An interesting interview of RMS answering questions on Linux, HURD, free software on non-free OS, Solaris, BSD License, GCC and Standards amoung others.
A lengthy RMS interview
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
RMS:Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. It may also be of low quality or insecure, but that’s a secondary issue. I will reject it even if it is the best quality in the world, simply because I value my freedom too much to give it up for that.
’nuff said
And that’s why I don’t fully agree with RMS and other FSF proponents, we simply have a difference in the way of thinking.
RMS is a politician and an idealist.
I, on the other hand, I am as practical as it goes.
For me, all it matters is the “product” to work as it should work. If it is of low quality, it has absolutely no use for me, no matter if its Free or not. I don’t care if baby seals were killed to create that software or a planet was blown up in the process. What matters to me –the consumer–, is the product I downloaded for F/free or purchased, works as I expect it to. Low quality software or products have no place in my life.
Now, let me explain this a bit, because the baby seals remark has surely raised a few eyebrows (and btw, I love all animals).
Many thousands years ago, humans managed to create better tools to hunt, to build other tools, and they even invented the wheel. Now, let’s hypothesize that the inventor of the circular wheel did not want to share the mechanics of it to other people, but instead sells his invention and keep its mechanics proprietary. Somewhere else, another inventor, invented the rectangular wheel, but he felt he should share the idea with everybody. A peddler, who needs the wheels to travel from… cave to cave, has seen both inventions. Which one do you think he will pick? The proprietary circular wheel which works as intented, or the Free rectangular wheel that happens to be problematic?
I bet that he would use the circular one because he cares about doing the job right, he doesn’t care about the politics about it.
This is *not* to say that all OSS software is low quality (Firefox, Apache, PostgreSQL are great, for example), but a lot of it is and for some kinds of software, only proprietary solutions are good or even in existence (e.g. natural painting app, theatrical/movie script editors, whale/dolphin song analyzers etc).
The point of this comment is to say that we use computers and software as TOOLS. Everything is a tool. If the tool does the job as needed, Free or not, it should be used. If the tool is of lower quality, the consumer should research for a better solution to suit its needs, even if he has to pay money or don’t get access to the source.
RMS has brought a lot of good things, and personally I see Free Software as a positive movement. If a software is Free, that’s a plus! But even if it’s not Free, if it does the job, it’s worthwhile to be used. You see, RMS himself started the FSF movement because he didn’t have the source to modify a printer driver in his workplace. But, if a consumer already uses a software that does all he/she needs to do, there is no such drive/need to have access to the source! Besides, most people are not programmers, neither they can afford to contract programmers to do changes.
I see it on my brother everyday. He is more than happy with Nero’s full suite for DVD ripping/creating/burning. He requires no changes or additions, and besides, there is nothing similar in terms of OSS in *one* full suite that works together in such a way.
I am currently in Greece, and I tried to convert him to Ubuntu and Mandrake 10.1, only to get laughs out of him for Ubuntu’s name and lack of proper serial modem tools, and Mandrake’s utter slowness and BUGGINESS on his 100% linux compatible laptop!
Apparently it’s WinXP for him, and nothing else. It does things the way he wants it, and he is happy with it (except the 275 spyware entries I cleaned up for him with AdAware when I arrived here
. For that person, would be UNFAIR me trying to convert him to another OS, because anything else would have created holes in his computer experience and the things he wants to do with his computer. The stuff he does with his computer would have required many different tools under Linux, some command line some not, some stable some not, and it would have COMPLICATED his overall experience with a questionable end result. And I love my brother too much to let him become a computer hater! 
Sorry mates, but that’s reality. RMS is an idealist. We NEED such people to keep us in check, give us some ethical hope with their ideas every few years. But that doesn’t mean that the way world works is always compatible with these ideas.
— A practical to-the-bone person,
Eugenia
Because OSNewsers will not tolerate anybody having a different opinion than the mainstream one. Free speech? Right.
“If the tool is of lower quality, the consumer should research for a better solution to suit its needs, even if he has to pay money or don’t get access to the source.”
I sell software. My software is much more user friendly than the competition. Their software is free, but you have to edit configuration files to setup the program and you have to read the manual. Their interface is a big DOS window, while I have a native-looking Win32 user interface.
And guess what? Almost every single day people will post topics on my forum, screaming “some1 plzz send me the software for free!!!” and “noooo i dun wanna pay!!?!” and “you charge money?! you suck!!”.
No, MANY people will never pay, no matter how cheap the software is (mine is just $9). They will even use DOS-like programs that require editing configuration files, if it means that they don’t have to pay.
Yes, from a practical standpoint you’re right.
Yes, there is the possibility that we don’t need free software. The users can make all the things they do today with commercial,proprietary software(programming,calculating,burning,surfing and myriad other things).
BUT: Free software does it make possible for every one.
Not only the “rich”.
I always wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of developing on the Windows platform. Are you able to buy the professional dev tools from M$. I am not.
But I was able to learn the nuts and bolts of developing on Linux/BSD, because I am able to get not only the tools but also the docs and books for free (for example Raymond’s book).
Then: Can you imagine what the licensing costs would be if there were only proprietary software?
YES. We have another corner today where we can get our software, so “they” cannot make “theier” software more expensive. This is another thing what free SW makes possible.
Then: Let your brother use WinXP. Soon he will get TCPA and “full”-DRM. For every play of his MP3s he will have to pay. You see waht I mean.
Free SW and free content gives us our FREEDOM. It gives us un-censored, un-filtered, un-controlled functionality and knowledge and content.
I a world where companies and gov’s are struggling to take away FREEDOM from the people a man as RMS is a bay of hope.
Same here. I want something that works, and I don’t really care where it comes from. Why would I go throurgh the annoyances of choosing an inferior application only because it’s free? That doesn’t make sense to me.
However, if people do find the free-factor (that’s just wrong, I know, but it souds catchy) important, then by all means, use only free software! It’s all fine with me. However, I hate it how *some* of those people then try to force me and others in using free software.
A few days ago, I converted my parents towards Ubuntu. Did they fall for a firy political speech? Were they sick of endless amounts of viruses and spyware? Did they hate the vendor lock-in? Did they hate the fact they couldn’t see the source code…?
No.
I had to reinstall the machine with Windows, but it wouldn’t properly boot off of the WinXP disc.
Why do I tell this? Well, this is a case where it’s, apperantly, the other way ’round. WinXP won’t work, so my parents needed a proper alternative. And I gave them one. And, they’re happy with it.
“I don’t care if baby seals were killed to create that software or a planet was blown up in the process.”
I hope that was an exaggeration.
“Proprietary software is unethical”
That is an absurd statement, as software has no consciousness. It’s like saying ‘guns are unethical’. The only things to which ethical values can be attributed are the actions of rational beings. He should say ‘using proprietary software is unethical’ or ‘writing proprietary software is unethical’.
Think of RMS as a long term practical software-user.
Many thousands years ago, humans managed to create better tools to hunt, to build other tools, and they even invented the wheel. Now, let’s hypothesize that the inventor of the circular wheel did not want to share the mechanics of it to other people, but instead sells his invention and keep its mechanics proprietary. Somewhere else, another inventor, invented the rectangular wheel, but he felt he should share the idea with everybody. A peddler, who needs the wheels to travel from… cave to cave, has seen both inventions. Which one do you think he will pick? The proprietary circular wheel which works as intented, or the Free rectangular wheel that happens to be problematic?
What? Now we’re a historian too? Please! This is perhaps one of the worst analogies I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. I think the round wheel was a rather obvious invention that was independantly discovered time and time again throughout the world.
I’d probably have described myself as more pragmatic than idealistic some time back. Why bother worrying about whether a program is free or not if it works?
