|
Twenty Years of Free Software: What Now? -by Richard Stallman |
|
Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST
|
It was twenty years ago on Monday that I quit my job at MIT to begin developing a free software operating system, GNU. While we have never released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly are not aware it is such. Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee.
My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software. I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that non-free software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give others a way to escape.
Non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else. To prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.
Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to "use free software". But what does it mean to "use free software"? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our work? In other words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the shallow goal of popularity?
It's easy to get in the habit of overlooking this distinction, because in many common situations it makes no difference. When you're trying to convince a person to try a free program, or to install the GNU/Linux operating system, either goal would lead to the same practical conduct. However, in other situations the two goals inspire very different actions.
For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this "support" for our system, or should we regard this non-free program like any other--as an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?
If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal. It is hard to dispute the claim that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular. If the widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether free or not.
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.
There are two common motivations to develop a free program. One is that there is no program to do the job. Unfortunately, accepting the use of a non-free program eliminates that motivation. The other is the will to be free, which motivates people to write free replacements for non-free programs. In cases like these, that motive is the only one that can do the job. Simply by using a new and unfinished free replacement, before it technically compares with the non-free model, you can help encourage the free developers to persevere until it becomes superior.
Those non-free programs are not trivial. Developing free replacements for them will be a big job; it may take years. The work may need the help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired to join the work on free software. What can we do today to help convince other people, in the future, to maintain the necessary determination and persistence to finish this work?
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.
Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:08 AM EST |
I believe there is some inference buried in Stallman's
essay that is meant to send Linus Torvald a message.
Either you use all-free software, or you undermine the
true goal of free-software. My understanding is that Linus
uses a proprietary software application to make code
entries (?). Can someone clarify? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kbq on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST |
Richard:
I started with EMACS in the mid-80's, and have used it, along with various GNU
products, since.
However, as you pointed out, there is as yet no complete GNU system. As a
software professional, this *does not work* for me. Were I simply another
"user", it would be even less meaningful.
You acknowledge that "Those non-free programs are not trivial". Umm:
slight understatement. I suspect that there are millions of programmer-hours in
the systems and programs I use professionally and personally. Tens of millions,
perhaps.
While I sincerely believe that the concept of a core, O/S, kernel, or whatever
grouping of services you choose lend themselves to the FOSS model, I have my
doubts when it comes to the ancillary programs which make a system actually
useful. True, there's OpenOffice and a few others. Even they, however, have not
yet reached the full functionality of the proprietary products (albeit with,
perhaps, fewer bugs!).
I see a fusion of Open and proprietary as the future path. Unlike some, I am not
consumed by Orwellian visions of proprietary software. I've written some,
directed others - and, you know what - it was generally good stuff, with good
support. How about that!
We need folks on the edge, Richard, to keep prodding and poking us, to keep us
from unthinking acceptance of the status quo. Please keep up your crusade: it's
both needed and valuable. Please, also, keep some small room in your heart for
those of us who are willing to pay for a piece of software which gets our needed
job done, without waiting (years?) for some idealist to finally get around to
coding it for us!
With deepest respect,
Kevin Quinn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Twenty Years of Free Software: What Now? -by Richard Stallman - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:23 AM EST
- Twenty Years of Free Software: What Now? -by Richard Stallman - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:29 AM EST
- I would expand on why non-free is important too - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: sphealey on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:36 PM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: theswede on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST
- BUT, devil is in details! More Yeahbitts for Richard! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST
- I would expand on why non-free is important too - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST
- Twenty Years of Free Software: What Now? -by Richard Stallman - Authored by: pyrite on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:24 PM EST
|
Authored by: Sumairp on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:26 AM EST |
"Hacker" - That single word in this item makes me cringe because I
am sure the anti-free forces will quote it and use it against FOSS as best they
can.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WildFire on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:48 AM EST |
An open letter to Richard Stallman:
Do I love free software? Indeed, I do. I've found so many solutions to my
problems from free software that it's unbelievable. Whether they be solutions
to problems that have no closed alternative, or free alternatives to expensive
proprietary software, I am a user and advocate for the Open Source community.
However, I feel compelled to bring about a phrase that I try and live
by..."There are no sacred cows". I find it great that IT
Professionals, developers, and others are so willing to stand up against lack of
freedom and choice in software. But too many of these advocates take on an
attitude of "Open source and free software will save the world."
I understand the concept of picking your battles, and every little bit helps. In
that case, free software can eventually be a catalyst in other areas of our
lives where we are not free. Online privacy? DMCA (and other faulty laws
covering copyrights)? Yes, I believe that we are helping lead the pack by being
advocates of not just free software, but freedom in general.
But free software is not a sacred cow in and among itself. In the general
public, who cares about Linux? The average man on the street has never heard of
glibc or Apache (or any of a thousand other free software mini-movements), nor
would they care.
Look at it from the point of view of a automobile hobbyist before federal
guidelines really helped solidify the automotive industry and create consumer
and driver protections (it's still doing it, I know, but the entire industry,
from the customer's side, has improved dramatically over the years, despite the
need to continue improving).
Your average driver doesn't care about tweaking emissions on a high-performance
vehicle to be just under federal and state regulations, yet still powerful
enough to get them going, but a hobbyist will tweak and modify and play to their
hearts content. We are a small group of interested people, and it's great to be
interested in a hobby, but it GNU, Linux, or any of the others are not the
Saviors of the entire world.
If there is anything we can do, it's to continue to pressure our legislators
for adequate legal support in general freedom issues. Don't like the Patriot
Act? Donating money to the Apache development team won't help, ultimately. Fed
up with the DMCA? Helping to install Linux on your grandmother's personal
machine won't make it go away.
If we are to be advocates against loss of our personal freedoms, we need to do
just that, and not claim that Linux will save the world.
I still believe that Linux, GNU, etc., will help our society invaluably. Just
look at what Apache has done for the Internet. Will using Apache vs. Microsoft
IIS stop Microsoft's horrendous business practices? No, simply put, it won't
(at least not noticably).
The goal is to continue gathering interest in free software by being calm,
rational advocates. When people have tried it out to meet their needs (and most
end-users will simply not have their needs met by free software, at least yet),
and find that there is so much more they can do with it, all for free, then free
software will take on the role you want it to. But this will be a slow process,
and will take several years.
Giving people a free alternative to one of their solutions will show them just
how good free can be initially. It is then our job, as free software advocates,
to continue to produce and improve free software so that eventually, these new
members of the "flock", so to speak, can move completely over to
free software.
But this is by no means an instantaneous process.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST |
To me, RMS is so close to exactly right that it's pointless to quibble. Thanks
for the work, for the inspiration, for the determination, and for the good stuff
yet to come.
thad[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Smith on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:59 AM EST |
I have always admired Richard Stallman's work but this remark (non-free
Invidious video driver) seems questionable.
Asking freedom for ourselves requires us to grant freedom to others, including
freedom to pursue business models they deem most appropriate.
We might not always think their choice wise but we should always respect their
freedom to make that choice (within the limits of society norms, of course)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 02:33 AM EST |
I have to admit that Richard Stallmans statement got the yawn factor from me. I
have read many of these discussions on free software and to be honest it is in
some ways near sighted and I decided to respond.
NVIDIA is a case of
interest that keeps on cropping up. They use a fluid hardware solution such that
there drivers do a lot of the work thus binding a lot of their IP in the
drivers. They actively develop drivers for linux/unix/windows for free(as in
beer) however Mr Stallman would have us believe it destroys our
freedom.
Now for a start I think some people should get off NVIDIA's
back and accept the fact that drivers for hardware form a valid part of the
hardware IP. I accept the fact that where a manufacturer does not support
linux/unix a little reverse engineering must be done and the most effective way
is to do that in the public domain(GPL,BSD... whatever) due to the advantages of
peer review and a larger development base.
But to
say
But if our goal is freedom, that changes
everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the
citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept
them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to
settle for continuing non-freedom.
I think is going a
little too far. If he would now like to champion free hardware, as it too limits
our freedom(in many ways more so than software). I'll put my hand up for a brand
new supercomputer ... a couple of terraflops would be
good
Freedom is about choices, not whether a software is
distributed for free. If Mr Stallman wants to gain a eutopia free of propietary
software, he is killing our choices not increasing them.
I have a great
appreciation for those with the talents to develop free(as a bird) software and
I congratulate them on there efforts. I think however it must be balanced with
the fact that programmers/developers have a right to control how their software
is distributed. It is their freedom....
