If Richard Stallman, has changed the name of "Free Software Foundation" to "Software Freedom Foundation", He could have saved 2 years of his lifetime, not having to explain "free as in freedom, not free as in beer".
The issue isn't so much with the Foundation as with "Free Software" in general. It wouldn't make sense to call Firefox a "Software Freedom" project, but calling it "Free Software" does makes sense (just in too many ways at the same time).
"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free."
Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis.
Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.
It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability.
"Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).
Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.
when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..
To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.
"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis."
The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license).
I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.
Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it?
If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it.
If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
"Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it."
People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license.
"f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is."
As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free.
This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
A service is completely different. For one, you are not giving out any source code. If you do give out all your service source code under the GPL, you still have the same problem. If a single person buys it, they can then continually release a free version of it with the source provided.
This is so common but people who support the free software movement always make some excuse for why you're not making sales. People expect free software to not cost a dime. The entire foundation of the FSF is built upon the belief that we are all entitled to everything free and it's even in the license. I love when Stallman says you can make money with free software. Sure, it's technically possible but not feasible in the majority of cases. I feel for you, man. The lesson is that if you want to get paid don't use a free license. Go proprietary and no one will send hate mail.
I also think its crazy that people send you hate mail. That right there exemplifies the sense of entitlement they have. Don't get me wrong, I love free software, use it, and I release code occasionally but I'm not about to starve because Stallman says I have to choose either or. Free or proprietary, you must choose one is the message out of the RMS camp.
I have to play devil's advocate here because what you said is interesting.
Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give them real control? How so and how much?
Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to control those agencies then who should be "in control"?
If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can and will only do good?
Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted to.
Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.
For any open source project, the developer only has a final say on the name. If you disagree with what somebody is doing, you are always free to take the code and change what you like. If Linux is used in the government, the government has control: if they want they could, oh, write their own access control and security system for it. And then release it as open source. But that's patently ridiculous, right?
The whole point of Free Software is that you are not beholden to the developer--you are always free to modify the code yourself or hire somebody else to do it. The government could even maintain their own distro and do everything the way they want. With proprietary software, there are two issues: they are not allowed to modify it legally and it is not practical because you only have a binary.
In fact, the whole point of the GPL is to ensure that not only the original developer does not have absolute control over the source, but that other developers can't do so either.
I get that completely but one of my major points was that because people are writing the software you'll always run into some problem. People by mature have their views which can creep into software. They also make mistakes which could creep in too. And even though a large community submits code to a single project, the project's creator has final say of what makes the final version.
Now, all the points about these issues being mitigated and possibly eradicated are totally right on. What I'm saying though is that this freedom is only truly an advantage if you take advantage of it. Someone who uses free software but doesn't inspect the source, modify it to their liking, and generally just trusts it might as well have gone the proprietary route. That freedom it gives you is essemtially useless unless you're exercising it to your advantage. Granted, I'll give you that you can pretty much trust most major free software but all I'm saying is that you never know, you could have a back door or spyware in the free stuff and won't know it unless you check. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's safe. I'm wondering how many people are using free software to avoid these pitfalls but never look under the hood and just take the developer's word for it that it's secure. "It's FOSS so it must be secure, right?" is how many may think.
To answer your questions, despite what some governments say, corporations are not people. We should strive to allow the people to be in control. By definition, proprietary software grants exclusive control to a private group such as a corporation. People who are using the software have essentially no control over it, they don't know if the program has malicious features, and they can't fix them if they are put there by accident.
No external source is in control of your free software. For this reason governments should always use completely free software. As the software is free they don't have to worry about the whims of Linus or anyone else, most governments actually have their own OS forks like Red Flag Linux in the people's republic of China, Red Star OS in the DPRK, Nova in Cuba, Canaima in Venezuela, etc.
I would argue that there is an external force in control. Case in point: OpenJDK. There's a group of people who have decided for you what is allowed to run on your system. It was okay for the FSF to decide for us that we're not allowed to run Java on our system because why? Because their cause is righteous? There's a whole host of proprietary software we can't run on Linux because someone else is in control. Luckily a bunch of smart people gave us open source alternatives but what happens when a new technology comes out, becomes widely adopted and arguably necessary for day to day computing but we can't get a GPL compliant alternative?