For example, I like Winamp and Trillian. Both are free (beer) but RMS certainly wouldn’t agree.
But given the choice, I’d use them over RMS-approved alternatives since I prefer them to their alternatives.
On the other hand, the consequences of non-free software are potentially scary. There was an issue recently where Apple apparently deployed a firmware update which made iPods imcompatible with Real’s Rhapsody service. The concept of someone on the other side of the world telling me which songs I can’t play is chilling.
I can’t think of such a good example from the Microsoft side, but I’m sure there is one.
So it’s all very well to say you’ll go with whatever’s practical, but if it’s not free it may rapidly become unpractical – in that example it could leave you out by quite a few dollars.
Luckily the choice is pretty clear for me as far as an OS goes – I consider Linux superior, idealistically and practically. I’ll sacrifice my favourite Windows apps, even if their replacements aren’t as good. Ultimately some things are more important.
Looks like idealism’s winning on this machine.
There are limits though; I’m happy to accept binary nVidia drivers on here. Sure, open ones would be nicer, but they’re so much better than any alternative I’ll take what I can get.
Same with those strings of magic numbers RMS complains about in the Linux kernel. If I have a network card, I care more about whether it works with Linux than if it’s driver is open or not.
Of course nobody’s going to be remotely shutting down my network card because I’m running an unsupported OS; so it means somewhat less to me.
I’m not sure whether RMS’s attitude helps or hinders the uptake of Linux though; while it is good to have someone that strong to strive for his ideal, I can’t help but think that it doesn’t help to make the free software movement appeal to some.
Not that that’s a reason to compromise their beliefs of course 🙂
Since 1984 he has fought for software freedom
George Orwell was right ….
Proprietary software is unethical
By installing Proprietary software , you have given your soul to the devil , sacrified your first born and agreed to be castrated in public – if you read all the EULAs and agree.
The point is that the user has no rights – That’s unethical.
(see No warranty, no indemnity clauses in MS license).
To Eugenia:
RMS is not a very practical person – I’ve met him in person and talked to him. But you realize how right Bernard Shaw was when he said
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
That’s his purpose – to change the world of computers. People hate change… so I’m not surprised.
The “practical” stance is pure american right. It is a stance that people on the left find extremely distasteful. Having said that though it is also a difference of opinion that is impossible to bridge. I really think half the population is just hard wired liberal and half the population is hard wired conservative.
Have you ever used Foobar2000? I guarantee you will enjoy it once AOL kills off Winamp.
http://www.foobar2000.org/
Hi
this RMS interview is a series of trolls. the questions are optimized to make RMS fall into traps.
we should now have a more defiant attitude toward linuxdevcenter. it looks like linuxinsider – sites that pretend to inform about free software, but that actually *intentionally* spread disinformation, fud and trolls.
Intentional trolls in particular, should not even be mentionned or linked to. These trolls are formulated in such a way that, unless you’re an expert in dealing with them (which RMS is not), you can’t answer them without contributing yourself to the ambient disinformation. The best is to not even link to them. Just like viruses.
It’s also unfortunate that osnews contributed to this disinformation job by linking to it as a “news”.
The purpose of software is to make a better life no matter it is free software or prop software. If prop software limit the freedom, what about the audio cd ( Britney S., Celine D. ) that you cann’t distribute freely.
I see the unreasonable man as being the more practical of the two. How can someone who will allow others to impede progress (in the long term) be said to be practical? I agree that RMS is an idealist, but I wouldn’t call him impractical; he’s just less selfish (with respect to the long-term vs. short-term benefits for the computing world as a whole).
As you can see with the current discussions about copyrights, patents but also the MPAA trying to outlaw p2p software, software will be more and more influenced by politics as it becomes of bigger economic value. The big economic powers will just trample the human needs, peoples rights and users favorite features with the help of loyal politicians. Therefore it is short range thinking to say that you don’t care about freedom in software. RMS is a great thinker of this age because he realized this more than 20 years ago and and started to fight for his ( and our ) rights.
i wonder if windoze longhorn will ship in CD cases lined with baby seal skins, with a video of a planet blown up playing during install…
RMS was obviously not saying that GNU software was low quality. People seem to read whatever meaning they want into things. The only thing one can logically conclude from his statement is that he values freedom over quality. This does not infer that he thinks GNU software is of low quality or that freedom necessitates low quality.
p implies q != q implies p
What? Now we’re a historian too? Please! This is perhaps one of the worst analogies I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. I think the round wheel was a rather obvious invention that was independantly discovered time and time again throughout the world.
Actually the wheel was not invented “time and time again” it was invented in only two places, Sumeria and China, and spread from there to the rest of the civilized world over time. It also was invented by the Incas as something for a children’s toy and was never exploited as a tool by them. So there wasn’t much “reinventing of the wheel”. Sub-saharan Africa and Australia didn’t even know of the wheel until relatively recent times. (Information from Wikipedia, though I knew of the Mesopotamian invention from an encyclopedia prior to my looking it up to confirm it.)
If I create something, it is the fruit of my labor and I own it. Period.
If I sell you a *copy* but do not want you to reverse-engineer it and use that technology for your own financial gain, that is my property to make that decision with. Period.
Making software political is idiocy and I can’t agree with this man.
If you create something, you can do with it, what you want, including selling it under a propietary license. And I will be happy not to buy/use it. Period.
If you sell it under a free license and I want to use it, I buy it. Period.
If it is under a free license, one can improve it and let others gain access to this improvements.
That’s why it IS political.
I actually find Eugenia’s analogy of the wheel to be very apt. The point is that there are a lot of thins which are ‘obvious’ today but which were not obvious before someone came up and challenged the status quo. It’s great to have thinkers among us, but challenging people’s beliefs tantamounts to arrogance. RMS would rather Linus was inconvenienced and slowed down in doing what he wants to do because RMS hates proprietary software. The world is not black and white as he would like us to believe, there are compromises made everyday in all spheres, and Linus decided it was better for his project to use a proprietary version control product.
The moment that the product becomes unavailable then Linus will just switch. His code is not tied to the Version control sftware he uses. Mutual benefit does not exist in RMS’ world with regards free and proprietary software.
RMS told me once that the greatest benefit of Free Software for him was the ability to use his computer without starting with an act of betrayal.
Proprietary licenses, for the most part, forbid the user from helping their friends and family by giving them their copy of the software being licensed. We’re all aware of this, I’m sure; everyone knows you’re not supposed to give your copy of MS Office to others. But how many of you, if your mother or brother or best friend called up and needed MS Office, would not give it to them? Would you tell them, “I’m sorry, but I can’t give this to you because Microsoft forbids it. You’ll have to suffer?”
That’s the betrayal — the revocation of the right to share one’s resources for the good of the community or family. You’re promising, by clicking on “I agree,” to refuse to help people.
Aside from that single issue, there are other undesirable clauses in most proprietary licenses. If you do not truly agree to every point and detail, do you click on “I do not agree,” or do you lie so that you can install and use the software?
If you see this as a moral issue — one of refusing to help people, and one of honesty — then you can see RMS’s frame of reference on the matter.
-Jem
The wheel analogy doesn’t quite fit because when it is in use in a cart or whatver the workings of the wheel are immediatly apparent… the first time the creator of the rectangular wheel saw a circular one in motion he could take advantage of his previous experience working on the rectangle model and combine it with his observations of the circle one and produce a better wheel than either (perhaps he had a better method of attaching the axel, he’d certainly have needed it with that bumpy rectangle wheel…)
I’m sure there are analogies out there that better fit your view, Eugenia, but the wheel one doesn’t quite work…
Necessity is the mother of invention…
You are rebating RMS’s opinion saying what you like, that you are more on the practical side, … then act that way as you are doing (you are free to chose propietary SW) but RMS doesn’t care about that, it’s obvious that some people do prefer propietary SW, (MSoft wouldn’t be there) but he (RMS) is just thinking about the future and about the freedom.