Joel Chandler[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mjreilly on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:07 AM EST |
I was thinking about the software I use on a daily basis. On one level, you can
say that I use free software -- Linux, Konqueror, GNU tools and so on. However,
I also am forced to use non-free software - the system BIOS, my hard drive's
firmware, heck even the CPU's microcode.
Along the same lines, I use non-free software every time I drive a car, use a
cell phone, or balance a checkbook with a calculator.
In fact, most of the software I use doesn't even reside on my personal systems:
ATM machines, routers, web servers, email servers, automated telephone systems,
video games, ...
The only way to not use non-free software is to be a neo-luddite and use no
technology at all. Do I look down on those who wrote this non-free software? No!
I thank them for what they have created, just as I thank L. Torvalds and R.
Stallman for what they've created.
Can there be a world where all essential software is GPL? Highly doubtful, but
even if there were, we would still lack complete freedom over our software. So
what if all our embedded software is GPL, if we have no means of modifying it.
So what if Google's software is released GPL? It runs on their system. I could
choose to use it or not, but could not feasibly run it on my system.
Free software can be wonderful, but so can non-free software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:30 AM EST |
OK, I can take RMS's comments as meant - upto a point.
However, to me, freedom means that (to use one of his examples) I'm free to use
a video card, whose drivers are 'free' (as RMS means). But if I'm happy with
it, I'm also 'free' to use a video card, whose drivers are proprietary - part
of the Intellectual Property of the card manufacturer, if they suit my purpose
better. My choice.
Simply put, I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
-Andy Crofts
Oulu, Finland
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:16 AM EST |
I switched to Linux from Windows XP about a year ago. I used a dual boot
system, and installed Win4Lin on Linux to help with the transition.
Now I seldom boot Windows XP, but I frequently use Quicken under Win4Lin.
Meanwhile, I help with Gnucash development. (If I ever get over my addiction to
Groklaw, I'll get back to developing.)
In this sense, I agree with Stallman: those who use a proprietary program on
Linux should consider helping to develop a free replacement, and, if a free
program meets your needs, it is almost always a better choice than a proprietary
competitor, just because it's free.
However, I don't agree that all proprietary programs on Linux are evil
temptations. Win4Lin does not need to be free to help me get out from under
Microsoft's thumb. Once I can find or develop replacements for the Windows
applications, I'll have no further need for Win4Lin.
The GPL allows proprietary programs to invoke GPL'd programs via "arms
length" calls such as command language and normal kernel calls. Stallman
might favor eliminating this "loophole", to discourage proprietary
programs running on Linux, but I think that the GPL provides the proper balance
between proprietary and free programs on Linux: free programs can be derivatives
of GPL'd programs; proprietary programs can call GPL'd programs in restricted
ways that do not make them derivatives of the GPL'd programs and do not give
them the edge available to the developers of free programs.
If a proprietary program needs an arms-length service that is not available, but
is implicit in a free program, the developer can build the service based on the
free program, GPL the new service, and ship it with the proprietary program.
The developer gets to keep his or her secrets, and the Linux community gets
another GPL'd service (which might help in developing a competitor to the
proprietary program), and avoids letting a derivative of a free program become
proprietary. Everbody wins, but the proprietary programmer has been lured part
way into the GPL camp.
I see nothing wrong with letting proprietary programs keep their secrets, as
long as they aren't based on GPL'd programs. If it seems worth while, users
and competitors can reverse engineer the proprietary programs and build
replacements (avoiding patent and copyright infringement while doing it).
The most important freedom, by far, given by the GPL is the freedom to use a
mass of intellectual capital not directly available to developers of proprietary
programs to build free programs faster and better than the competing proprietary
programs. This competitive edge equates to a rein on excesses by the owners of
proprietary programs.
I would like to see a much shorter expiration of software patents (3 years?),
but I see no need to eliminate them. If someone needs the incentive of a short
term monopoly to innovate, that's fine. However, I think that OSS/FS should
have its own patent portfolio, licensed gratis to everyone who licenses all
patents gratis to free programs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:40 AM EST |
Ideology is one thing, pragmatism another. Every society in the world that had
ever been run by high priests has come to some kind of life threatening grief:
be it Ancient Israel, pre-Reformation Western Europe, the Mayan societies of the
Americas, Easter Island, the pre-Cold War Communist-run societies and more
recently Afghanistan's Taliban - The future does not bode well for Saudi Arabia
and Iran and it won't bode well for the surviving Communist societies unless
they rush headlong into the path or paths of reform, BTW.
The ideology of freedom, like most ideologies, can be exhilarating. However,
that ideology if applied without respect or compromise with reality, i.e.
pragmatism, can be obnoxiously oppressive. And the most likely people to apply
ideology without compromise, mercy or good sense are of course the high
priests.
I admire Richard Stallman's courage in leaving MIT 20 years ago to start the
GNU movement. However, I believe that OSS is extremely successful because it
provides a solid, stable platform where both free and proprietary software can
coexist and where proprietary software is compelled to compete on merits rather
than marketing hoopla. Richard Stallman rails against proprietary software but
the issue is not proprietary software per se, but the lack of choice and
competition that some proprietary software providers try to foist on us. We OSS
are successful to the extent that we have provided and continue to provide a
platform where choice and fair competition are thriving. We are successful to
the extent that we are able to empower people to write gratis software to fill a
need that's not effectively fulfilled by existing commercial software. However,
if proprietary software providers use this empowerment to develop commercial
software that's not fulfilled by free software, we should count that as a
success, too. Revolutions become successful and institutionalized as they become
more inclusive and more pragmatic - without losing sight of the goals that
originally motivated them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RSC on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:43 AM EST |
While "free" software, in all senses of the word, is a good ideal,
are we in danger of de-valueing the software world to the point were it is no
longer viable to actually become a programmer?
If we look at the past, you find that a lot of the FOSS foot soldiers actually
lived (and still do) by cutting code for closed software.
Is there a chance that the FOSS invasion will lower the income levels for
programmers to the point where school leavers will not think the caree is a good
choice? This will eventually lower the quality and number of programmers out
there, and effect the grounding of FOSS.
I think we have little choice in wether we want closed software or not. I feel
we need it to survive. We need it to allow the code cutters who make FOSS the
quality sofware it is, to live while they do it.
We live in a world run by money, and I cannot see it changing for a while. So we
need to keep that in mind when pontificating about the ideal software universe.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:47 AM EST |
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/
freedom/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: uchuha on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 06:29 AM EST |
OK, so I see a number of folks who read Groklaw still
don't seem to fully grok that when RMS says Free, he means
Free as in freedom, not as in no cost.
For the writer who was talking about 'free hardware', yes,
it exists, in that there are hardware platforms with free
design and standards, and you can buy the products of
these standards, and no those products are not free of
charge. So sorry, no "free" supercomputer.
If you want your computer to work properly in a couple of
years though, you'd better hope that standards etc. for
it's construction is Free in the sense that you are free
to analise it, otherwise it will be awfully hard to write
a driver for it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 06:44 AM EST |
In my view, Stallman went off of the deep end some time
ago.
My first
problem with Stallman is his tendency to ignore
reality. The fact that software
is "open source" or otherwise
"free" in the Stallman sense does NOT, as a
practical matter,
guarantee what Stallman claims it guarantees. Stallman
himself
can perhaps grab the source of his favorite open source/free
program and
fix it or tweak the program to his liking, but most
people don't have that
skill. The "freedoms" that the Stallman
claims for open source/free programs do
not as a practical matter
exist for the vast majority of people. Picking an open
source
word processor with it's own "internal format" can leave a user
with
nothing but unreadable documents in the future, (even though
the internal format
is publicly documented by virtue of open
source code), if the user makes a poor
choice and picks open
source wordprocessor which which turns out to be unpopular
and
fades into oblivion. Availability of source notwithstanding, it
is a myth
that the man on the street could, should, or would pick
up the the likes of the
source for, say, open office code and
modify it as might be required to
accomodate, say, platform
changes over time. For the typical man on the streets,
the risks
- the "lack of freedom" - for open source software, not
carefully
selected, are every bit as great as for proprietary software.
This is
one of the reasons that open source acceptance has been
slow.
