no judgment on the intended use of the software. The GPLv3 is more than a copyright license. It has terms that fall outside the boundaries of copyright law. These terms are intended to be enforced as a general contract agreement. In other words, it’s a EULA. We don’t like those, remember?
Stallman is absolutely right that we cannot take freedom for granted. That’s why his concept of copyleft is so important. But not as important as keeping free software free–free to implement whatever idea you have, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
“Freedom, in the general sense of the word, implies that people have the right to do things that you find disagreeable. The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so. But free software doesn’t mean that the free software community gets to pass judgment on what people do with the software.
There are many free software programs that are predominantly used to break the law. But we don’t pass judgment. Bram Cohen shouldn’t be held responsible for the way people use BitTorrent, for example. But neither should TiVo be held responsible for how they use Linux. Their DRM is free software, redistributable under the terms of the GPL. What they do doesn’t make Linux less free, it makes TiVo’s service less free. If this makes you mad (and it should), then use MythTV. ”
I’m glad you read the interview and understood Stallmans example of Malicious code, and Spyware.
The Tivo simply stops you running your own software, which makes a nonsense of you saying just use MythTV…becuase I suspect many want to do just that, on their Tivo. Clearly these people are nut-jobs as well
Whats most interesting is the fact TiVo spy on your watching habits….and sell this information to companies. I bet a lot of Tivo owners arn’t happy with that either.
Again Freedom for a company to remove your Freedom. Thats one of the four freedoms I’m familiar with. In fact its a nonsensece
You don’t use TiVo to run software, you subscribe to a service: although the code is free the service comes with some limitations, which is in their right to impose. Don’t like the terms of service? Don’t subscribe.
You see, at some point even Stallman conceded that even he didn’t want to “free” the code running is microwave oven, because it doesn’t make sense to consider hardware appliances (+ service in the case of TiVo) as computing devices.
Too bad he receded from common sense, because the DRM clause is the one causing 90% of the controversy about GPL v. 3.
rehdon
Too bad he receded from common sense, because the DRM clause is the one causing 90% of the controversy about GPL v. 3.
It is a true shame. I don’t think anybody is really upset about the rest of the license, especially after the softening of the patent protection clause in draft 2. It’s quite good, and very nicely written.
If not for the anti-DRM clause, I think the Linux kernel community would be busy tracking down contributors in order to relicense most of the kernel under the GPLv3. They like the patent protections, and they like the clearer text. But as soon as the rest of the world started to come around to the unique definition of freedom established by the FSF, they had to go and make it a bit harder to stomach.
“unique definition of freedom”
So people wanting to change; edit; use the source code as they wish is unique. Clearly all those customers unhappy that that cannot to use the TiVo as they wish, should think thats freedom.
The Tivo Box is a *computer*. The fact that you can subscribe to a service is an aside. Whats the relevance?
What has that to do with anything.
From the agreement
“Unless otherwise stated, TiVo Package Payment Plans include an 80-Hour TiVo® Series2™ DVR, included as part of the price of the package, and a subscription to the TiVo Service for one combined fee (a “TiVo Package”).
You can cancel the service. The box is yours.
Its not a hardware appliance. Its not a “Microwave Oven” its a computer.
“bash-2.02# cat /proc/cpuinfo
cpu : MIPS
cpu model : R5432 V3.0
system type : TiVo UMA P0 board
BogoMIPS : 161.38
byteorder : big endian
unaligned accesses : 8198
wait instruction : no
microsecond timers : yes
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : yes
spurious interrupts : 55745
cycle counter frequency : 81003906
bash-2.02# cat /proc/meminfo
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 44830720 37437440 7393280 0 2224128 22704128
Swap: 67104768 0 67104768
MemTotal: 43780 kB
MemFree: 7220 kB
MemShared: 0 kB
Buffers: 2172 kB
Cached: 22172 kB
Active: 18808 kB
Inact_dirty: 5536 kB
Inact_clean: 0 kB
Inact_target: 8 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree: 0 kB
LowTotal: 43780 kB
LowFree: 7220 kB
SwapTotal: 65532 kB
SwapFree: 65532 kB
bash-2.02# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.4.4-TiVo-3.0 (build@buildmaster10) (gcc version 3.0) #27 Sat Sep
28 21:47:44 PDT 2002
bash-2.02# cat /proc/pci
PCI devices found:
Bus 0, device 13, function 0:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:0035 (rev 65).