Both are “ok” but it’s obvious that GPL do a lot more for the countries and people with less resources (and everybody ) than propietary SW.
Linux wouldn’t be there without the GPL and all you know that things would be worse with only propietary SW.
About the non-circular wheel, MSoft would have patented it in that moment of the history, then everybody would have to pay for it, but some people wouldn’t have the resources for that … a big stopper in the process of evoluting … I hope you get what I mean.
However, if people do find the free-factor (that’s just wrong, I know, but it souds catchy) important, then by all means, use only free software! It’s all fine with me. However, I hate it how *some* of those people then try to force me and others in using free software.
The problem is that it’s so often the other way around. People will send mail containing only a Word attachment (containing only text). I tell them: Please send me just the plain text, I don’t have Word. They say: Oh, no problem, you can copy it from me. I say: Let me rephrase. I don’t want Word. It doesn’t run on my OS. They say: Oh no problem! I have a version of XP here which you can copy.
Sigh. It’s not so easy to get the point across.
Personally, I don’t care that much about rms, but I really liked the way he handled these questions. The interviewer seems to ask questions to trick him into a trap, but he manages to avoid.
But, I did not like his answer to this one:
FB: I was looking at the operating systems market of the past few years. I think that every Mac OS X release keeps adding innovations that improve the experience of its users, but I don’t see this type of improvements in any commercial (Red Hat, Mandrake, Novell/SuSE …) GNU/Linux distribution. It seems to me that these big companies build a complete product simply putting together the result of various external projects. They take Linux (the kernel!), GCC, and other GNU utilities, XFree/X.Org, KDE/Gnome, and so on. Where are the innovations for the user?
Especially this part:
It seems to me that these big companies build a complete product simply putting together the result of various external projects.
They don’t just put together various external projects. They also work on these projects and are main contributors to these projects. I wish that rms would have given an answer to reflect that. Because after rms’s answer, he keeps saying, “so free kills innovation right?”, which really bugged me.
The GNU/copyleft license doesn’t offer freedom: it places restrictions on you: i.e. that you have to redistribute the source code — this should be obvious from the “loaded” term “copyleft”. Arguably, the BSD style licenses are freer: they place no restrictions on what you can do. However, copyleft arguably upholds a wider goal of software being free.
Be sure to distinguish between “freedom of the item (software)” and “freedom of the user (developer, business, etc)” — they are different.
Many thousands years ago, humans managed to create better tools to hunt, to build other tools, and they even invented the wheel. Now, let’s hypothesize that the inventor of the circular wheel did not want to share the mechanics of it to other people, but instead sells his invention and keep its mechanics proprietary. Somewhere else, another inventor, invented the rectangular wheel, but he felt he should share the idea with everybody. A peddler, who needs the wheels to travel from… cave to cave, has seen both inventions. Which one do you think he will pick? The proprietary circular wheel which works as intented, or the Free rectangular wheel that happens to be problematic?
This analogy isn’t a good one in that it doesn’t really answer the preceding issue that you raised. To be more direct, what if using the round wheel kills thousands upon thousands of baby seals each time you use it?
You say that you are purely practical — but I bet you’d put that practicality aside and value freedom above all if the cost of choosing practicality over freedom were sufficiently high. If every time someone clicked a Windows “Start” button, 1000 people were killed, I’d bet practicality would go out the window for you — the price is too high. But, of course, they aren’t, and that’s the issue that RMS has to confront.
People have put aside practicality and convenience and chosen freedom many times in history; but typically, that freedom has been the freedom to dissent from the government, or the freedom to exercise religious beliefs, etc. It hasn’t been for something as seemingly esoteric as free software. Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing convenience, let along their financial security, for that freedom.
I say this as someone with no proprietary software on my machine — there’s nothing in the proprietary world at this point that I feel like I need, so it’s an easy choice for me. But for someone who has a need for a proprietary produce, someone will need to justify to them why the freedom to change the software you use is sufficiently important.
he would support a law that restrict people in their freedom, without any need.
Please read the article and stop saying nonsense: “I am not campaigning for laws that would require all software to come with source code” — RMS
Didn’t find it very appealing. It seems to lack the Lovely medialibrary interface containing radiostations, TV, Music vids etc etc… not to mention that the GUI overall was not half as pleasing as Winamp.
Hopefully there is a clear roadmap to get these things sorted out so I can switch when the currently superior Winamp get’s killed…
talking about freedom, but his deffinition of freedom goes not beyond his GNU/GPL view. i want to have the freedom to write software and ask for money. i want to have the freedom to not release my source code. i want to have the freedom to write software and put it in the public domain and allow other people to get my sources and don’t release the modifications and make it closed source and make money.
And you have that right. You can do whatever you damn well like with your own code.
You do not have the right to take someone else’s code and use it without the express permission of it’s author. That means you can’t take a GPL licensed program and use it against the terms of the GPL. That’s no different than being unable to take parts of proprietary software and use it against the terms under which it is licensed (meaning you can’t use it for anything much).
What exactly is the problem here? RMS doesn’t want to prevent you from doing what you want to with your own software. Nobody would.
he would support a law that restrict people in their freedom, without any need.
i like open source. i use open source software a lot. i think the open source thing works quite well without any special laws and without people who think closed source is unethical.
RMS don’t help the open source movement (if there is something like this) not very much. he is a control freak and fanatic.
Err… What the hell? Where exactly do you pull this kind of garbage from? Aside from two obviously loaded questions (which RMS managed to dodge quite well – notice he never endorsed or supported the idea, and said that existing copyrights were enough, as long as there is no law passed restricting what an author can do), you appear to be pulling the rest of it out of your backside…
Your logic with wheels analogy is flawed.
Yes, computers and software are just what there are: TOOLS ! But what those tools manipulate ? Material things that can I manipulate with just my hands ? NO ! Those tools manipulate immaterial goods: DATA. Data are the root of free(libre)/closed software debate, not the quality of the tools.
Eugenia, you may be on the pragmatic side as many of us do but not all of us are shortsighted. Owning my data is what matters from my point of view.
I dont think some people who left their comments here really understood what RMS was trying to say. I dont see how he was led into any “traps”, but he has some points that must seem radical to many. I have a hard time grasping how anyone could form an educated opinion on his views and beliefs from a two page article. It took me some time and effort to understand what he is saying (maybe Im just slow
There are some videos of him explaining his views more thoroughly, amongst which are the following video recordings of him giving a speech in Sweden:
http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/stallman.html
Also, FSF keeps recordings about their philosophy which are a bit more up to date at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
For anyone thats actually interested in knowing what RMS, FSF and GNU are all about, if you havent already, I recommend taking the time to read up on the subject =)
Is true. RMS wants to say that if a very good tool exists for users for a reasonable cost, and another exists and is totally free, we should use the free one, no matter what the opportunity cost might be because he places an infinitely large value on freedom. Well, not all of us place such a large value on SOFTWARE freedom for one reason or another. I place a greater value on my time for instance, and if proprietary software saves me time, then I will use it instead of his free software.
I use Linux, but one of the things I like most about Linux is that the benefits are enjoyed even on the Windows side. For example, it will become very difficult for Microsoft to sel a copy of XP for $1,000 since Linux is available for free. All of us have a price we are willing to pay before we switch, and in teh wheel analogy, if people had found out that the proprietary wheel which was round was more comfortable than the rectangular one, then I am sure a large proportion would have been happy to pay the price to get the comfortable one, regardless that they would be more free by using the rectangular one.
I’m a practical person and don’t mind using propertiary software if it does the job better than the alternatives,
however I’m also an ethical person and to care how the software is made.