My second
problem with Stallman is that he absolutely fails to
distinguish between types
of software. Each particular piece of
software has what I will call a
"foundation" value ("FV"), which
is measured by assessing how much that software
serves as the
foundation for other things of value. OS's have a very high
FV,
since other software, data rendering, and significant user
training are
typically very much dependent on the OS as
foundation. A typical data-generating
application such as a word
processor typically has a high but somewhat lower FV;
data
rendering and significant user training may be tied to it, but
other
programs are (in most cases) not. A game program typically
has very little
FV.
When I chose software with a high FV, the "freedoms" that
Stallman
espouses and other "freedoms" as well (from needlessly
ever changing standards
and interfaces, for example) are indeed
important. When I buy a game program or
other low FV program, I
generally could care less. The reality is that, in low
FV
software areas, the proprietary software marketplace has served
people at
large MUCH better (in schedule, quantity, and quality)
than has the open
source/free software community.
But, proprietary software with high FV
creates a natural
potential for monopoly which is perhaps greater than any
other
product - other available software, data interchange, and user
training
all favor the public converging on the strongest vendor,
and that vendor's
monopoly power (as aided by today's IP law
landscape) becomes incredible over
time as it's software becomes
the foundation for more and more software and
data. Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson seemed to understand that - Judge
Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly seems clearly to not understand it. Legislators
seem to
be without a clue, and (particularly in the more
"developed" contries that have
a vested interest keeping the rich
contries rich and the poor contries poor with
the aid of "strong"
"intellectual property" laws) are pretty well corrupted by
their
constituencies to boot.
In the two software areas which seem to
have the highest FV
values (operating systems, office "productivity" software),
we
are watching one of the most oppressive monopolies in the history
of the
world (Microsoft) behave about as badly as humanly
possible, while
simultaneously watching legislators, courts, and
governments without a clue as
to either the problem or a
solution. Given the failure of governments, open
source has
become the only apparent salvation, and it is showing
remarkable
promise and success in beating down this oppressive monopoly.
I
applaud the open source movement, I applaud the brilliance of Mr.
Stallman for
sowing the seeds and for the initial architecture of
the GPL, and the brilliance
of Mr. Torvolds for bringing together
what Mr. Stallman could not.
But I
think that we should look at open source in context.
It's only significant
successes (measured by users) have occurred
because of what I would say are huge
failures of governments and
public policy - specifically, in the areas where the
Microsoft
monopoly has been allowed to run unchecked, and people are
somewhat
desperate for an alternative. Even then, it has been
nearly unacceptably
slow.
Stallman does not serve the anyone well with his
oversimplified
models and goals based implicitly on the notion
that all people are master
programmers, that GNU/Linux represent
the only kinds of important programs in
the world, and his
notions that ANY use of proprietary software is caving in to
some
kind of evil. He comes across as a zealot, IMHO, and I don't
think that
really helps the image of the open source
community.
In addition, at
this point, Stallman comes across as kind of a
"sore loser." If Stallman
invented the major GPL concepts, why is
Linus/Linux getting all the attention
instead of Stallman? Every
time he writes or talks, his preoccupation with his
role in this
whole affair shows though. I think that it is time for him to
grow
up and do better.
WB
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 07:00 AM EST |
Mr. Stallman, Groklaw readers, please dont read this
wrong, but I feel very broadsided.
The FOSS community had now been scorning SCO for turning
its back on its heritage of FOSS, threatening thier own
UNIX licensees, and basically not playing well with
others. SCO has made the claim that the GPL is all about
taking value from software, and as such the FOSS community
has responded saying that the GPL is not meant as such.
Many of us have tried to make it clear that FOSS is meant
to work with and at times possibly enhance proprietary
softwares. This I belive should be the goal of FOSS, we
cannot become the M$ and SCOs of the world, being
anti-competetive to promote FOSS.
I am really disturbed, I just can not understand why a
leader of FOSS like Mr. Stallman would make such
statements that play right into SCO's claims? As a FOSS
user/programmer/supporter I just cannot not agree with
many of these statements Mr. Stallman has made. I believe
there is need for a mix of both FOSS and proprietary
softwares in our ever changing world, both have thier
strong points, and weaknesses.
Mr. Stallman I am not anti FOSS, anti GPL, communist, or
whatever label one might give, but my impression of your
leadership status has been damaged, it seems, like SCO you
are not playing well with others.
I have noticed on Groklaw a feeling of near shock , and
distain. This time it is not from the general non FOSS
world. This time it is from people that enjoy and
contribute to the benifits and freedoms of FOSS.
In retrospect, I can see a possibility this may have been
a poorly, or hastily thought out rebuttal to SCO's latest
letters. But please, since your words can be so
influential, and as such, so damaging, please do not say
things in haste you may not mean, it could be more
damaging to our cause than good.
You are known as an outspoken man, but in the future if
you really want to support growth of FOSS, it may be wise
to carefully scrutinize what you say.
Wolvenar
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 07:50 AM EST |
Just a comment on this:
While we have never released a complete GNU
system suitable for production use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by
tens of millions of people who mostly are not aware it is such.
Either
release HURD, or stop beating this long-dead horse. Without the Linux kernel,
GNU software would have far less penetration than it currently enjoys. Linux
created the critical mass to catapult GNU software into the realm of
statistically significant saturation. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, and
I'm not saying that only Linux could have done the job, but it DID do the job,
and it's useless to keep carping about it.
I understand that it irks you
that a less idealistic software component was responsible in a large part for
the current success your own software enjoys, but it is really tedious to hear
you bring this up at every opportunity. It is immature and divisive to maintain
this attitude. Personally, I believe you should be grateful that Linux has
helped disseminate the open source message and also given you a larger platform
to speak from, but I realise that is an unlikely thing to expect.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:37 AM EST |
I have read some of the preceeding posts and I was ashamed. So many of them
were some variation of "Free is good, but we have to pay for something and I
don't mind."
You are making the same mistake as SCO.
THINK FREE
AS IN SPEECH, NOT AS IN BEER!,
``Free software'' is a matter of
liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as
in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
-Gnu.org
"When we talk about Free Software, we are
referring to freedom, not price." -Richard M. Stallman.
Free
software is about freedom. How much you pay for it is virtually irrelevant. The
GPL exists to provide freedom, not zero cost. Selling Free software is not only
expressly allowed, but encouraged. The FSF even advocates charging as much as
possible for it.
Since free software is not a matter of price, a
low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing
copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make
some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity;
if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. -Gnu.org (emphasis in
original)
Freedom, not price. How hard is that to learn? Free
software is about the freedom to use, modify, redistribute with or without
changes, and the freedom to sell. The amount of money exchanged does not matter.
(Except in the case of source code, if binaries are distributed without it.)
Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue. -Gnu.org [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tzicha on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST |
As usual, it appears that many people are not totally knowledgable about Mr.
Stallman or his goals. For example,
many are of the view he believes all
software should be free, meaning there is not monetary charge or gain from
its
distribution. That is not true. Along with that, he does not espouse the view
that programmers should be unpaid
or low-paid workers. He is not working to
devalue the software creation field, rather he is working to enrich
it.
Another erroneous view is thinking that all people must become
programmers. That is not what Mr. Stallman intends.
While the availability and
use of free software may encourage more people to learn programming skills, even
non
programmers benefit greatly. As long as the source is freely available,
*anyone* may continue to work on it. Such
work might be fixes or improvements.
The work is performed by programmers, not necessarily the user.
As it currently
stands, each program has a 'market'. The market is comprised of the users and
the developers. With
non-Free software, the developers are limited to the
employees of the Company that owns the software. This is really
a small market,
or pool. And since any one user is simply one among many, any specific
requirements needed by one
user may be ignored by the Company unless it sees a
financial benefit to it.
With Free software, the development pool has
greater potential. It is not limited to a Company's developers. If a user
has a
particular need for an improvement the user can commision a programmer to add
the feature.
As a final point, Mr. Stallman is not part of the Open
Source or FOSS Movement(s). He is part of the Free Software
movement.
The
above is quickly written, and probably has a few flaws. But please people, you
need to read all the information about Free software that is posted on the GNU site before commenting on Mr. Stallmans views, Free
software, Open Source and FOSS. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Frihet on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 09:29 AM EST |
We don't live in Mr. Stallman's ideal software universe. We probably never
will because the real universe is not static. It will always be shaped and
reshaped by an ever changing mix of proprietary and free (as in freedom)
software solutions -- as it should be in a free economy and society. That is
not to say Mr. Stallman's utopian vision is without value. Indeed, without it
we probably wouldn't be where we are, and where we are is truly inspiring. We
just need to do the best we can and keep plugging relentlessly on --
particularly against forces like SCO -- they exist because not enough people
speak out and act against them as Mr. Stallman has.