IRQ 5.
Master Capable. Latency=40. Min Gnt=1.Max Lat=42.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14000000 [0x14000fff].
Bus 0, device 13, function 1:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:0035 (rev 65).
IRQ 3.
Master Capable. Latency=40. Min Gnt=1.Max Lat=42.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14001000 [0x14001fff].
Bus 0, device 13, function 2:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:00e0 (rev 2).
IRQ 6.
Master Capable. Latency=64. Min Gnt=16.Max Lat=34.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14002000 [0x140020ff].
Bus 0, device 14, function 0:
Class ff00: PCI device 1741:0000 (rev 128).
IRQ 2.
Master Capable. Latency=64.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14100000 [0x141fffff].”
Why is it not common sense to not want to have your four freedoms on the TiVo? Its not obvious to me.
Because your definition of computer is too wide: try to bring it a little nearer to reality and you’ll surely understand.
F.i., my DVD/DivX player runs Linux too: is it a “computer”? My Nokia phone runs Symbian: is it a “computer”? If you conclude that TiVo is a computer, then those too appliances must be “computers” to you: no offense meant, but that’s nonsense. They can “compute”, sure, but they still are appliances. Don’t let ideology influence your appreciation of reality.
rehdon
Uhm…and tommorrow when your real “computer” is nothing but appliance with a remote….will you still think they are different?
Clearly TiVo is doing lots of things that piss off its customers, and the latest privacy issues that hit the news are indeed troubling. I recommend that people simply don’t buy TiVos. The software on them is free, but the platform they sell is not.
If you want to run MythTV, I don’t know why you’d want to run it on a TiVo. Among many other reasons, it is easy to build a scalable and fault-tolerant storage system for a PC, but nearly impossible on a TiVo (I think).
Freedom for a company to remove your freedom? That’s simply the way things work in this world. If Stallman thinks a copyright license is going to change the way consumer electronics vendors do business, he really is a nutjob.
Let’s step back and think about what he’s trying to do and how the stakeholders will react. If the GPLv3 were magically applied to the Linux kernel (which won’t happen), and if TiVo was no longer allowed to implement signed modules on Linux, what would TiVo do? They’d switch to some other embeddable OS, perhaps Windows CE. I guess you could argue that this wouldn’t have much negative impact on the Linux kernel community. But it certainly wouldn’t help out TiVo’s customers either.
I didn’t read the interview because I didn’t see a link to a text transcript, and I don’t like listening to audio interviews. Is there a text version?
As for malware and spyware, the prevention of these is one field of study where developers are pursuing DRM to help people get the most out of their computers, rather than the other way around. If we can sign all of the kernel modules that we build with our trusted kernel sources, or that are distributed by our Linux vendor, then we have some measure of protection against malicious kernel modules. The system can then require (root) user confirmation that they want to load an unsigned module. But we can’t do this if the kernel is GPLv3.
What about anti-virus? Where do you draw the line between a system that protects against running malware with a given signature and the kind of signature that prevents people from modding their TiVo? I suspect that the text of the GPLv3 has all sorts of unintended side effects that will prevent future benevolent uses of DRM-like technology. That’s a large part of why I’m against any functional restrictions on free software.
Edited 2007-02-05 08:48
Clearly you have not been keeping up. The free(sic) software on the TiVo is simply not free enough. Thats why its mentioned all the time.
The obvious reasons I could think of why you would want to run a TiVo with MythTV under your TV is it simply looks prettier than a computer, has advantages like commercial removal etc etc and doesn’t contain spyware.
“Freedom for a company to remove your freedom? That’s simply the way things work in this world.”
I have no comment to say on that. I’ll let it stand for itself. The fact that somebody is prepared to satnd up and say that is wrong and have him be called a “nutjob” is beyond insulting.
Lets stand back and look at how the stakeholders(sic) will react. They receive exactly the same benefits from using Linux as they did before, but have to give there customers the keys to unlock the hardware DRM if they ask.
I provided a summery for people just like yourself…but it seems the two people trolling this thread have no interest in reading what he has to say just insult him.
Again you lack understanding how will providing the customers with the keys to DRM on their stop malware or spyware. Clearly you do not understand the whole process.