To all those who said they don’t – would you still buy some software if you knew that it was produced by slave labor?! or by commiting some other crime – if you would, well then you may be utterly practical but you’re also very stupid. Most likely you could be tricked into killing you friends by giving you the best cookie you’ve ever taisted.
As it has been said before – ignorance is bliss.
When users accept music players or any file source container employing patented formats such as WMP/ipod, Gates and Jobs gain the potential to become the masters of your free speech rights. Patented formats have EULA’s attached which give the patent holder the right to change terms of acceptable usage from their point of view, not yours. If those patent holders gain monopoly market share, they become empowered to make those EULA terms highly restrictive both in usage and cost, both to content users and (just as importantly) to content creators. The fact that ipod/WMP players are easy to use and cost money isn’t the issue. The loss of freedom is hidden from users until monopoly market share is attained. That’s the strategy, to keep the middlemen (Pentagon/RIAA/MPAA) in control of your access to content.
My country used to be under the British rule, like my other countries in that region. We had two categories of people. The ones who didn’t give a damn whether the devil’s devil was the ruling class as long as they were living well, and the ones who would rather eat from the gutter for a century in freedom, than live under the rule of another empire.
Mandella, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr valued freedom over convenience and even their own lifes. Are they unpratical or silly? RMS values software freedom over convenience and bending over and taking it in the ass, is he unpractical and stupid?
This isn’t politics. This is principles, morality and philosophy. It is the proverbial question of what will one do for money or convenience. History has condemned people who do anything for convenience as shortsighted and foolish. I agree with history.
One of the great heroes of our time and a great interview thanks.
Well said !!!
You have the freedom you want and RMS isn’t trying to take it away from you, though he doesn’t agree with it. However your freedom “to write software and ask for money” and “not release my source code” impinges on the freedom of others to do what they want with the software. I’m not saying people should be able to freely copy and redistribute software you worked hard to create, but by doing so you are restricting the freedom of others.
” but I don’t see this type of improvements in any commercial (Red Hat, Mandrake, Novell/SuSE …) GNU/Linux distribution. ”
That’s ’cause they are distributions…
“Where are the innovations for the user?”
“…result of various external projects…Linux (the kernel!), GCC, and other GNU utilities, XFree/X.Org, KDE/Gnome, and so on.”
What a dumb question.
Calling a computer a mere tools is short-sighted. Today and increasingly in the future computers are becoming much more than tools whether we like it or not. Most people are sadly oblivious to this. It is important that corporations (which are effectively under private centralised control) do not control our software, because that means they will have unreasonable power over our private lives.
There seems to be confusion over ‘freedom’. Like many things it is a balancing act to find a reasonable level, and it is a moving target. Giving a freedom means taking away the inverse freedom. For example, my freedom to play loud music at midnight takes away your freedom to sleep undisturbed. Your freedom to sleep undisturbed (a law perhaps) takes away my freedom to play loud music at night.
I think the GPL is reasonable in taking away the freedom to take other people’s work and sell it without source, and giving the freedom to get the source, change it, and pass it on with the guarantee that the source and changes to it will always be available. Certainly it is a lot more reasonable than the typical ‘EULA’!
Imagine you had two “wheel-smiths.” One will sell you a wheel round as the sun, but to get it up must cut off your hands (because you might use them to forge another wheel, or to change the wheel you buy) and your tounge (because you might ask someone else to do so for you). You can’t see the wheel beforehand because if you did you might copy it.
Down the street, another vendor has a rectangular wheel which, while not perfect, is sold with the understanding that you can do what you want with it. Many people buy the rectangular wheel and pay a small amount to someone to make it smoother, grind it down with use, or buy them from other people who do this in bulk.
Which one is the more natural of the two progressions in human history?
Thoughout time people have had tools, made tools, and sold tools, but always there has been the ability to enhance them. It’s only recently we’ve seen people actually be able to keep people from doing this, taking away a vital freedom they at one point had. It’s my opinion that this is why you see so many people who are so religious about Free software, and why it will not die down any time soon.
Sigmund Freud’s ideas were criticized over and over again. Most of the critics were people who don’t even understand what he is talking about. I’m surprised that they are still people who think that he wanted to copulate with his mother thus he is a perverse and should not be taken seriously.
The discussion here clearly shows that a lot of people don’t even understand what RMS has to say. I’m sorry for all the short-sighted people here who think that he is an idiot. Sadly but they are the most vocal ones.
I have a lot of respect for RMS, but I don’t understand why he believes that Free software is ethical. It seems that what he disagrees with in principle is the idea of copyright, yet he uses the power of copyright to create Freedom. Maybe this is the one example of RMS being pragmatic?
To put it another way, if the copyright system itself is ethical then it’s not unethical to use it to to restrain software users. It might not be nice, but it isn’t unethical. If, on the other hand, the copyright system *is* unethical and I have no right to tell you what to do with any software that I write, then all use of the copyright system is unethical, including using it to create Free software.
This is because using copyright means using a powerful entity (the US and other governments) to enforce it upon people. If copyright is unethical then that use of force is unjust. And it doesn’t matter if I’m trying to kill you or make you eat a cupcake: if the force is unjustified, no particular use of the force can be acceptable.
I think history will eventually show that it was RMS as much has Linus who gave the world GNU/Linux (or whatever you want to call it) and broke the Redmond monopoly. Besides most of the operating system being his, he also authored the GPL. I for one switched to Linux because of that licence (from FreeBSD), because I believe it will enhance and protect the value of Linux by keeping future versions of it free.
We owe RMS the same respect we give Linus. I’m getting tired of hearing him ridiculed.
gnu/copyleft is not “free”
By xyz (IP: —.ndsuk.com) – Posted on 2004-12-23 12:53:13
The GNU/copyleft license doesn’t offer freedom: it places restrictions on you […]
It (the license) grants you permission to do certain things, under certain conditions, beyond the copyright. The BSD license does the same, but its conditions are less demanding.
Some argue the BSD (and MIT and ..) license is more free, because it gives the individual more power; others argue that the fact it doesn’t restrict enough, it is less free for the majority. Its just a matter of viewpoint.
“Isn’t the real issue copyright?”
Not sure if i understood it right, but you might be interested in learning how the FSF got started. IIRC that was because RMS had to deal with proprietary software and saw how public domain code became E&E’d into proprietary code. His solution was the GPL; hence the GPL is a reaction to proprietary software.
I didn’t like RMS said ‘he’ created the GPL. At best, the FSF did it. The statement seemed a bit disrespective to Moglen.
“Proprietary software is unethical”. Just that statement alone tells you that the man is morally corrupt.
But I sometimes wonder if he’s painted himself into a corner. I wonder if he knows how irrational his comments are, but understands that he can’t change his tune now for fear of alienating his “followers”.
I noticed how he danced around the question about federal law to mandate all software come with source code. You can almost see him biting his tongue to prevent himself from coming right out and endorsing it.
It’s good he keeps on doing these interviews, because it just shows everybody that Stallman hates freedom.
>Some argue the BSD (and MIT and ..) license is more free, because it gives the individual more power; others argue that the fact it doesn’t restrict enough, it is less free for the majority. Its just a matter of viewpoint. <
It is not simply a viewpoint and the difference is quiet significant i think. BSD License allows you to take code and make proprietary software with it, thus profiting from other people’s work without contributing back to it. In this way the BSD license does not necessarily activly guarantee or reinforce free software (free as in freedom not ‘free beer’). The GPL makes sure that once software is free it stays that way, i.e you can’t take GPL code and use it in a proprietary product – thus actively promoting and protecting free software.
It’s good he keeps on doing these interviews, because it just shows everybody that Stallman hates freedom.