I'm cheered to hear that PJ is going to take on copyright and patent after SCO
takes its rightful place in business ethics textbooks. Copyright and patent law
is where the next big battles are going to be fought, where liberty will be won
or lost, where the cultural monopolies will be defeated or descend upon us like
hordes from Mordor. We need some Stallman-like idealism on this front, as well.
Things are not going well for liberty, innovation, and opportunity in the 21st
century tech economy.
The copyright and patent fight, by the way, points out a real need for another
"open source" technology, and that is for a standard PC and BIOS
design that can be constructed anywhere. It may take that kind of technology to
circumvent the next wave of legislation designed to limit our choices and
capabilities to what the RIAA, MPAA, the, and Fritz Hollings think we should
have.
---
Frihet
Repeal the Digital Monopoly Conservation Act.
Write your congress folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveF on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST |
Awwww, sheesh, it's a lotta hard work to go over to that field there and plant
myself some crops to feed myself this winter. Especially when, just the other
side of the road, lives a kindly gentleman who will give me food -- all I have
to do is to agree to be whipped -- just a little bit. Being whipped is not
REALLY that bad. It doesn't REALLY hurt all that much. Especially when the food
we get is so good! I mean, it would take me years of hard work to build up a
proper farm from that land, over there. After all, part of being free means that
we should respect the old guy's right to want to whip me...
Not only that, I heard a rumour that that kindly old gent will start, soon, to
offer free lodging to anyone willing to be sodomised at his whim. Hey, I've
never been sodomised but it can't really be all THAT bad, can it?
---
Imbibio, ergo sum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chaosd on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST |
RMS, as usual, takes the 'free as in beer' ideology and makes it read like a
political speech. Fine and dandy, except this isn't the place.
Sorry
Richard, but we're not activists that need rallying, nor are we politicos that
need lobbying. Ok, so Groklaw and the Free / Open Sorce movements seem to be
quite closely related, but you should take care.
Groklaw is about the
law, not ideology. You hamper our efforts by making political statements
here - no matter how much we agree with you.
--- -----
There are
no stupid questions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: linuxbikr on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 10:11 AM EST |
Radeons have Linux drivers, but it appears they are closed as well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST |
I think the evils of proprietry software as addressed by RMS are not necesarily
to do with idealist concepts such as freedom and sourecode. More it is a
reflection on the capitalist world we live in.
Both types of software have their place. I still use windows because I have to -
for certain defined applications. I am willing to pay for software and live by
unfair EULAs where their is no alternative available. I dont let my political
ideals dont stop me from getting my work done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 10:48 AM EST |
Richard Stallman probably doesn't use a soldering iron, or he would be
complaining that he didn't have the circuit board layouts for each layer of the
board and the pinouts with details of all the chips. But that is of a kind with
low-level driver software.
Some GPL drivers upload binary firmware to cards. You could theoretically
modify the firmware but you can't understand it since at that level it isn't
really source.
NVidia could package the critical portions of their driver and upload them as
firmware to card ram, or even burn it into a flash chip where it would disappear
across the hardware curtain. Would that satisfy Mr. Stallman? The code would
not be any freer or modifyable, but it would simply have changed form (and be
more inconvienient to upgrade).
There is one problem with not having source for the NVidia driver - I can't use
the card in a different architecture (e.g. if I wanted to run Linux PPC).
Having a firmware image driver would address this real, practical problem.
So I agree with Richard Stallman to a limited extent - the non-free software
usually forces hardware choices - they may be inexpensive and varied, but you
can't go beyond the processor architecture. (you could theoretically do
"program on a card" or a on a USB dongle, but this seems silly when
it is not specific to drivers).
Expanding the kinds of computers programs can run on is a good reason to replace
the non-free with the free.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJP on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:05 AM EST |
Richard Stallman is (IMHO) both right and wrong, and always has
been.
Richard and myself come from about the same period in computing
history.
We both have the same background of seeing Unix disseminated
pretty
freely to educational institutions (and a few others), seeing lots of
work
take place to evolve it, and AT&T once freed of its restrictions
after
deregulation basically saying "thanks for all the work guys, this
system
is now commercially valuable -- so why don't you all just go away and
play
elsewhere -- unless of course you have the $50,000 to buy a license
from us".
This was also the same period in which the real Internet both
bloomed and
died. Very few people were connected directly to the Internet in the
TCP/IP
sense, but we did have News/USENET and uucp e-mail. On USENET there
were
groups dedicated to distributing software written by people either
because
they wanted to write it, or to solve some specific problem, and it was
often
of pretty high quality - and whats more, it was freely given.
This
contrasted sharply with the Bulletin-Board culture (from which
Bill Gates
sprang), who had the "shareware" culture - "I wrote this stuff,
give me $10
and you can have a copy too".
Unfortunately, some of the software from
Usenet ended up getting picked
up and re-distributed as shareware, which, as you
can imagine, quite pissed-off
the original authors.
The real Internet died
shortly after the decision was made that as an experiment in connectiong
dissimilar networks, AOL users would have access to the Internet (or at least to
Internet e-mail and USENIX). The free sofware groups died very shortly after
that as the software was replaced with low-quality, shareware stuff, and people
stopped posting the high quality free softare that had once been found
there.
It was in this period that Richard developed his manifesto and
infrastrcture
for keeping free software free - I think initially to
ensure that his
baby, emacs didn't get pirated and somehow end up as the basis
for a
commercial product.
There were many people who were as disgusted as
Richard at the money-grabbing
aspects of what was going on, and saw that the
rate of innovative progress
in software really slowed due to these events, and
so were more than willing
to adopt the GNU manifesto and work towards its aims.
However, the rather
radical and "take no prisoners" approach of Richard did tend
to attract
those who saw it as the vanguard of "the revolution", and they
behaved
accordingly. For myself, this manifested itself as a couple of people
at
the place I worked (as sysadmin/techical director) grabbing a copy of
emacs,
building it and starting to use it - which was fine, except that at
the
time we had a VAX 750 with 500KB of memory (those were the days ...) and
the
memory image size of emacs after a bit of use was around 1MB. As you
can
imagine, this didn't do much for other people trying to use the same
system,
since they would all have to be swapped out for e-macs to run (no VM in
those
days). This VAX was also used to teach classes, which was the bread and
butter
of the company - so I had to ask them to stop using it during working
hours.
The result was not pretty - I was accused of trying to kill the GNU
movement,
of being an off-spring of Hitler and generally being personally
responsible
for 90% of the world's woes. And they threatened to set Richard
Stallman on me.
So although I had great sympathy for the aims, I didn't have
that much sympathy
for the approach. It has pretty much continued like that, I
believe that world
would be a better place if a lot of the basic computing
infrastructure was open,
for all of the reasons that I think people reading here
will appreciate. But I
don't have much sympathy for forcing people who think
they can make money by
keeping their work proprietary from doing so, or the
philosophy of insisting
that the two can not co-exist. No free software should
inhibit my ability to
run commercial software - and vice-versa.
One of the
things I have noticed about GNU software consistently over the
years, is that
the basic tools tend to be pretty good, probably better
than the commercial
equivalents.
But when it comes to relatively complex applications the
commercial
version seem somewhat better. As an example, Gimp is no match
for Photoshop, and
doesn't seem to show any signs of getting there - its good
enough for
non-professional, individual use, but for production quality
commercial use, no
way. The same is true of many other applications - the "easy"
part has been
done, but the remaining 10% to turn it into a polished product
just doesn't
happen. Linux itself was like this until RedHat, IBM and others
decided that
they would have to force that last 10% themselves to make it
into a product they
could, with good concience, offer to the professional
world.
In a way, its
good to see that Richard has not changed over the years, but,
IMHO, he and/or
the free software movement will have to become a little
bit less idealistic to
truly succeed.
Philip
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
The English language sure is confusing. For instance, the word
"free" can specify a requirement for no "monetary"
exchange (although there may be other payments required) and the word
"free" can refer to the degree of social restraint placed on
somebody.
Mixing and matching the two definitions is a little bit juvenile when committed
by a native English speaker but completely understandable for a non-native
speaker.