I'm playng devil's advocate again because I'm all for free software but we can't ignore the problems it has just because we're blinded by some allegiance we have to either Stallmam or the greater FSF.
So while we may have a lot more freedom than the alternatives doesn't the requirement to be GPL compliant actually restrict some of our freedoms? Specifically, shouldnt we be free to choose a proprietary technology and not be treated like children?
Users already are free to choose proprietary technologies if they want to. The FSF isn't going to change that, nor are they are trying. It is developers that ought to use completely free software, rejecting all proprietary programs in the process.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not against commercial software. I develop commercial software myself. Where I was in agreement with Stallman was when he was talking about the "empire of the corporations". Looking at what's happening with SOPA, it appears that corporations may get this law past because they have been throwing money at the political parties. This isn't anything new, but watching the debate and seeing it happening before my eyes brought home to me just how corrupt government can be.
Edit: to clarify, I know Stallmam isn't the guy behind Linux. What I'm saying is that it would be reasonable to assume that whatever software he wants us to be using would need to have his stamp of approval and that stamp comes with a lot of opinionated, biased views. And as for being beholden to developers, free software mitigates many issues but it only works in this scenario if the agency has a team dedicated to ensuring the entire code base is up to their standards in which case why not just roll their own?
Stallman does not say that he wants to control what particular software you use - he has simply stated a condition necessary for software to be acceptable to him. Its acceptability or lack thereof is entirely dependent on that pre-stated condition being met, not on his further decision-making.
And if software meets that condition - free for modification and redistribution - then the user (e.g. a government agency) is free to deviate from the maintainer's direction and modify it for internal use.
There was a question in the video which i found interesting (and which i think was not answered in the video)... if the source code of a program is publicly available, then won't an attacker have an easy time in finding vulnerabilities? By making only the binary available, isn't this risk being eliminated?
(I don't know much about this, so was just wondering whether there is a good explanation for why this is true or not...)
Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the software. This is not true and it really depends on what "features" you are comfortable with having in programs you buy. Stallman likes to say iTunes is a jail but to him that feature is restrictive while to others it's simply convenient. If I buy a copy of Windows or Office or iWork I do control the software. I'm able to control the input and output. It certainly has limitations but depending upon what knd of user I am I may not care to extend the application or modify it or learn how to do so. If I really wanted those "free" abilities then I'll choose free software but Stallman assumes we all want to be free as it relates to software. Not everyone does.
The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version. That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place.
One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends?
In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons. In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.
The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.
Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software.
People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.
That works fine for software which requires support. However, I don't want to rely on getting paid by doing support. I'd like to just write some software and for people to pay me for it.
I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that.
What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.
Exactly! That's my biggest problem with Stallman's beliefs. Let's take Red Hat Linux for example. Anyone can get or modify Linux free. Even Red Hat itself is open source. So Rwd Hat can't really make a buck selling Linux so they make money on training and support. If I wanted Red Hat I could certainly find an ISO somehwere online easily or I could just download Fedora. So for them it's great but what about the guy who writes a cool text editor for Linux? If that's open source then what does he do? Hope everyone sticks to the honor system and pays? How do you make money charging for support with that type of project?
There are far more projects like the example I gave than companies like Red Hat. You're far more likely to find little solo acts who either can't provide support, dont want to, or even if they did wouldn't be able to sell it because it's just not that necessary. Imagine buying a license for support for some text editor you like and calling the support line to ask how to program in some macro or something. It's just not happening.
Why do FOSS folks always equate closed software with evil? Couldnt we simply want to keep our code to ourselves so we can make money? In most cases 90% of the value of a developer's app comes from the fact that no one else has the code. Just because I've closed the source doesn't mean I'm adding back doors and spyware to my app. It just means I'm protecting my income stream. Demanding that all software release code so that people can extend the app to their liking presupposes that people want to modify the code. Of all the FOSS software I've downloaded and used I really haven't ever wanted to modify the app except in a few rare cases. It sometimes seems like this FOSS ideology completely forgets that not everyone is a programmer or assumes everyone should want to be a programmer.