—
ya sure. keep dreaming
…then why didn’t he just come out and endorse a federal law to mandate that all software come with source? That would be the logical thing to endorse with is viewpoint.
I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure–like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.
Well, he almost endorsed such a law, and then went on to use the food ingredients analogy that a 3 year-old wouldn’t find rational.
I noticed he did endorse a federal law to mandate hardware manufacturers to release full specs.
I demand that I receive specs for my microwave! You are denying me freedom if I don’t have specs to my microwave!
…get my drift?
Merry Christmas
It’s good he keeps on doing these interviews, because it just shows everybody that Stallman hates freedom.
…as soon as freedom interferes with his goal to have as many software as possible under the GPL.
freedom is not only about having access to the sources of software.
and lets repeat it again: “Proprietary software is unethical”. he is so dumb.
In the RMS world I guess the following should happpen:
I buy music on cd etc, but I demand that the composer also supply the sheet music that goes with it.
We live on a free world (some of us at least), one of my rights is to sell my labor if I choose. Period.
Sorry, but I don’t think the comparison is appropriate
1) Many musicians can listen to and then reproduce a piece without the score and many original artists don’t, or maybe even lack the skill to write musical score. The “source” is the act of playing or singing the music, what you hear is the “product”.
1) As a programmer, GPL’ing your work does not mean you can’t sell it. Many programmers get paid to contribute to GNU/Linux for example. And many musicians play for money, while others play for “free”.
I don’t agree with him… First, if im going to work… i care about the product quality… i chosed Linux not because is free, but for the quality… I don’t know and im not going to blame him, i have my respects though him… but he saying that he cares about ‘free’ and not because ‘product quality’ is kida lame
>>…then why didn’t he just come out and endorse a federal law to mandate that all software come with source? That would be the logical thing to endorse with is viewpoint.<<
Maybe because he realizes that not everything that’s “unethical” should be outlawed? Is burning out parts of a rabbit’s brain while trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s ethical? Why don’t we outlaw it then?
His idea is not that proprietary software should be outlawed. If you want to release your software under a non-free license, by all means do so. He only encourages people to avoid that software, and use a free alternative whenever possible.
I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure–like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.
He tried to dance around the issue by giving a stupid analogy to food and saying as of now, but he pretty much endorses it – especially when you consider that he endorsed a federal law to mandate hardware manufacturers give out their full specs.
Why do they keep interviewing him when everybody already knows what’s he going to say to any given question? Really, is there anything completely new or earthshaking here?
Just keep coming with those digs at Mandrake. A lot of could tell you what we think of Windows, but you already know.
Yes and how is that contradicting to what i said? Its a good extension to it though. As long as you keep in mind that not everyone in every situation in software-related situations values X over Y or Y over X (subtitle one with GPL2 and the other with rev. BSD licensed). Some even have a more pragmatic view on both licenses, or even including proprietary licenses, looking on situations case-by-case.
The GNU/copyleft license doesn’t offer freedom: it places restrictions on you: i.e. that you have to redistribute the source code
I’m sure others have already pointed it out, but you do not have to redistribute source code. In fact, you don’t have to redistribute anything. However, if you do distribute binaries, you have to make the source code available.
RMS’s speeks look like G. Bush ones, there’s 5 time the word “freedom” in each sentence.
GNU/Linux is a unique phenomenon — a computer technology that represents and inspires ethical values, fun, and community spirit. Richard Stallman and GNU are responsible for the ethical part, Linus Torvalds and the kernel he started are associated with the idea that doing things with computers can be fun, and the community spirit is the result of these both aspects. The nay-sayers are mainly people who openly advocate greediness and selfishness or just sour faces who don’t like other people having fun.
“Be sure to distinguish between “freedom of the item (software)” and “freedom of the user (developer, business, etc)” — they are different.”
RMS was asked precisely the question you raise and gave a very good answer. The problem with the BSD licenses is that they do not ensure that the software will be sufficiently free in future.
‘which RMS managed to dodge quite well – notice he never endorsed or supported the idea, and said that existing copyrights were enough’
He said nothing of the sort. He remarked that, so far as software is concerned, he’d quite like the situation if copyright laws *did not exist* – he made the point that the current situation is actually that laws exist which _restrict_ freedom, i.e., copyright laws. He didn’t actually suggest he was running an active campaign to abolish the law of copyright, but he _did_ suggest that he personally would favour the situation where such laws didn’t exist (or at least not in relation to software).
There are a lot of fuss here. I know I’m nothing going to clear this but lets try to be logic/rational in ours statements.
1. First of all, try to go to the ultimate consequences over simple thoughts/statements may looks logical but definitively is not rational;
2. As someone pointed out, our life in society is bounded to the interests and rights of the others, so we must find a compromise between what we want and what we get;
3. In the long run we all agree, or I think so, that the interests of the society must prevail (obviously inside some boundaries negotiated – ie just because every one want to kill someone doesn’t mean that we have the right to do so and, also, we have the right to make some money from our work);
4. From the above, and over the years, a common set of values (principles, morales, rights, laws, ethic) were developed and get shaped – the result of that is found in our societies;
5. Some people are willing to sacrifice something in favour of other things, some not. It is their right;
6. By myself, I usually put the things on the balance and after some thinking try to pick what looks best not just for me;
7. I like RMS effort, think it is very important and I am glad he does what he does, even when I don’t always follow him;
8. He was all the time saying he always prefer what he thinks is bounded to freedom even when he must make some sacrifices. He WAS NOT trying to impose limits on others freedom, but rather, negotiating on this subject so he doesn’t get limited by others to what he thinks isn’t reasonable. This is what we call POLITICS;
9. Someone alse said it too – computers and software are becoming quickly much more than just tools, they are shapping the way we learn, work and play. The way our societies are organized and records are stored, don’t underestimate the implications of these;
10. Hes was not deriding copyright but rather (what was not said in this interview) some stupid enforcements and abuses of patents and what he thinks can be the outcome from it in the future.
We need freedom, we need competition, we need to be wise (at least as a society) and thats why we need to dialog.
My R$0,02.
Good points Mystilleef. 😉
Rather, if the world of music were like the world of proprietary software, if you covered a song with your garage band and someone found out, the writer of the song would be allowed to come around and beat you with sticks.
RMS was asked precisely the question you raise and gave a very good answer. The problem with the BSD licenses is that they do not ensure that the software will be sufficiently free in future.
Another lie that keeps on being thrown out by the followers of Stallman’s ideology. The BSD code does not disappear as long as there is one hard drive with the code on it.
If the question is: “Would you use the free software or the more functional one?”
… then my answer is: “The free software is doomed if its #1 claim and goal is anything but being more functional”.
Any free program that is inferior to its rivals should ring red alert to its users. It’s time to either improve the program to be superior, or bury it.
then my answer is: “The free software is doomed if its #1 claim and goal is anything but being more functional”.
Any free program that is inferior to its rivals should ring red alert to its users. It’s time to either improve the program to be superior, or bury it.
Stallman would rather you use the less functional open source program, but in order to do that you have to prescribe to his extremist ideology.
I think this is one of Stallman’s best interviews. However I still struggle with his ideas.
Proprietary versus freedom. I could be wrong but I think I remember a time when Stallman was very much against property ownership, as in land property. Correct me if I’m wrong, but RMS, at least in the mid-90s, was critical of people who owned their own houses.
Certainly there is a difference between land property and software. If nothing more, land is a limited resource that cannot be reproduced. But I do see a similarity between private land (proprietary) versus public land (free) and the software views of Stallman. Is property ownership unethical? Does property ownership restrict the freedom of others? I say not.
Another analogy is to the schematics, design specs and building instructions for a product. If a hardware company refuses to publish them, how is this unethical and how does this restrict the freedom of others? People are still free to develop or purchase another product.