The really funny thing is that if you assume the base common definition of the
word "free" (as in free of restraint) to state that in order to
support free software you must oppose non-free software then you have put a
(social) cost on the use of "free" software and it is no longer free
(as in free of restraint which is the common definition being used here). The
argument is inconsistent with it’s own premises and thus degenerates to almost
SCO like silliness. Since there is obviously no personal monetary interest at
stake in making this statement I got a good chuckle out of it.
If we take the author’s definitions at face value we get the following trail of
“logic”:
* If you support non-free software you can’t be free.
* If you aren’t free you can’t support free software.
* It is morally unacceptability to use free software and support non-free
software.
* A moral requirement on the use of free software means the software isn’t
free.
* Free software is an intellectual paradox that doesn’t really exist.
What a sad world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jds on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST |
True to form, Mr. Stallman holds to the purest sense of the word freedom, and
calls the rest of us up to that level. Sadly, most of us bicker, thinking
<i>such a degree of freedom is impossible</i>, and do not even
realize how much liberty has been delivered by this extremely pure focus on
freedom by a single man.
Sigh. Jesus did the same thing. I'm with Stallman on this one, for reasons that
will take centuries to reveal.
Stallman is talking about a very pure form of freedom, with which we are not
familiar because we are not yet responsible enough to handle it. Yet the vision
is clear, and I'm thankful for his effort. Time will reveal Stallman as a rock
in a storm. Let me aggregate this piece of sand to that rock, if I may.
-Jared
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
An old boss of mine (who was incidentally a Feynman fanatic) taught me that
coding is an art, just like music, writing, painting, etc.
To see an elegant
solution solve a particularly nasty problem is truly a thing of beauty
(especially if you've been wrestling with it for some time).
As more people
become coders, the art becomes more ubiquitous. So, in time, the number of
amateurs far outweighs the number of people actually getting paid to do it. This
parallels the other arts; I know many musicians, only a few of which ever make
any money at it. Ditto for visual artists.
The paradox that the most truly
talented face is that, while they love their art and have more to offer, they
cannot immerse themselves in it as they must make a living. In order to do this,
they offer their talents to the business world, whose motives have nothing to do
with beauty or creativity. Even if they write a stunningly elegant solution,
noone will see it encased in it's proprietary prison. As creative types,
talented coders invariably tire of pissing their talents away optimizing the
engines of the machine that's crushing them.
This paradox exists everywhere
where art meets commerce, which might explain why our culture is drowning in
mediocrity. Social climbers of the industrial revolution turned the world of
fine art into their own little club, with critics acting as kingmakers and
artists as mascots. No wonder noone cares anymore. A flip through your radio
dial or an hour spent watching MTV will reveal the horrors of the 'music'
industry. And we're all painfully aware of the 'News' industry, having waded
through (and debunked) the dreck offered by professional 'journalists'.
Who
will be cited by historians as the great artists of our era? Britney Spears?
Keanu Reeves? Stephen King?
I'll tell you who won't be: anyone who is any
good. Why? Commerce does not reward anything but commerce. Sure, their appear to
be anomalies. But in a world of porridge, one iota of flavour seems like a
revelation.
This paradox exists right here. Why should PJ have to do
anything but write? She is clearly head and shoulders above the legions of
proprietary journalists, blithely paraphrasing every lie fed to them by the PR
mills. Yet, like anyone, PJ needs coin of the realm to get by (just waiting for
my card to clear, folks. Honest.).
I have played music for money and for
free for over twenty years. I would love to be able to play music full time. I
don't require millions, just enough to get by.
Therein lies the paradox -
although I am much better at playing guitar than I am at anything else, and have
invested countless hours honing my craft, I still must make a living doing other
things. I would happily share my art with the world for a simple exchange of
food and shelter. This would free me to hone my craft even further as well as
allowing me to be more prolific.
In an ideal world, we would all be able to
give the world our best work for all to share free of charge, reciprocated by
everyone else sharing their wealth as well. Unfortunately, even Richard Stallman
must make a living. I can only assume that he must exchange something for the
filthy lucre we all need to survive.
Ironically, the very popularity he
decries is likely the thing that has put him in the position of being able to
pontificate his philosophy.
At any rate, while I can't help but agree with
him, neither can I escape the dualistic paradox of art and commerce (or the
bills in my mailbox). I sincerely hope I live to see Mr. Stallman's dream
realized. However, in a world ruled by greed, it seems unlikely. Software is but
one aspect of a world of human creativity being smothered by commerce.
To
quote my favourite Beatle, "you're still fucking peasants, as far as I can
see".
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Stallman is correct in his analysis of the principles involved, but misses the
fact that the way to win a war is not necessarily to try to win every battle.
I'd compare the welcoming of Invidious drivers and Prophecy databases (nice use
of naming, there, btw) to (GNU/)Linux to the the support of the Soviet Union
during WW II. Certainly Stalin and the USSR were no friends of liberty, but
they were the enemy of our (greater, and more immediate) enemy. Probably Nazi
Germany would have fallen eventually anyway -- but at what cost and for how
long?
I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law here with bogus comparisons, but having a
Free OS on which to build is a necessary step (and RMS himself is quite willing
to use non-free software when necessary to help build free replacements -- early
GNU *was* developed on proprietary OS's after all, although it would have been
much harder if the only OS available were Windows rather than one of the many
'nixes) to expanding the available base of free software. Anything that gets
it into a niche where a programmer might find a previously unscratched itch
helps.
To the extent that proprietary software companies are willing to distribute
their products on Linux, we should welcome that because it *does* help make the
platform more pervasive, which *does* encourage the development of more software
(both proprietary and free) for it -- and also helps knock the props out from
under the biggest advocate of non-free (if not downright anti-free) software on
the planet (call them TinyLimp ;-).
There are certainly Free alternatives to everything RMS mentioned -- perhaps not
quite feature-for-feature matching yet, but getting there. Sure, the companies
are being rewarded for staying proprietary rather than free -- for now. But
trying to win *every* battle rather than knowing when to withdraw to better use
your forces elsewhere is a sure way to lose -- or at least prolong at great cost
-- the war.
-- AJWM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:02 PM EST |
I feel like starting an argument today, so here goes. Note this has ZIP to do
with SCO v IBM but since we’re on the topic…
I’ll preface this by saying that I am an open source advocate. I subscribe to
the reasoning of why FOSS is better and frankly wish I could use it more often
outside of my own business.
RS has a wonderful vision for how computing should be for people. It’s a nice
goal and we can only hope at some point that it can be attained. However
practically we have a LOOOOOOOOONG way to go.
Take Linux for example. I consult for a large company (I won’t say which so
don’t ask) that has nearly 3000 employees and almost that many computers. We
are, needless to say, a large Microsoft customer. We have had discussions about
migrating to an OpenSource operating system, and I’m here to tell you that is a
practical impossibility today. Too much software that this company depends upon
only runs on Microsoft Windows. Sure, we could try to use Wine or another
emulator, but our management won’t take a risk like that on an unknown that we
can’t control. We could test all of the programs, but we would have to do it
with every new revision, and then if there’s a problem, the vendor would likely
say to us “it’s written for Windows, we don’t support any other environment”.
In our particular case, we have NO alternative sources for much of the software
we use. FOSS isn’t going to help us right now because in most cases, the
software we use is written by someone who provides content for the software as
well. We are at their mercy, literally, to determine what environment we have to
run.
Now if the world were fair and wonderful, we would all just simultaneously stop
using M$ products and move to FOSS alternatives. However the reality is
converting to FOSS means taking a moral stand in your industry, and I can tell
you for certain that the $1 billion company I consult for is not going to take
any chances with their stock price or revenue by taking a moral stand.
Microsoft provides value to this company. When things break, we have access to
an army of support people and developers to fix issues (and we have identified
more than a few bugs in M$ products). Is it expensive? Hell yes it is,
extremely. But the business runs very smoothly and is very efficient. That
ladies and gentlemen, is THE bottom line.
If RS wants FOSS to make more inroads into large business other than webservers
and occasionally database servers, if advocates of FOSS want businesses to
seriously start using open source developed products, then we better start
pitching development tools to everyone under the sun who writes programs. Better
OSS development environments need to be written to minimize the impact of
maintaining a separate code tree for a separate OS, because until that happens,
many software vendors won’t even look at Linux for development because it offers
no return of value. Too expensive to maintain, too few asking for it.