> The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.
He's fine with this, as are many other people.
And I think that's a fair point: if you really are going into the deal with eyes open, knowing you're going to be locked in and tied down to whatever platform, you should be free to make that choice. Of course, if you're smart, you'll drive a hard bargain, knowing that in the future you won't be able to. Stallman says that choice simply should not exist in that proprietary software should not exist.
The 'sell support' thing has some fairly serious limitations that make it less than ideal. Many software products - especially the end user variety - cost a lot to make. Selling 'support' for a product that works well and doesn't require much of it is not a good way to recoup all those sunk costs.
Since you cite 'countless' companies, how about we actually count a few and look at their revenue models?
* Redhat: first of all, they distribute a lot more software than they produce, which is fine, but the scope for that is pretty limited. Also, they basically use trademark law as an end-run around software freedom. You can't redistribute and call it Redhat, and you can't buy any support unless it's real Redhat, and support is a subscription, not a per-incident kind of thing.
* Mysql: they used the "GPL'ed library code" gig to try and get people wanting to embed the code in their proprietary products to cough up some cash. Legitimate business model, but would not work without proprietary software! Also, most things aren't libraries.
You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view. To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view - one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and find magical is to read and understand how it works.
Ted Nelson's another person with that view, though he focuses less on licensing, and more on things like whether it's technically possible to modify software or hardware (e.g. how black-boxed, "no user serviceable parts" it is) and whether people get sufficient education to understand and manipulate the increasingly technical world we find ourselves in. I tend to agree with that; I think licensing barriers are one barrier, but not the only one, and not necessarily the biggest one. Unfortunately, some of Nelson's better books are out of print currently...
Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk.
As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.
Open source is nice but its not a silver bullet. Most young hackets are free to view UNIX crud well state of the art features in OS design like single address space orthogonal persistence remain mostly unknown.
I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too, what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it.
On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want.
My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.
I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example, at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is open source.
Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux.
Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly.
There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.
I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to illustrate part of my point.
Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it.
I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer.
I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business.
The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.
> One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products.
Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/
Stallman conflates "charging money" with "being evil".
Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or releasing toy versions.
When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something right.
I really would've expected better than a comment that's either woefully ignorant or deliberately "misstating his views" (to put it nicely) to be at the top of the discussion, but HN seems to go nuts when Stallman is mentioned...
Could you rephrase your argument against his viewpoint in a way that doesn't include false statements?
Nothing from the conversation (or other things Stallman has said) supports the claim that Stallman believes charging money is evil. He believes that it's not good to restrict users' rights in certain ways, and perhaps that makes it hard for you to earn money with certain business plans that inherently depend on those restrictions, but there's no "right to earn money with all business plans", and that's nowhere near equivalent to a general belief that charging money is evil.
For example, as an opponent of large classes of patents, I don't believe that charging money to license patents in those classes is a business plan that should exist, which doesn't imply that I oppose charging money for things in general.
He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute.
When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for one, think that's the way it should be.
In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...
In general, the idea of not expecting other people to act ethically, and doing nothing when others are acting unethically, seems morally suspect. We regularly decry Facebook and Google for practices that compromise privacy--is this wrong? Privacy is not some magic right which everybody acknowledges is important; in fact, Zuckerburg believes he is helping the world by limit it.
Stallman is just doing the same thing as the people commenting on Facebook's practices, just against proprietary software rather than privacy abuses. I think that not only should we not blame him, but we should also commend him for maintaining and arguing for his principles.
Wait a minute now. Are those really a user's basic rights? Who is Stallmam to decide for both users and developers what our rights are? If users get those rights then developers have theirs taken from them.
This is unique to software and it isn't right. There's an underlying sense of entitlement to this that I don't agree with. No one is entitled to the right to modify my work and redistribute it. That completely undermines the developer and there's no incentive for people to innovate. It's a free for all where everyone rips everyone else off. This only works if everyone holds firm to Stallmam's beliefs.
If we want to talk about rights and freedom, how about the right for everyone to choose. As it stands now we all can choose to make or use software that allows us to modify, extend, or distribute or we can choose to go proprietary. Both have their merits for both users and developers. These aren't really rights at all. Anything that takes freedom from one group and shifts it to another isn't freedom at all.