Another anology is to cooking recipes. Are people less free–is anything unethical–about secret sauces, the colonel’s undisclosed seven herbs and spices, or a cola formula? How is a closed-source recipe unethical? How does a secret recipe restrict the freedom of others to cook their own food, or to choose another product?
I believe that Stallman–on his own behalf as well as on the behalf of all end users–rejects the development of or the use of software that is not free by the FSF definition.
But I reject laws that force a manufacturer to publish the results of their private research and development. As a consumer, I prefer hardware with published specs and free/open software. However, the manufacturer has the freedom and the right to choose a license for the product that they created.
If anything, I would argue that imposing a law to restrict the choice of the manufacturer is unethical.
Another lie that keeps on being thrown out by the followers of Stallman’s ideology. The BSD code does not disappear as long as there is one hard drive with the code on it.
—-
how exactly are users supposed to know that the code for a product is available if middleman do not tell them that?. that code will remain in your hard disk. not exactly an example of freedom.
”
Stallman would rather you use the less functional open source program, but in order to do that you have to prescribe to his extremist ideology.
”
there is no extremism at work here except your ignorant ranting. its getting boring by now
Yeah, but that’s kind of like Blizzard saying “As of now, there are no plans to port Warcraft 3 to Linux.”
Stallman would rather you use the less functional open source program, but in order to do that you have to prescribe to his extremist ideology.
As usual, distorting truth to support your agenda…
Stallman would not have us do anything. He chooses to use only free software, even if it means not using the best. He believes it is the ethical thing to do, and he gives his reasons. He is not interested in imposing his will on anyone, but at the same he will always exercise his right to free speech to explain his positions. It is his right to do so, and while you don’t have to agree, you shouldn’t misrepresent his positions by turning him into some kind of big, bad bogeyman.
I don’t agree with him 100%, but I respect his position. Like Eugenia, I believe that we need idealists such as RMS, even though we don’t all need to be idealists.
First and foremost, I am grateful to RMS for the GPL, because without it Linux would not have existed (and you’d be out of a job). If only for that brillant invention which is the GNU General Public License, he deserves respect.
…which is where I think a lot of confusion is:
* free as in beer for the article itself. (e.g. http://ftp.netbsd.org, shopping mall bench :-))
* free for a given person (e.g. I can do anything I want e.g BSD/MIT license, backyard)
* free for the community (e.g. the work as a whole including modifcations stays in the public sphere.. GPL, public lands)
Everyone gets that we’re *not* talking about #1 at all. RMS argues for #3, while trading off against giving up some of #2 (you can’t build your house on publci lands unless you want to waste your money (loose analogy)).
That is the crux of the disagreement right there, and you can see parallels in other, more pressing, matters relating to freedom. People who are much smarter (and much saner) than RMS have fought over these issues without a perfect resolution.. and I dont expect there to be one here in the land of software amateurs and blog reading know-it-alls either.. 🙂
current software production is like a factory in that base resources go in (manpower and time) and a product comes out (software). but this comparison falls flat when you figure into the fact that for every unit of product you have to have x amount of base resources in a real factory. in a software “factory” you only have to make one unit and then duplicate said unit over and over for as long as you like (or have flooded the market).
the problem for software producers is that their product never have a limited lifespan (material objects breaks down over time, its known as entropy i belive). therefor they have to either come out with a new revision and hope you buy it, or they can make you buy it over and over by haveing it stop working after a set time. the latter idea comboed with the fact that you only have to spend resources one time to make the product can lead to insane profit margins. in either case however, the creator is who says when you get new features rather then you.
but they can be forced to update their product if a competitor comes out with a similar product with new features on top. but currently this can be defended against with patents (patent the existing features and noone can make a similar product).
its like henry ford patenting the basic t-ford. we would all be driveing more or less the same model t-ford for ages if that happend as noone could come out with a car with new features but that was similar to the t-ford in use as long as that patent stayed in effect.
however we have come to where we are based on the fact that when humans learned how to start fires, it was passed around. the design of the wheel was passed around. and this continued for ages. the reason we got cheap lightbulbs was that when edison patented the version, europe and usa didnt have a agreement to honor patents issued by the other. therefor a man named phillips could start production of cheaper versions. and yes, he started the corporation with the same name…
copyright was created to protect the creation of art. patents where created to maintain the continual work of the inventor. but is the creation of new computer algorithms either?
“Another lie that keeps on being thrown out by the followers of Stallman’s ideology. The BSD code does not disappear as long as there is one hard drive with the code on it.”
The original BSD code does not disappear, but you will never see the code for the new, improved version.
“Certainly there is a difference between land property and software. If nothing more, land is a limited resource that cannot be reproduced. But I do see a similarity between private land (proprietary) versus public land (free) and the software views of Stallman. Is property ownership unethical? Does property ownership restrict the freedom of others? I say not.”
I know nothing of Stallman’s views on the subject, but you made a critical and unjustified move at the end of that paragraph. You start out discussing *land* ownership and finish discussing *property* ownership. The two are not the same. To most who object to the concept of land ownership, the controversial thing is not allowing the ownership of property per se but defining land as property. It’s perfectly possible to object to the ownership of land while admitting the ownership of property.
The original BSD code does not disappear, but you will never see the code for the new, improved version.
Yes, the BSD license gives the developer more freedom than the GPL and Stallman hates that.
No, he objects to the fact that the BSD license allows developers to restrict the freedom of users. In the same way as he objects to the same feature of proprietary licenses.
BTW, the BSD license does *not* exactly grant the freedom you imply to developers. The law of copyright grants it, and I’d define it more as ‘power’ than ‘freedom’. More accurately characterised, the GPL is a contract you may choose to enter, which restricts your exercise of what it considers to be anti-social powers under the law of copyright. The BSD license is a contract which places much fewer restrictions on your exercise of power under the law of copyright.
As usual, distorting truth to support your agenda…
You think you’re Kreskin? What exactly is my agenda?
Stallman would not have us do anything. He chooses to use only free software, even if it means not using the best. He believes it is the ethical thing to do, and he gives his reasons. He is not interested in imposing his will on anyone, but at the same he will always exercise his right to free speech to explain his positions. It is his right to do so, and while you don’t have to agree, you shouldn’t misrepresent his positions by turning him into some kind of big, bad bogeyman
Not do anything? How about his endorsement of a federal law that would mandate hardware manufacturers to release their specs (yeah, I demand the specs to my microwave….Give me my freedom!….hear me roar…blah). A law like that would force a lot of people to do a lot of things. And if he didn’t directly endorse forcing software manufacturers to release source code, he sure came damn close(that food ingredient analogy was so lame I can’t believe that even Stallman threw that out). Luckily the vast majority of rational people consider RMS’s rantings as a joke.
It looks like it is Stallman who has the problem with ethics if he’s calling people writing and using proprietary software as unethical. He once equated proprietary developers to perjuring cops and murderers in one of his blogs. Look up his blog that discussed the P2P controversy – some P2P software that had GNU prefixed to its name.
I don’t agree with him 100%, but I respect his position. Like Eugenia, I believe that we need idealists such as RMS, even though we don’t all need to be idealists.
If Stallman was an idealist with good ideas, then he would want as much choice as possible. All Stallman does is continually reject choice.
First and foremost, I am grateful to RMS for the GPL, because without it Linux would not have existed (and you’d be out of a job). If only for that brillant invention which is the GNU General Public License, he deserves respect.
We would have chosen BSD or some other solution that would have come around. Me still having a job doesn’t have anything to do with linux. Give me a break.
I don’t respect Stallman. I ridicule and mock his irrational rantings. Stallman’s impact can only be negative for FOSS when he’s opening his mouth and not writing code.