RS says we should all shy away from proprietary software; however the world
largely runs on it, so if FOSS wants “in”, this is the playing field on which
the game is played. Think about it this way:
Microsoft’s dominant position is a vicious circle. They own the user desktop,
period. Because they own the desktop, companies develop apps for that desktop,
that’s what people use. Because all the apps are developed for the M$ desktop,
that’s what people buy. That’s why M$ owns the desktop. On and on and on.
Microsoft has done a very good job at courting the group of people that matter
the most in their circle, the developers. Microsoft’s tools are powerful and
easy to use, and no they don’t support any other OSs. Microsoft has the keys to
the kingdom because they have the kingdom.
I respectfully submit that if we are to replace the Microsoft’s of the world
with FOSS, serious steps need to be taken to get the foot in the door. This can
be done several ways, but I think if you want large businesses to adopt FOSS
entirely, you have to court developers. This means development tools and
environments that are powerful, feature rich, and easy to use, period. Since
Microsoft is never going to give anyone the Windows API for use, other
environments will always be at a disadvantage running software designed for a
Microsoft OS. There must be tools available to begin wooing companies to
maintain Linux versions of their products.
The more products available for Linux, the more people will use it. The more
people that use Linux, the more demand for others to develop Linux versions of
their products there will be. On and on and on.
In the end, the entire world will likely run on a combination of proprietary
software and FOSS software. But for the dream to approach reality, FOSS has to
dominate the OS world, period. To dominate the OS world, you have to have
applications that run on the OS and are supportable. To have applications, you
need development tools that everyone can use. That is the only way we escape the
vicious circle.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST |
RMS seems to think that all computer software, methods,ideas and knowledge
should be free for all. A noble concept but not always practicle.
Many companies work hard to develop a good product and in many many cases have
spent a lot of money in doing so. They deserve to be compensated for that.
FOSS works an a different ideal altogether and software developed under that
model comes when someone needs that particular application, utility, or
feature.
I support FOSS and I also support proprietary as well. Both have their place in
the computer industry. What I don't support is the attacks made from one
against the other to promote greed or social ideals not every person will except
(or for that matter allow.)
SCO's attack against Linux is fueled by nothing but greed and eventually will
become history as Linux still continues to change and grow.
RMS is trying to make people believe that all proprietary software is evil. (Hey
programmers need to feed their families too.) No code should be locked away and
open to all. He has the right to state this belief but it is a failed ideal.
RMS has probably created more damage to the Anti-SCO campaign than good by
releasing this statement. IBM will be forced to do some damage control and Linus
will most likely have to point out that he never intended for Linux to be free
from proprietary software as well.
The fact is proprietary software helps fuel an economy, FOSS fuels a social
ideal. Both can work together, and should. When more companies develop their
products for Linux as well as Windows then true competitiveness happens as
people have a greater choice of options and features to work from.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST |
From a personally pragmatic standpoint, if not for the income I receive from
non-free (and I DO mean freedom, not cost) software, I wouldn’t have the
resources or the time to contribute to open-source projects. How would “our
community” be strengthened if I and other programmers lost our income from
closed software and could no longer support our open-source contributions? I
understand (and employ) the open-source business model, but if every developer
abandoned proprietary software development and adopted the open-source business
model, it would be like Plato’s community of cobblers, starving to death trying
to make a living by bartering with nothing but shoe-repair services.
But
even more disturbing is Stallman’s ideology. This statement, I believe, takes
his essay over top:
The most effective way to strengthen our
community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to
teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free
software.
In very unambiguous terms, he classifies his as a
moral crusade. We have, according to Stallman, a moral obligation to kill
non-free software. Why must everything be a battle to the death? I’m actually
ashamed that a vocal, though admittedly visionary, leader of the open-source
community has emulated SCO’s tactic of targeting the “other side” for
extinction. Why can’t we just do what we like to do and leave well enough
alone?
There is nothing inherently immoral about non-free software. There,
I said it. Tar and feather me, if you wish, but that’s what I believe. I fail
to understand why proprietary software, in and of itself, should be regarded as
a cancer on society and targeted for eradication. Turning this into a moral
crusade against proprietary software, as another contributor pointed out above,
plays in part into SCO’s hands, which has the potential to be very damaging to
the OSS community. Espousing the virtues of freedom while working to eliminate
one of our choices strikes me as misguided at best, hypocritical at worst. I
thought open source was conceived in order to give the world an alternative.
Little did I realize that the goal was to make it the only
alternative. Thanks, but no thanks. I love open source software and the
freedom it delivers, but not if it’s singular stated goal is to attain the
monopolistic status of its greatest competition.
That Coca Cola is stocked
on the grocery store shelves does not diminish the nutritional value of the milk
I drink for breakfast. Likewise, having the ability to choose proprietary
software does not in any way diminish the benefits I get from open and free
software. Free software is no less free if someone we’ve never met uses
something else. We don’t need to eliminate the Moon from the sky in order to
enhance our enjoyment of the Sun.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17200538
Sigh. Yet another analysis by the uninformed. Last time I checked, if employees
go off installing software without permission to do so, that is an employee
problem not an FOSS specific problem. This reporter needs help, anyone see the
clue-by-4 laying around?
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST |
While I respect and admire Mr. Stallman for his contributions to free software,
I find myself in disagreement with what comes off as extremism.
Sorry, but I'm going to get Politically Incorrect for a moment. I get nervous
when someone uses the word "free" or "freedom" and
capitalizes the first letter. It usually means that they wish to take a freedom
away from me so that I fit more easily into their world-view. Their use of the
"buzzword" is intended to make me hesitate to disagree. Who, after
all, can disagree with Freedom?
For example, if a government takes away our legal rights in order to keep us
"Free from Terrorism", are we in fact more free than we were before,
or less?
Back on topic, competition is how products become better. It is true of Linux
vs. Windows, and it is true of open source vs. proprietary software.
As has been said in other posts, Freedom means Choice. I want both free and
proprietary available. I will pick whichever one serves my practical needs right
now, and I reserve the right to change my mind in the future should my options
change.
Finally, even though I disagree with him, I hope Mr. Stallman continues his
campaign. Like competition, the free exchange of opinions is a good thing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST |
Freedom is best served when led by a shining beacon, not by an armored
division.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:10 PM EST |
There appears to be no heart in most people. What Richard says is very true from
the sense of wanting to do something right, something good. I certainly applaud
those very ideas because it was those ideas FROM A FEW that allow me to spend
most of my time in Linux now. People can say "Come on, get with the real
world!" but it is the few who help us keep our integrity and remind us of
our humanity. If these guys had played to the vanity of the world as a whole I
would not be writing this or caring to spend the time on Groklaw. It is my
desire for something good and decent as well as the desire for freedom that I
care. I know that most people don't care but I will hold my ideals steady
regardless. Bravo to Richard and Linus! To the naysayers, you can keep your own
company and inherit the legacy of the Microsofts of the world......[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveF on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 06:00 PM EST |
Look, all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is really quite tiresome. No one is
saying that you shouldn't have the <b>right</b> to use any software
you want. No one is suggesting that nVIDIA should be precluded from producing
proprietary drivers. All RMS has said in this article is that, for those who
feel that freedom is preferable to non-freedom, we should consider the broad
effect of what we do. He states that, in his opinion, we should behave, as
individuals and when selecting software, in ways that recognise freedom and
solidify its purchase upon the earth. What in the world is wrong with that. His
is a clarion call. "If you value freedom, be careful when selecting
software."
This is in no way an absolute thing as no moral discussion can ever be absolute.
When I bought my 2nd home computer in the mid-90s, Linux, for me, was a term
I'd heard a couple of times and thought I should learn more, eventually. Soon
enough after making my new purchase, I grew tired of the oppressive yoke of
Windows and decided to find out about Linux. Well, as it turned out, my sound
card and modem were right out. I bit the bullet and spent money to buy new
cards. I could have bought proprietary drivers (which were available) but I
thought I'd upgrade at the same time. I deliberately went out and selected
cards that were supported. Then, after a time, my kids wanted to start 3d
gaming. I found out that I had an nVIDIA card and 3d, at that time and on that
card, was not supported in the free as in speech drivers. Guess what? I d/led
and installed the proprietary drivers from nVIDIA. But, at the same time, I knew
that, within a few months, I was going to be buying a new DVD drive for that
machine and that I'd want to upgrade the video card. When I did, I resolved to
seek out a video card that supports our community by releasing specs to enable
driver builds. In the end, I did just that.