Stallman's entire ideology is built around a false choice. This shouldn't be free or proprietary, it should be free and proprietary.
Stallman's ideology is actually fundamentally libertarian. The core principle of libertarianism is, "Your rights end where mine begin." It doesn't matter if you're a state, a corporation or another individual. Your rights end where mine begin.
Amongst the rights granted to each individual is the right to modify the tools that they use. You restricting my freedom to modify is as wrong (according to Stallman) as you restricting my freedom to move about.
I think "libertarian" is close but not quite right (unless you are coming from Chomsky's viewpoint, which is a niche within a niche, at least as far as US libertarian thinking is concerned).
If you take libertarianism to mean "allow anything that is consensual and does not involve externalities", then proprietary software as implemented today is totally fine. The user consents to an agreement that amounts to "I'll give you the output of my compiler, but I'm not going to give you the input. Also, you have to promise not to redistribute it."
Of course, setting up the details of that arrangement for every creative work would be a huge hassle, and copyright is an attempt (in my opinion a failed one) to streamline it. One way to envision copyright in a libertarian framework is a legal presupposition that when I tell you a "creative secret" (copyrighted work), you'll keep it secret (won't redistribute) unless I give you explicit permission (a license).
*Edit: to elaborate on why I think copyright is a failed streamlining of the above framework, I'll just give one example. If I broadcast my "creative secret" out loud (or over the EM spectrum) then I can't reasonably expect it to be secret. The people who listen to it and hear my "secret" have never formed a consensual agreement with me. Thus, copyright as it stands gets twisted into "you can't participate in public communications without promising to pretend that various things you hear are owned secrets"
A human's birthright is to learn from and improve their tools. Making software proprietary demotes a tool to an appliance we can only interact with in prescribed ways as mere consumers, a role which is beneath us. It severely limits the benefits society derives from your work, and I believe it also harms the customers through learned helplessness. Our incentive should be getting paid for writing the code as a work for hire, not coding on spec and then rent-seeking against people for finding it useful.
Before software, this was much less feasible and generally nobody bothered (e.g., this is why they still sell cars without the hood welded shut, and why simpler computers used to come with schematics).
_Wait a minute now. Are those really a user's basic rights? Who is Stallmam to decide for both users and developers what our rights are? If users get those rights then developers have theirs taken from them._
He didn't decide anything, he simply presents his view on such matters and backs it up with solid logic.
Anyone is free to disagree with him and to make oneself heard.
"Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute."
....except using it in a proprietary application and not redistributing your changes. Just ask the Thesis theme owner about this.
"He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute."
The problem with what you said here is that he things its evil to not allow someone to be able to share an application with all of their friends after they bought it once. I suppose he's not directly saying money is evil, but since you pretty much can't make money on an app this way (eventually it will be shared and you will lose any hope of making a profit), he's indirectly saying it.
Sure, you can make money on support, but this rules out most small companies because most simply don't have the support staff.
Eventually, this will catch up with the development community. We've all seen bookstores, newspapers, and many other traditional businesses go under in the past couple of years due to the Internet.
Business owners are getting more tech savvy as the older generation dies off. Why should I hire a college-educated software engineer that can write complex apps when I can get all of those difficult parts for free in an OSS app and hire a less-educated software mechanic for less money?
We aren't there yet, but as more and more things are released for free, we will be. My prediction is that the prevalence of open source software it will devalue developer wages over time.
I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.
I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.
How does that devalue developers? Heck, why would you consider this a problem at all? Do you consider it a problem as well that you can use free libraries as well instead of having to write your own implementation of everything? Or think it is problematic that people can use an operating system that works out of the box instead of having to program their own kernel and abstractions?
Avoiding redundant efforts and duplication is good. Whether that means not having to re-write the same code or not having to hire more developers to solve a problem that's been solved before does not matter.
The jobs argument is funny: I bet many of the same people who argue against open source software because it takes developer's jobs are the same who are completely happy with automation taking away menial factory jobs.