What about anti-virus? DRM actually prevents you running anti-virus software as you wish…the best way of running Anti-Virus Software is *not within the OS* you are runnning in. If Malware is on your machine and is trusted *can you ever remove it*, becuase I can guarantee that will happen.
cyclops: Stop repeating stuff like a parrot man. You sound like you have thrown your logic in the dustbin and just repeating stuff.
Butters already gave an example where if Linux is under GPLv3 and TiVO doesn’t want it’s device to run custom software, they will switch to other embedded OS. As simple as that.
I don’t see what the F RMS want. He is a moron living without a family in a one bedroom house. Nice life he got.
He is a commie and he doesn’t have a place in this capitalist world…
BTW will GPLv3 force google to open source their modified Linux?
Edited 2007-02-05 09:55
“CrazyDude0″
from the thesaurus …
Synonyms: ape, barmy, batty, berserk, bonkers*, cracked, crazed, cuckoo, daft, delirious, demented, deranged, dingy*, dippy*, erratic, flaky, flipped*, flipped out*, freaked out*, fruity*, haywire, idiotic, insane, kooky, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mental*, moonstruck*, nuts, nutty, potty*, psycho*, screw loose*, screwball*, screwy*, silly, touched*, unbalanced, unglued*, unhinged*, unzipped*, wacky, whacko
Antonyms: balanced, levelheaded, rational, reasonable, sane, sensible, stable
Your “posting” name would explain your posts i guess …
I really love the way they’re all up in arms about DRM, yet don’t bat an eyelid about the military applications (and contributions) of FOSS.
Talk about missing the point!
The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so.
Why is that rightfully so? I love free software and I use it whenever I can at home and at work. At work I’m looking into ways to use DRM to create programs that expire. These programs are proprietary engineering calculations that we don’t want to be known should a laptop be stolen here or there. Right now they can only be executed on our network so they’re safe but there is a need to run them in the field where laptops are stolen right out of trunks of cars, hotel rooms etc.
” …provided you also distribute any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions…
(From Section 1, paragraph 4)”
There seems to be a misunderstandings over how DRM will will work under under GPL3
You can use DRM under GPL…you just get the keys. *You* get the same benefits, and have a choice.
Format: mp3 (proprietary)
Encoder: iTunes v7.0.2 (proprietary)
Stallman would never agree to give this interview if he knew…
Looks like our host didn’t learn anything.
Choice: MP3
> Usable by 95% of all computers worldwide out of the box. Including Windows, Macs and some Linux distos.
Choice: OGG
> Usable by less than 3% of computers worldwide, out of the box. (Both Windows and Mac users must download additional software)
Lets face it. RMS doesn’t have an RDF that strong.
Edited 2007-02-04 23:00
and in your infinite wisdom, you forget that mp3 is not free, and mp3 provides quality vastly inferior to vorbis. mp3 is a joke in quality, a laughing stock, something to be poked fun at. and those who use it should be poked fun at aswell, for being so stupid.
Since when was the best thing the one that succeded?
BetaMax vs. VHS
Wide Guage rails vs. Narrow Guage rails
…
Get real. MP3 may be inferior, but it’s good enough and accessible to the most people.
obviously it is not good enough, or there wouldnt be a need to invent newer better stuff, why do you think dvd’s dont use mp3, or cd’s even. what about dvd-audio? hddvd, bluray movies?
hell, it isnt even good enough to be freely usable in a very large portion of the world.
Judging by the popularity of the portable media players and the music “trading” networks, I would say that MP3 is good enough for most people.
I use OGG and FLAC for my music collection because of the quality and the openness of the format, but the average Joe just don’t care. MP3 was there before, there is pretty good software/hardware support for the format, few really care of computer freedom… It will stay the mainstream format until it’s eclipsed by a disruptive technology.
CDs don’t use MP3 because they were invented a decade before the codec… DVD-Audio and SACD are barely adopted (merely by audiophiles) while movies (either DVDs, HD-DVDs and Blu-ray) have different needs (like multiple audio channels). That said, early DVDs did used the ancestor of MP3 (aptly named MP2).
It’s not good enough for everything, but nothing is.
DOH. Are you incapable of reading?
The interview is available as ogg-vorbis and the website clearly states that RMS prefer we download the freer format.
Personally I don’t care since both are equally free in Denmark
You don’t have to subscribe to someones point of view to interview them.