No, he objects to the fact that the BSD license allows developers to restrict the freedom of users. In the same way as he objects to the same feature of proprietary licenses.
User don’t write code, they only have the rights that developers give them. If the user wants freedom then the user should download a compiler and a text editor.
BTW, the BSD license does *not* exactly grant the freedom you imply to developers. The law of copyright grants it, and I’d define it more as ‘power’ than ‘freedom’. The BSD license is a contract which places much fewer restrictions on your exercise of power under the law of copyright.
Yeah, you can try and define it as ‘power’, but the rest of us know that it gives more freedom to the developer.
More accurately characterised, the GPL is a contract you may choose to enter, which restricts your exercise of what it considers to be anti-social powers under the law of copyright.
Yes, “restriction” is the key word here. Thanks for agreeing with me that the GPL is more restrictive and less free than the BSD license.
The BSD license is a contract which places much fewer restrictions on your exercise of power under the law of copyright.
Once again, you are 100% correct. The BSD license is less restrictive and gives the developer more freedom into choose what he does with code he writes.
I wish you both a very non-P.C. Merry Christmas.
can be a bad thing…
angry are we?
Not do anything? How about his endorsement of a federal law that would mandate hardware manufacturers to release their specs
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You have a habit on trying to change the subject when being wrong, this is another example of that. We were talking about an individual’s right to choose code.
A law like that would force a lot of people to do a lot of things.
It would force a lot of corporations. Corporations aren’t people (even though you laissez-faire zealots would have us believe the contrary), and they’re forced to do lots of things, such as putting the list of ingredients on packaged food (a very good analogy, despite your foaming-at-the-mouth attempts at ridiculing it).
Luckily the vast majority of rational people consider RMS’s rantings as a joke.
Luckily, the vast majority of rational people consider your rantings as a joke.
(Show me the polls that support your unsubstantiated allegation, and I’ll show you mine.)
All Stallman does is continually reject choice.
Another strawman argument from Lumbergh. You really like that particular logical fallacy, don’t you?
The BSD license is less restrictive and gives the developer more freedom into choose what he does with code he writes.
The BSD licenses is less restrictive for developers, but potentially more restrictive to users because derivative code can be made un-free. It depends on how you look at it.
I don’t respect Stallman. I ridicule and mock his irrational rantings.
As you always do when presented with something you don’t agree with, instead of actually providing counter-arguments of your own.
In other words, a troll.
I wish you both a very non-P.C. Merry Christmas.
Funny, you keep posting that as a matter of provocation (i.e. trolling). Doing that, you completely go against the spirit of Christmas, which is about harmony and goodwill. Stop making Jesus cry.
Anyway, you’re in good company with the fake Rayiner Hashem. See you in the “moderated comments” section!
The only place I disagree with you is that you seem to consider the law of copyright some sort of God-given mandate, whereas it is in fact a purely human legal fiction which uses the power of the law to *restrict* freedom (as do all laws). If the law of copyright didn’t exist, no coder would have any ‘right’ to restrict what people do with the code they write. Apart from this, we agree.
“That’s the betrayal — the revocation of the right to share one’s resources for the good of the community or family. You’re promising, by clicking on “I agree,” to refuse to help people. “
Not only that, but if I buy a copy of a piece of software, I consider it my right to loan it or give it to a friend, family member, neighbor, whatever. I purchased it, I can do whatever the f$%& I want with it. It’s no different than giving my hammer to my neighbor. I bought a book, I can give it to whomever I want. I can make tapes or burn cds and give it to my brothers. I strongly believe that it should be the same with software. And I find it absolutely ludicrous, distastefull, oppressive, maddening, immoral, irratating, and ridiculous that the Microsoft EULA forbids it.
Now if I tried to sell someone elses software product, that would be something else. Then the proprietary software company would have a legitimate beef. But it’s my moral right, along with everyone else’s, to share my purchased product with others.
From this standpoint, I agree wholeheartedly with RMS. That said, I’m not against proprietary software. I work for a proprietary software company. I use both open source and proprietary software. I just expect the proprietary software company to have a reasonable “fair use” license that’s not just trying to hoover my wallet and dictate what I can do with their product. I greatly prefer open source software in most cases, but will gladly use proprietary software (usually proprietary is great for more specialized software that’s further up the stack), so long as the license is reasonable.
Plus, open source software, in particular the GPL, does not forbid one from making money from the software. People can and do make money selling copies, as well as servives, documentation, support and packaging, of open source software. RMS himself has done this.
Finally, we all owe RMS a huge debt of gratitude. He started GNU, he developed (or was the lead developer of), gcc, Emacs, and many other extremely high quality products. Plus, RMS started the GPL. The entire world is now benefiting from the GPL. Without RMS, GNU, gcc, and the GPL, Linux, as well as many other open source projects, would not be what they are today.
If it is of low quality, it has absolutely no use for me, no matter if its Free or not. I don’t care if baby seals were killed to create that software or a planet was blown up in the process.
And from such thinking arise tyrants and dictators.
On your analogy of the wheel. I see “history” a bit differently. The maker of the non-free wheel made a square one, and sold it to those who learned to add inserts that made it round. An entire industry sprang up to produce add-ons to make the square wheel functional.
When someone made a wheel that did not require add-ons, and gave away the technique for making it, the maker of the square wheel first said the free, round wheel was unsafe, and would prove too expensive to operate. When that didn’t work the maker of the square wheel claimed he had invented the wheel and produced a patent, filed 20 years after the fact, giving him full access to the concept of wheel, insisting that all wheel makers must make wheels under the square wheel license.
Your baby seal and blown up planet quip was pretty low. If it was a joke, it wasn’t funny.
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You have a habit on trying to change the subject when being wrong, this is another example of that. We were talking about an individual’s right to choose code.
It has everything to do with what we were talking about. Not only that, but he tried to dance around the forcing of software developers to give out the source code and basically thinks the idea isn’t bad.
It would force a lot of corporations. Corporations aren’t people (even though you laissez-faire zealots would have us believe the contrary), and they’re forced to do lots of things, such as putting the list of ingredients on packaged food (a very good analogy, despite your foaming-at-the-mouth attempts at ridiculing it).
Corporations are made up of people…even though I know you guys on the left try to demonize corporations. The list of ingredients analogy was lame and a 3 year old could see that. Don’t embarrass yourself by claiming it was a good analogy. Food has nothing to do with code.
Luckily, the vast majority of rational people consider your rantings as a joke.
(Show me the polls that support your unsubstantiated allegation, and I’ll show you mine.)
Wrong. I present rational arguments and you’re throwing a fit now. Just look at the comments in the thread and the heavy open source bias that osnews.com has. But I guess your indoctrination won’t let you figure out that if Stallman is calling proprietary software unethical, then he is rejecting choice.
Another strawman argument from Lumbergh. You really like that particular logical fallacy, don’t you?
You’re losing it now. Any rational person sees that Stallman rejects proprietary software and therefore rejects choice in software.
The BSD licenses is less restrictive for developers, but potentially more restrictive to users because derivative code can be made un-free. It depends on how you look at it.
As I told AdamW, users don’t code. If users want absolute freedom in their code then they should download a compiler and editor. BSD code does not go away. Individuals have the choice to buy the proprietary or stick with the open source code. Developers give rights to users. Users that do nothing don’t have any rights, just as I don’t have any rights to go into a factory that is building something and just take it.
As you always do when presented with something you don’t agree with, instead of actually providing counter-arguments of your own.
I already gave rational arguments to why Stallman hates freedom of choice. Try reading sometime.
Funny, you keep posting that as a matter of provocation (i.e. trolling). Doing that, you completely go against the spirit of Christmas, which is about harmony and goodwill. Stop making Jesus cry.