Now, was I pariah for that time when I was using Windows, before I'd learned
about Linux? No... Was I lower than scum for those months when I used the
proprietary nVIDIA drivers? No... But, during that time, I've grown and
evolved. I now know how important it is to heed RMS's words. Freedom is the
issue. Just as Brundtland has said about changing things by "thinking
globally and acting locally." We can't go around crucifying proprietary
software developers. No one suggests we do this. What RMS suggests, and I fully
support, is that we should make choices, as individuals, that move us forward,
not backward. Some of you may not agree with me -- no problem. In the end, each
of us has to answer to whatever principles we have. I believe that my principles
are grounded firmly in freedom. If you can say the same then, good on ya!
---
Imbibio, ergo sum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: converted on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 07:17 PM EST |
After seeing this
url
in one of the post in this thread, I have spent
the better part of today
reading this book on line.
How many naysayer have taken time to read and
understand the history of software? I personally have read
almost everthing I
can get my hands on, from all the
articles at http://opensource.org to
the book above and
more. I can't help but wonder how the
point of freedom gets missed when I see
little things in
the post of this thread like...(paraphrasing) thats the
way
it is...(quote) "we have no choice". Choice is a
personal thing as is moral
and social responsibility. I
agree with Richard Matthew Stallman 100% and is
why I
choose only free (dom) software. This is my perception of
the right
choice both socially and morally. Freedom for
all for the betterment of all.
To take a stand against
the ever burgeoning subdivisions that pit rich against
poor, have's against have not's, weak against strong. It
is, in my personal
and humble opinion, our social a moral
obligation to tear down any barrier
that gives any one
person advantage over any other. All men/woman are created
equal.
Please take some time to read and understand before
condemning.
GNU is not Unix....it is a philosophy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST |
"The true cost of software will be determined by the availability of
labour to support that software, after it has been aquired."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST |
Get rid of Proprietry Software?
As long as we live in a capatalistic society that respects and enforces
interlectual property rights within software, market forces will prevail and
supply a proprietry software solution wherever there is demand for solving
computer related problems. There is no getting away from this.
To fully meet RMS's ideals we would have to abolish IP protection OR capatalism
itself.
To encorouge people to switch to free software is one thing, to question their
beliefs in this is, frankly, insulting.
However, saying that, I do believe that one day there will be sufficient weight
behind the open source ideoligy that proprietry motivated vendors may embrace it
and seek revenues from support rather than upfront lisense costs. But the
motivation will always be monetary of course.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: raindog on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 09:34 PM EST |
Don't forget that this whole thing we're doing started out as his baby. He
can't just go "OK, it's been 20 years, and what do you know? We've
won! This is great, I can relax now. Off to drink some tea and sing some
filk." He has to do the political leader thing. "We have come so
far, and yet our battle has just begun," et al.
The truth is, most mass-market software really can be replaced by free software.
(By that I mean free as in freedom, so don't play games with bugs in the
English language.) It's possible down the road that someone will come up with
GPL'ed tax software written in such a way that you can pay some accounting
company annually to come up with a rule set for that year's new tax laws.
Maybe game code will ultimately be released as source and there will be
designers with sought-after levels they charge money for, or you'll have to
sign up to play online. Most of these models have already been tried, and
successfully, just not at the mass market level yet.
What Richard doesn't say, and really can't acknowledge, is that free software
adoption is basically a mountain. On one side of the mountain is proprietary
software, and on the other side is free software. At the top of the mountain is
the point at which each person goes from using mostly proprietary stuff to
mostly free stuff. That point, most often, is where the user switches his
primary machine to a free operating system.
Now, there are a hundred million people or more still on the propietary side of
the mountain. It's physically impossible to move so many people all at once.
They ultimately have to move themselves, and not too many people have the
ability to just jump over the mountain in one leap. So in reality, it's okay
to start them off by giving them Openoffice under Windows, and then it's okay
to give them Oracle or any of the Windows migration tools under Linux, because
the overall progression is up the proprietary side of the mountain and down the
free software side. And once there are more people on the free side of the
mountain than the other, the critical mass exists for more and more cool things
to happen.
But Stallman can't acknowledge that, because it's his job to kick us in the
ass and keep us from getting complacent. He is the hardliner required for the
success of any social movement, without whom progress will eventually wither and
die. While the rest of us focus on getting there, RMS sees only the
destination, the moment where there's no one left on the other side of the
mountain and everyone's down on flat ground, presumably sharing software. He
cannot and will not be satisfied until the goal is *completely* met.
For our sakes I only hope there's someone half as effective to take his place
when the need arises.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:44 PM EST |
Unfortunately, while obsessed with the elimination of all non-freely-modifiable
programs, RMS cares not at all about free modifiability of other works.
Look at the license he released this essay under.
The infamous GFDL (which you should avoid like the plague, incidentally) is a
more extreme example of this particular brand of hypocrisy.
RMS is, unfortunately, the hardliner (there's one in every movement) who starts
out with great ideas, then loses track of the ideas in favor of demagoguery and
conformism. :-(
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mjscud on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST |
I program and enjoy programming, and I am a Christian idealist. I am grateful to
Richard Stallman and to Linus Torvald for the free (in both senses of the word)
software they have made available to us.
I would commend a slightly different idealism than Richard Stallman's, that I
think may be closer to Linus Torvald's. I don't think the essential difference
is between idealism and pragmatism; I think both men are pragmatic idealists (a
term Richard Stallman has applied to his GPL) who have both been quite
successful, but I think they have slightly different goals. I can't speak for
Linus Torvald, but I can describe the idealism which I espouse which differs
somewhat from Richard Stallman's.
One of many desirable freedoms is the freedom to improve, customize and share
the software I work on. It is not as important as freedoms such as religion,
speech and association, but it is a good. And I find joy in sharing some of what
God has given me and also what God has enabled me to create.
But I also benefit from having software written even if that software is not
free in either or both senses. Two examples: Peter Strempel's cGoban go game
client, and my made up example of software to help create pressed metal
objects.
The gGo program is a nice client for playing the game of go. It was originally
released under GPL, but Peter states that "I am not willing to take the
responsibility as author of the original program for the adjustments other
people do (no problem with changing gGo, that is what open source is for) to
cheat (I personally don't care if they cheat or not) when it is not obvious
that the changes were not being done by myself. This software is now freeware
rather than free software (you are of course free to add your own features to
the previously released free software). The cheating alluded to involves
changing the game clock so that you don't run out of time as quickly; gGo has
the nice feature of not penalizing you for internet delay, but with a little
modification you could make it subtract nonexistent delay. I am happy to have
this, even though it is not free software except in price, and even though I pay
a cost in that I can't go in and keep it from causing the DDHELP crash it
sometimes exhibits.
Free software is not as likely to be written when it is boring and expensive to
produce. Consider software to help design the blanks that go into one of those
multi ton metal press machines. Many companies use them, but they are costly,
and to write your software well you need to be able to test it on one of them.
Certainly companies will create software to design the blanks. If no proprietary
software was legally or morally acceptable (which seems to approximate Richard
Stallman's position), then companies would probably not end up with as good a
set of design software. It makes economic sense for one company to develop very
good software and recoup the cost of developing it by selling it to several
companies. They might even share the code under a non disclosure agreement and
agree to buy back changes they thought might be generally useful. But if this
model was not available or considered ethically reprehensible, companies would
tend to duplicate effort and/or not spend resources on making costly
improvements. This is of less economic value to the companies and eventually the
public in general. I think this is essentially Wally Bass's above point about
high and low foundation value software.
I realize that I may be overstating the case here, in that Richard Stallman has
indicated that a 3 year proprietary copyright period on programs might not be a
bad thing. I would certainly agree that the IP laws are a mess, need systematic
overhaul, and in practice are often used in ways that harm the public; that
copyright terms are ridiculously extended; and that program patents, if they
should exist at all, should be only for innovations of the quality and novelty
of LZH compression and for a period of not over 10 years.
I believe most large monopolies are very bad, and that Microsoft's in
particular seems very harmful. High foundation value software is a very good
target for a GPL. Small monopolies on the other hand I believe are a very
valuable tool of a government (the original patents were monopolies given to
blacksmiths to induce them to set up in remote areas, blacksmiths being an
indispensable element of the creation of a viable town). They allow the
government to benefit its citizenry without becoming particularly intrusive.