Maybe they only hired one developer instead of three. But this is a good thing--they were able to create the same value for a third the cost; this is a benefit to everybody.
"Maybe they only hired one developer instead of three. But this is a good thing--they were able to create the same value for a third the cost; this is a benefit to everybody."
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just warning developers that choose to give all their best code away for free. When they find themselves out of a job in 5 years, they shouldn't complain.
"How does that devalue developers? Heck, why would you consider this a problem at all? Do you consider it a problem as well that you can use free libraries as well instead of having to write your own implementation of everything?"
It's not a problem for me. I own a business and I'm a developer. It just means cheaper labor for me in the future.
Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become a philosopher.
RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism. Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals in a society.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box.
That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us back in this scenario.
I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.
>I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.
Not really. Stallman is actually making a very libertarian point when he insists that users have the right to modify and redistribute software. He's saying, in essence, "Your rights end, where mine begin." To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use. As a software developer, you don't have the right to take away a user's software because they modify and resell it.
> To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use.
I guess we should then be permitted to modify and resell a book, a movie, or anything else that's the output of one's thoughts?
If that's where the argument ended, I would simply say "well ok" and move on, but Stallman goes beyond that. He wants to dictate what terms I would put around any application I provide as a product, simply because it's in the realm of software. As if software is this magical land where I have no say in anything I produce.
Framing this industry as somehow different based on a simplistic parallel of hard goods = soft goods is disingenuous.
Very well put and I'd like to add to that but before I do I'd just like to say that I don't get why you were downvoted. This is such a well reasoned, on-topic comment and it deserves more discussion. It seems any time there's a post on RMS all of his supporters jump on the thread and I,mediate ly and relentlessly downvote anything that doesn't correspond to their worldview no matter how relevant or rational it is.
That speaks to the larger issue you touched on about Stallman and the FSF. They like to talk about control but don't see how they're being controlling. It's as if because Stallmam believes he's doing something "for the good of the people" it's okay to further his cause by any means necessary. I'm hesitant to say this but it kind of reminds me of Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a very well intentioned man and his cause was a just one. The only problem was that he went to extremes, glossed over the gray areas, and refused to accept any other view no matter how good a point the other side made.
You can be a supporter of free software while still supporting proprietary software. What Stallman is arguing for takes control out of the hands of the creators and gives it not to the people but the FSF. It's like Stalinist Russia except for software. For the good of the people everyone should own your work.
Stallman's views make some assumptions that are unacceptable.
1. He assumes people want to be able to modify the applications they use. Not so. In fact, most people I'd argue acquire software so they don't have to write code. I don't download a text editor because I want to extend it. I do it because it helps me get something else done. I choose the software that meets my needs. If I wanted to toy with source code I'd build my own IDE, compiler, etc and start everything from scratch.
2. It assumes everyone is, wants to be, or should be a programmer. What use is the source code if it looks like gibberish to you? This view glosses over the fact that the majority of users don't give one iota of a shit about programming. They just want to watch YouTube or write their English class essay.
3. It assumes that anything closed source must have something sneaky within it. Okay, so there's spyware and back doors in a lot of proprietary software. That doesn't mean the guy that doesn't release the source of his text editor (I'm thinking of my new favorite editor, Chocolate for Mac) is spying on you or doing anything malicious at all.
4. It assumes that anyone who supports, uses, or develops free software is on the honor system and would never do anything unethical. I think the part where he suggests that free software can be charged for is laughable. If you release anything under GPL you can be reasonably sure someone will take your source and give away some free version of your program or even derive something else and make money off your hard work. Red Hat Linux is not a good rebuttal of this point. Most software, especially from indie devs, doesn't lend itself to the Red Hat business model well at all.
Programming is a very valuable skill and the creators of great software deserve to choose how they license and distribute that software. Stallman wants to take choice away from one group and give it to, well, no one really. I'd argue we have choice now. I want to be able to choose proprietary software if it meets my needs and I want to be able to not only charge people for my work but make sure they cannot turn around and undermine my efforts by deriving or giving away my work. That's very reasonable. I love free software and use it often but I can't say there's anything evil about it. There's this sense of entitlement to Stallman's message that I don't like too.