I think RMS sounds pretty reasonable (and I’m definitely not a Free-Software Partisan). So far, he seems entirely aware of reality, but idealistic and perhaps not practically-minded (he implies this just before talking about the conflict between him and Linus). The nutjob seems to be the “multidimensional adventurer,” but he seems to be okay at asking questions… better than some.
RMS: “that’s good because I think I can only produce a one-dimensional stream of words”
LOL
If you’re referring to the GPL, then that is true: Stallman created the GPL which was designed to ensure that the users had all four “essential freedoms”. However, I object to your conclusion that RMS’s first objective is forcing free software. He doesn’t force anyone to use or develop free software. He hasn’t used any law to force anyone into using free software. He hasn’t implemented any technical means to force people into using free software. What he does force through the GPL is that if you redistribute somebody else’s GPL’d software, you must give your recipient the exact same freedoms as what was given to you.
Stallman created the GPL which was designed to ensure that the users had all four “essential freedoms”.
The GPL wasn’t designed to ensure the “four freedoms.”
The GPL predates the “four freedoms” which is a rationalization invented after the fact to defend the GPL.
The GPL was invented because of a personal feud between Richard Stallman and James Gosling over the ownership of changes to Emacs.
The irony is that the feud led Stallman to demand that anyone who added to Emacs give up their rights to their own code in order to see the addition included in his distribution.
“The GPL wasn’t designed to ensure the “four freedoms.”
The GPL predates the “four freedoms” which is a rationalization invented after the fact to defend the GPL.
The GPL was invented because of a personal feud between Richard Stallman and James Gosling over the ownership of changes to Emacs.
The irony is that the feud led Stallman to demand that anyone who added to Emacs give up their rights to their own code in order to see the addition included in his distribution.”
http://groups.google.com/group/net.micro/msg/0df9ab5ff21cc134?&hl=e…
“Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.”
“GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free. ”
Edited 2007-02-05 02:43
The manifesto came two years after the feud. It came after the copyleft on Emacs. The copyleft came after Gosling refused to give changes to Stallman and started selling a commercial version of Emacs.
Stallman was perfectly happy using BSD on other people’s computers until he lost his battle with Gosling
Edited 2007-02-05 03:32
Did you not write this.
“The GPL predates the “four freedoms” which is a rationalization invented after the fact to defend the GPL.”
I can read.
Back in 1985 the GNU Manifesto was published the first GPL Licence 1989 *four* years after.
Your trying to rewrite history.
Edited 2007-02-05 03:43
Back in 1985 the GNU Manifesto was published the first GPL Licence 1989 *four* years after.
The GNU Manifesto does not define the “four freedoms”.
It was also published two years after the battle with Gosling over rights to Emacs.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html is the original manifesto with some notes. No where do the “four freedoms” appear.
The copyleft and the demand for copyright transfer for changes to Emacs predate both GNU and the manifesto. GNU predates the manifesto. The Manifest predates the license. The license predates the theory of the “four freedoms.”
To inject some common sense into debates like these, before you erupt into a holy
war over licenses or GPL3 vs GPL vs LGPL ( is there a LGPL3 , anyone ) let’s
take a look from the users perspective. People don’t really care about licencese.
When you listen to some people talk , they take on such a self-righteous attitude
when it comes to license issues as if that is all there is. GPL isn’t the answer to everything. It’s an alternative and that is what is good about it.
Now RMS , i like him – not always – but the man has gumption , he can be self righteous at times and excessively exetreme,but it was as he is , that spearheaded this “revolution” , you sort of needed a guy like that at the beginning to galvanise differet similar efforts into a single purposeful response. Please , please , please don’t get me wrong ,and don’t take snippets out of my response and quote me out of context , licences are important ,but what i think is more important is that we have an ecosystem of different methods of ownership ,some are too restrictive and hopefully they will die out but they have every right to exist and make a move widespread adoption. So i think this is all good,but let’s keep it in perspective … 🙂
I really want to know. Really.
Why should I care about it? To paraphrase John Cleese: What has the FSM ever done for me?
I visited: http://www.gnu.org/
In the section: What is Free Software?
I don’t need freedoms one to three and freedom zero comes with purchased software, at least enough for me to be able to do everything I need to with the software.
Edited 2007-02-04 23:03
Freedom 0 does NOT come with proprietary software.
Just take a look at the Vista EULA and you’ll see you have extremely limited usage rights. Luckily it’s mostly void in Denmark, but it’s sad for those of you living in USA.