But to summarize, I think both free and proprietary software have their proper
place in the pursuit of the idealistic goal of having a lot of good quality
software available for the good of mankind.
---
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise. Proverbs 17:28[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 08:35 AM EST |
A bold statement, I know, but consider this:
What if your car had a warranty seal on the bonnet (US: hood) stating
"Warranty void if seal broken", like hard disks do?
What if your EULA stated "you may not attempt to repair the software
yourself, even if we refuse to do it for you"?
What if some cinema, bus and park seats were labelled 'Whites Only'?
What if your software company considered your locality "too insignificant
to warrant a localized version"?
What if you wanted to put an extension on your house, and have planning
permission and space to do so, but the original architect of the house said 'no
modifications allowed'?
What if your operating system had a serious security flaw, but the software
company said 'we'll fix it next month', by which time the flaw had already
been exploited, and you lost data?
What if you weren't allowed to learn to read and write because you were female,
and education wasn't considered necessary for women?
What if a software company said 'don't worry your pretty little head with the
internal workings of this program - it's way too complicated for you, and
you'd just get a headache looking at it'?
What if a computer company realised "well, if we don't give them the
source code, they'll never know how easy it is, or how badly we lashed it
together"?
What if a dealer thought 'If I can just find something that'll keep 'em
coming back for more, time after time'?
Lets face it - the software industry gets away with things that are considered
both illegal and morally reprehensible in other industries.
Proprietary software *is* a type of enslavement, with the software companies as
the masters and the users as slaves; it disempowers the users, keeping them
ignorant and compliant, and buying the next 'much improved' version.
In the Information Age, which we are just beginning to enter, Information is
Power, and computers (of all forms) are the key to that power. In the future,
your freedom will be measured by your access to information, which will of
course, be governed by what software you use.
The high-priesthood of proprietary software know this, and it is greatly in
their interest to suppress education in this area, just as reading and writing
were suppressed in bygone times. Just as everyone should have the *right* to
learn how to read and write, everyone should have the *right* to program source
code, because, without it, we have less control over our own lives. Not
everyone exercises their right to vote, but in most developed nations, all
adults are eligible to vote.
Many of the arguments made by RMS will be of even more importance in 10, 20 or
50 years time. I'm sure we will all enjoy watching him being proved right.
No political visionary has ever had an easy ride (take Martin Luther-King and
Ghandi, for example), and to the majority of people at the beginning, their
arguments were seen as absurd. Time, however, tells us different.
If people today realised just how deep we are in it already, there would be
revolt! The world is more Orwellian than most people realise...
-cybervegan
---
Stand and fight we do consider
Reminded of an inner pact between us
That's seen as we go
And ride there
In motion
To fields in debts of honor
Defending
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
Fortunately Isaac Newton kept his thoughts about gravitation private so that
later generations of scientists could continue to earn a living as they
rediscovered what he learned.
It is a plain fact that keeping knowledge private advances the overall human
condition.
How could anybody not understand something so simple? Richard Stallman does not
share the enlightenment of those who wish to make our technology as mysterious
as an uninvestigated force of nature.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST |
I keep hearing people say "open source is free as in free speech, not free
as in free beer" but one of the freedoms of open source is also that the
software is free as in free beer.
By the open source definition any one can redistribute any open source software
for free (free beer).
So would someone like to explain how I can go about earning a living as a full
time open source programmer ?
Yes, I understand that I can still charge a fee for my software, but how many
people will honestly pay me for my software when they can get it for free (free
beer) ?
I don't want to make money selling manuals and cd's and tshirts and i don't
believe that asking for donations is going to earn me a steady income, so how am
I going to make money from my software if it is open source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST |
> There are several ways you can still make money.
> You can be hired to create a program that doesn't exist.
> Probably most commonly, you can be an employee of a company that hires you
> to make programs based on open source
This option pays me only to write software that my employer wants, it does not
pay me to create innovative new software. I have found that working on software
for in house use by a single company will tend to produce software that is
highly suited to that companies specific needs and often of little use to
others. I would also assume that if proprietary software is the devil then in
house modified OSS that is never shared with the public is the devils bastard
child.
> You can offer maintenance on the code you write, for a fee.
The biggest problem I see with this model is that the better the software is the
less maintenance and support is required. So better software = less income.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mjscud on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 10:11 PM EST |
Anonymous wrote in reply to me:
>> You can offer maintenance on the
code you write, for a fee.
>The biggest problem I see with this
model is that the better the software
>is the less maintenance and
support is required. So
>better software = less income.
I
haven't made money by selling free as in freedom software, so take this all with
a grain of salt.
You brought up the good concern that if you choose to make
money for maintaining code you give away for free, you are penalized for making
bug free easy to use software. This is true if you are providing software that
doesn't generate a demand for new features; if it did, their would be a demand
for a non bug fixing kind of maintainence.
But another option for creating
excellent software that won't require much maintenance is a variant of the
Blender
history.
I
gladly made a donation that helped it become free.
The actual history of
Blender is different, but here's the model. Create a good product and give it
away, without source code or provide code with a license that requires money and
nondisclosure of source to those who haven't paid for it. But, make a legally
binding promise to open the source when enough donations (or conditional
promises to donate) have been made. Then release the code under the
GPL.
It's a risky investment of your time; but so is creating proprietary
software.--- Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise.
Proverbs 17:28 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chaosd on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:36 AM EST |
Hear hear. I could not (and did not) put it better myself.
Incidentally, this whole thread has marginal relevance to the SCO (or any other)
legal case. SCO have, effectively, asked a 'stupid' question: 'Has IBM
broken their contract with us, and does Linux contain our property?'. That
this question is posed as an accusation is a product of context.
Most of the people that read and partake in Groklaw would say that SCO's
question is stupid. This position does not give us the luxury of ignoring the
question though, far from it. If we were to ignore this particular 'stupid'
question SCO would have a better chance of getting a 'stupid' answer.
Perhaps my sig should read 'Questions are only stupid in certain contexts' -
but that doesn't sound as good.
---
-----
There are no stupid questions[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chaosd on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:19 AM EST |
Hear hear. I could not (and did not) put it better myself.
Incidentally, this whole thread has marginal relevance to the SCO (or any other)
legal case. SCO have, effectively, asked a 'stupid' question: 'Has IBM
broken their contract with us, and does Linux contain our property?'. That
this question is posed as an accusation is a product of context.
Most of the people that read and partake in Groklaw would say that SCO's
question is stupid. This position does not give us the luxury of ignoring the
question though, far from it. If we were to ignore this particular 'stupid'
question SCO would have a better chance of getting a 'stupid' answer.
Perhaps my sig should read 'Questions are only stupid in certain contexts' -
but that doesn't sound as good.
---
-----
There are no stupid questions[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 07:58 AM EST |
There we have it. Stallman was not competent enough to get a Unix out
the door; Linus WAS. So here's the GNU/Linux debacle: RMS wants what
he can't have, what is not his.
I've heard enough from this ass.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jds on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST |
I thank God for Stallman's tenacity even against a storm of people who
fundamentally misunderstand his position, criticize him for it, and yet are
liberated daily by it.
Such is the path of all who seek to liberate.
Hold to a pure ideal, and out of each 100 people who encounter it, 80 will say
"it's impossible, he's nuts," 15 people will say "thanks for
starting the conversation, but you're wrong and I know better than you how to
do this," four people will quietly receive, and one person will say
"wow! that's amazing! thank you! what can i do to help you!"
-jds, one of the four quiet ones
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 01:06 PM EST |
to RMS, we love you man, but you kinda need to mellow out.
My goal for "free software" is to allow me to use what ever software
i want, be it a free progarm or a propritary one. the "bondage of
propritary software" (as referred to by RMS is only really an issue to
programmers. in the end as a user the goal is to use the best application for a
job, somtimes thats propritary, sometimes its FS/OSS.
On the other hand, as an FS/OSS developer is sould be our goal to write the best
application for any task, RMS is right on this point. a full FS/OSS system will
be approched when this goal is acheved.
BUT in some areas of programming there will never be a fully FS/OSS answer, this
is mostly in the field of gaming. There are FS/OSS games, but to demand that
Sierra/Lucas Arts/EA/Volation/etc. make there software "free" is
silly.
i suppose i soulnt tell RMS to "mellow out" because we always need
someone who is asking for too much, that way we get what we need. ^_^
Oninoshiko (on a public terminal)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|