Something wrong with saying Merry Christmas? Or should I submit to the P.C. gestapo?
Anyway, you’re in good company with the fake Rayiner Hashem. See you in the “moderated comments” section!
I guess you’ll go throw a tantrum and hit the moderate button. So typical of you leftists.
It has everything to do with what we were talking about.
What does requiring hardware vendors to provide customers with full specifications of what they sell have to do with the freedom to use proprietary software or not?
You’re grasping at straws here.
Corporations are made up of people…
Of course they are. But they’re not people.
even though I know you guys on the left try to demonize corporations.
Another strawman. Sigh, you’re becoming waaay too predictable, Lumbergh.
I have no problem with corporations. I really like the company I work for, and many others whom I support. However, they are not people. Forcing corporations to provide information about the product they sell is reasonable coercition, in my view.
Wrong. I present rational arguments
No you don’t. You troll and insult does who hold different opinions than you on the matters of free software and the GPL, as well as economical and political matters. But I have yet to see a valid counter-argument (not the code word “valid” – that means no logical fallacies).
But I guess your indoctrination won’t let you figure out
Again with the insults…I guess you’re really out of arguments.
that if Stallman is calling proprietary software unethical, then he is rejecting choice.
Of course not. You can always choose unethical software, just like you can choose to buy coffee that was harvested by overworked, underpaid third world labourers, or you can buy equitable coffee.
He makes his case that proprietary software is unethical because it limits the freedom of users. You can disagree with this, but trying to demonize him like you do every time there is an article on him or the GPL is a) lame, and b) getting old.
As I told AdamW, users don’t code. If users want absolute freedom in their code then they should download a compiler and editor.
How about the freedom to redistribute?
Hear that? That the sound of your entire argument collapsing. That’s sad.
BSD code does not go away. Individuals have the choice to buy the proprietary or stick with the open source code.
That’s besides the point. You can take BSD code, modify it, and make that new code un-free. The GPL guarantees to the users that the improvements on the original code will remain free.
I already gave rational arguments to why Stallman hates freedom of choice.
No, you’ve made a faulty, half-assed fallacious argument known as a strawman. Nowhere does Stallman say that people shouldn’t have the freedom to choose between what he considers to be ethical and unethical software. You deliberately misrepresent what he says in order to make his position on the matter appear unreasonable. The only thing I haven’t figured out yet is if you really don’t understand it, or if you’re just dishonest.
Something wrong with saying Merry Christmas? Or should I submit to the P.C. gestapo?
C’mon, don’t act all innocent. A couple of threads ago someone passed a remark on it saying that not everyone celebrates Christmas and that “Happy Holidays” will reach more people, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
Personally, I don’t care. But you and others have made a point to put Merry Christmas in your posts in reaction to this comment, as if to prove a point. The irony is that, in doing so, you’ve basically gone against what Christmas stands for: harmony, not bickering; turning the other cheek, not provoking those you disagree with.
Then again, you’re a troll through and through, so I guess I shouldn’t expect too much. Happy holidays nonetheless.
I guess you’ll go throw a tantrum and hit the moderate button. So typical of you leftists.
Yes, which I guess is why plenty of my posts get submitted for moderation as well, right?
There’s only one person throwing an emotional tantrum here, Lumbergh, and it’s you. Otherwise, you’d be able to have a rational, polite debate instead of constantly resorting to insults, fallacious arguments and tired cliches.
Well said.
What does requiring hardware vendors to provide customers with full specifications of what they sell have to do with the freedom to use proprietary software or not?
Did you even try to read the article? Stallman says he is all for forcing hardware manufacturers to release specs and basically came out and said making software manufacturers release source code wasn’t a bad idea either. Stallman doesn’t want people to be able to use proprietary software. How many times do we have to go through this?
Forcing corporations to provide information about the product they sell is reasonable coercition, in my view.
Yeah, forcing people to do things is what you on the left are always trying to do. Like people have a right to hardware specs. I demand the specs to my microwave, or you are denying my freedom! Give me a break.
No you don’t. You troll and insult does who hold different opinions than you on the matters of free software and the GPL, as well as economical and political matters. But I have yet to see a valid counter-argument (not the code word “valid” – that means no logical fallacies).
You’re bitter because I make reasonable arguments to Stallman’s fallacy and emphasize my points by pointing out the absurdity of Stallman’s thinking. And yes, you and I disagree politically. Get over it. People disagree all the time. I’m not going to come around to your side and I’ll continue to point out the absurdity of Stallman’s socialist mindset.
C’mon, don’t act all innocent. A couple of threads ago someone passed a remark on it saying that not everyone celebrates Christmas and that “Happy Holidays” will reach more people, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
I reject politically correct groupthink. And I will make fun of the absurdity of political correctness anytime I can.
Then again, you’re a troll through and through, so I guess I shouldn’t expect too much. Happy holidays nonetheless.
Whatever, I don’t think I’ve ever called you a troll. I don’t think like you and never will – get over it, grow up, and learn to put forth reasoned arguments to support your claims and stop basing your arguments on emotion like you on the left always do.
There’s only one person throwing an emotional tantrum here, Lumbergh, and it’s you. Otherwise, you’d be able to have a rational, polite debate instead of constantly resorting to insults, fallacious arguments and tired cliches
Once again, you are bitter that me and others make fun of Stallman for his clear absurdity. You can’t stand that not everybody hast been indoctrinated into Stallman’s extremist view like you.
I will always choose the GNU solution over any competitor because I value the freedom inherent in their licenses.
If Jonathan Schwartz and Scott McNealy don’t have the balls to release Solaris under the GPL then they would have to offer to pay me in cash for my time to QA their product for them.
I value the community I grew up in. I value this World we live on. I value each and every person, as if they are worth an equal share of the resources. I value love, honesty, freedom, knowledge, efficiency, progress, justice and fairness. I value the concept of passing along our property to our children, giving them a solid base and a chance to survive in this crazy universe.
Who would be willing to give up all of this, all of what we have here, the baby seals, the world, for a few stupid innovative features in some cheap gadget that will be rendered obsolete by the technology our brothers and sisters will create with their minds in the next few years? I hope not, but I know better than to trust in you.
This tech doesn’t cost money. Its cost is less tangible than that. It costs time and thought and resources/supplies. These are far more valuable that money. Just like the person doing all the work.
While we’ve been chatting here for the last 5 years we’ve watched our money lose 40% of its value. Yet you still believe in it? Why?
Many thousands years ago, humans managed to create better tools to hunt, to build other tools, and they even invented the wheel. Now, let’s hypothesize that the inventor of the circular wheel did not want to share the mechanics of it to other people, but instead sells his invention and keep its mechanics proprietary. Somewhere else, another inventor, invented the rectangular wheel, but he felt he should share the idea with everybody. A peddler, who needs the wheels to travel from… cave to cave, has seen both inventions. Which one do you think he will pick? The proprietary circular wheel which works as intented, or the Free rectangular wheel that happens to be problematic?
Though others have commented on this being a wrong example, I think it misses an obvious point, when someone came out with a wheel if it was paid while the other person copied and sold you for free which one would you choose?
Rather, if the world of music were like the world of proprietary software, if you covered a song with your garage band and someone found out, the writer of the song would be allowed to come around and beat you with sticks.
Nopes, the fact is that just because software on computer can be just ^C and ^V does not mean you are legally entitled to do it. How much of stuff in your bedroom is for free .
RMS doesn’t like proprietary software as a choice, because it isn’t a choice. If you want freedom, and RMS wants freedom, and i want freedom; there’s no place for proprietary software, because that takes away our freedom.
The “freedom” mentioned here is the freedom in a sense of “community” – the freedom that frees the entire community, an ethical choice, a choice that benefits the community, not just you.
Victor.