Freedom 1,2 and 3 are essential to me, mostly because I want to control _my_ system and _my_ data.
Whats the point of the code of law?
why should i care about it? why should i care if my neighbor starves to death. why should i care if the porche dealer gets shot? why should i care that the vegeratian store gets bombed?
im not a vegetarian, i dont buy porches, why should i care? my neighbor doesent do anything for me, why should i care?
Freedom zero (in computing, numbers generally start from zero, since even storing zero requires some space in the computers memory) allows you to use a program without worrying, for example, whether you will be prevented by the vendor of software X from watching a dvd you have legally purchased.
Freedom 1 allows anyone to deconstruct a program and build another like it or improve it. Without this freedom in the “real world”, buying BetaMax is fine – until everyone decides to only distribute VHS tapes. In the computing world, it’s much worse: proprietary technology after proprietary technology has fallen victim to the Grim Reaper because the vendor went out of business or changed direction, and no-one knew how to replicate their work. Ergo, it, all the data you saved with it, and all the time you spent learning it, became obsolete.
Freedom 2 allows you to distribute the software that you have modified or improved or deconstructed, so that everyone, not just you, can benefit from VHS instead of being stuck with BetaMax or V2000. With proprietary software, you do not have this freedom – copying proprietary software and distributing it for a free without permission from the copyright holder is illegal (it is always illegal to distribute without permission, but free software *gives you* that permission).
>I don’t need freedoms one to three and freedom zero comes with purchased software
Nobody says that you need it now. The point is that you should have it if you decide to use one.
It’s perfect OK if you say: “I don’t need the freedom so i don’t exercise it”.
But if you would say “I don’t need the freedom so it’s not important that this freedom exists”, for me this would sound quite selfish.
I for my self doesn’t exercise a lot of freedoms too (not only in the software world). But i would never say that because at this moment i don’t exercise a special freedom this freedom isn’t important or it shouldn’t exist.
The interviewer is a semi-intellectual(sic), and hostile. He’s not very good, but he brings up some key myths that are touted on this site often ie his views on Linus; Communist etc.
Stallman comes across as a well balanced easy to understand. Whats most surprising to me how softly he speaks
Likes Science freedom.
Not About open-source
Describes Four Free freedoms.
Open source term used by people interested only in purely practical not in an ethical;political.
Linux a Free software product
Is disagreement with Linus over him actively ridiculing freedom you should insist on.
Linus “amoral” but calls him “apolitical”, buy this saying ignore political questions.
Its about *control* in a way a developer can allow or disallow to do.
Accept possibility of “equivalent software” not available.
Would refuse to use non-free software…but says he does not have to sacrifice.
not incentive but motive for creation of free software Political idealism;fun;appreciation of others ;professional education;gratitude towards free software community;proliferation,profit; hatred for Microsoft and others…and get paid.
Microsoft and Apple evil for DRM—>technology to control you and other uses “spy on you”
Points out Defective by Design.
Not a lot of experience of OS X but would a copy of OS X to study…but not his job to evaluate in 1980’s developing software…now spreading idea of free software.
Describes personal experiences of People switching to Linux.
In software field Source code is knowledge; proprietary software secret knowledge to gain advantage over others.
Source code builds communication; cooperation between developers.
No limits to social structure to a software project; organize their own rules;ways of working on.
No usage difference between Free software and proprietary, but its less likely to contain malicious code.
Ethical and Political ideals can be applied to “other useful works in life” educational; reference should be free etc.
Free software exists within capitalistic system…and is more consistent with a free market, propitiatory software a monopoly. propitiatory Software is not your property describes it as a Tyranny; Feudal system; Command based system like the one in the soviet union.
Describes Bush/Blair removing freedom/basic rights.
Freedom important speculates that education; Vietnam war. Doesn’t know why others wouldn’t want freedom for all.
Combative approach to freedom, is his best approach, but will compromise on minor details although never legitimize non-free software.
A fact that today to cannot Liberate a certain area of software, but will not legitimize it.
@cloudy this is poor I can barely follow anything.
“without him, or people like him, you would with almost certainty not be enjoying the internet and other computer related technologies as you are today.
Stallman and the FSF had nothing to do with creating, developing, popularizing, or commercializing either the internet or modern computer technology.”
What do those statements have in common!? please tell me. They are unrelated.
“All the FSF ever did was a partial reimplementation of an existing operating system that they haven’t to this day finished.”
Is Linux finished!? Do the FSF have to code every part of Linux to get any credit. I use their software and derivatives of their software, and software combined with their software, and software that compliments their software. I use software created influenced by their software.
Its like saying what has Bill Gates to with Vista its the 70,000 people in his company that did the work.
Is Linux finished!?
No it’s not. Unless you compare it to Hurd
Do the FSF have to code every part of Linux to get any credit.
Again, no. I’m sure most linux users are grateful for the GNU toochain, and whatnot but IMO it doesn’t warrant the ridiculous GNU/Linux name these arses insist on.
To my mind, it’d be more appropriate to call my system linux/KDE/Firefox/Thunderbird/Amarok, as it has more relevance to me than GNU/Linux.
As it is I’ll stick to plain old linux.
I think a lot of the FSF supporters would benefit from going out and getting some frech air once in a while ;o) There’s more to life than software licencing, don’t’cha’know
…ridiculous GNU/Linux name these arses insist on.’
Too right. Guhnoo slash linux… what a stupid idea.
Imagine if we lived in a world were things were named like this. People would drive to work in their Stephensons_Rocket/Car and make calls from their Bell/Mobile. You must pronounce it correctly too… Belluhoo-Slash-Mobile.
If I ever met the guy I’d call it Linux on purpose just to get on his tits.
>Too right. Guhnoo slash linux… what a stupid idea.
Yes, you are right. That’s why i just call it GNU.
It’s shorter than GNU/Linux or Linux and GNU is the most important and largest part (from one project) of the system. If the system runs a Linux, BSD,… kernel doesn’t make any difference for me as a user. MacOS also hasn’t changed to “the Mach OS” since they are replaced their kernel with a mach kernel so why should i name my GNU system like the kernel?
>Imagine if we lived in a world were things were named like this.
You already live in a world like this. Just think about TCP/IP for example.
Edited 2007-02-05 15:56
Well, I wouldn’t use Linux if it wasn’t for the fact that there is a GUI that makes it real usable (for me).
So perhaps we should call Linux/GNU/X. And Openoffice.org is pretty important to many people too.
I will stick to Linux. The kernel is what has gotten FOSS to where it is now. The BSD stuff was there for the taking if the GNU bits had not been there previously. For many reasons, people chose the GNU stuff, and that’s what we have right now.
Besides, Linux is just better sounding. The first rule of marketing, it must sound nice. Gur-nyoo. Hard letter sounds, not good (Unless you are Google of course)
I really admire you, you are a symbol of how humanity should be, thank you for everything that you did and you do for the open source community, GNU rocks!
A – – very – – interesting – – podcast. – – Have – – you – – noticed – – that – – if – – you – – slow – – down – – the – – mp3 – – stallman – – sounds – – like – – Stephen – – Hawking?
Q: Mr RMS if there are two software that are available, one is a superior but properietary software let us say Oracle and another is an Open Source but not that high quality like MySQL, which one will you use?
A: There is no question, i don’t use properitary software. I will use MySQL. Properitary software is bad bad BADDDDD badddddddddd and no one should use it. It is anti-Freedom etc etc.
My reaction: Wow what a dumbass to make a religion out of software.
Extremists are never good. Because they only see the world with their own eyes and are intolerant to other people’s views and ways. They want to suppress or remove other peoples’ views.
My message to RMS: Live and Let Live dude, don’t spread negativity about what others feel is important in this world. You can live without a family, live in a one bedroom house and die alone. Not everyone else want to.
Sometime when people justify him, i think why not justify Hitler as well after all what he did in his ways was supposed to be good for Germany. After all both have one thing in common, they were/are both intolerant to others way of doing things or making a living and want the whole world to follow their vision.
Edited 2007-02-05 09:53
He actually adresses the points you have made in the interview you should listen.
“don’t spread negativity about what others feel is important in this world”
Thats irony.
BTW it takes a special kind of someone to compare someone who promotes free software. To someone who is responsible for mass genocide.
I don’t have a ‘desire’ to use Flash (the IDE), I ‘need’ to. If he could give me an alternative that offers the same or better functionality (not less) then the last stumbling post to my use of Linux would not exist.
He says people need free software. Isn’t that more his desire?
Edited 2007-02-05 09:46
Also, here’s a 30 minute video RMS recorded for the launch of gnowledge.org:
http://db.hbcse.tifr.res.in/rms.ogg