Slashdot Log In
Thus Spake Stallman
from the prophets-don't-mince-words dept.
Q: Lets assume for a moment that free software becomes the way business happens. Every company, if it wants to keep shareholder value anyway, opens up the source, makes their softwre free. What's next? Where do you go from there? What do you do for an encore? Or is that the "end of the war" and at that point, GPL protecting our freedoms, you go back to coding?
RMS: Non-free software is not the world's only problem. I undertook to work on this problem because (1) it dropped in my lap (I could not be neutral except by leaving my field), (2) I had an idea for how I could tackle it effectively, and (3) nobody else was even working on it.
It's clear that other problems such as religious fundamentalism, overpopulation, damage to the environment, and the domination of business over government, science, thought, and society, are much bigger than non-free software. But many other people are already working on them, and I don't have any great aptitude or ideas for how to address them. So it seems best for me to keep working on the issue of free software. Besides, free software does counter one aspect of business domination of society.
If in my lifetime the problem of non-free software is solved, I could perhaps relax and write software again. But I might instead try to help deal with the world's larger problems. Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating, and now I have a taste for it. I could volunteer my time to the ACLU, Amnesty International, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or ZPG, if I'm of any use to them.
(In 1988, George Bush called Mike Dukakis a "card-carrying member of the ACLU", in effect comparing the Bill of Rights with Communism and its defenders with Communists. This insult to the US Constitution inspired me, as it did many others, to join the ACLU. Let's hope the Shrub will not be president; one Bush was too many.)
Or I could work on winning for other kind of published information the freedoms that are appropriate for them. These could include dictionaries and encyclopedias, textbooks, scientific papers, music, and other things.
Q: Are there any good case studies of large corporations opening up proprietary in-house source code?
RMS: It's appropriate that you've used the terminology of the Open Source Movement for this question, because this is the sort of question they would be most interested in. That movement, founded in 1998, argues that "open source" is good because it is more profitable for software developers. They collect examples to justify that claim, and might be able to help you.
I am not the best person to ask for this kind of help, because I focus on something else. Rather than trying to convince IT managers that it is more profitable to respect our freedom--I don't know whether that is true--I try to convince computer users that they should insist on software that respects their freedom.
I am not affiliated with the Open Source Movement. I founded the Free Software Movement, which has been working to spread freedom and cooperation since 1984, and is concerned not only with practical benefits but with a social and ethical issue: whether to encourage people to cooperate with their neighbors, or prohibit cooperation. The Free Software Movement raises issues of freedom, community, principle, and ethics, which the Open Source Movement studiously avoids.
What the Open Source Movement explicitly say is right, as far as it goes; but I'm very unhappy with what they leave out. By appealing only to practical benefits, such as developing powerful reliable software, they imply by omission that nothing more important is at stake.
The Open Source Movement seems to think of proprietary software as a suboptimal solution (at least, usually suboptimal). For the Free Software Movement, proprietary software is the problem, and free software is the solution. Free software is often very powerful and reliable, and I'm glad that adds to its appeal; but I would choose a bare-bones unreliable free program rather than a featureful and reliable proprietary program that doesn't respect my freedom.
Eric Raymond said publicly that if "open source" isn't better (he means, more profitable) for software developers, it deserves to fail:
(Quoted in Salon, September or October 1998.) Implicit in this position is Eric's belief that proprietary software is legitimate, and his rejection of the idea that free software is imperative for freedom, ethics or social responsibility.)"Either open source is a net win for both producers and consumers on pure self-interest grounds or it is not. If it is, you cannot lose; if it is not, you cannot (and *should* not) win."
Imagine someone saying, "If an uncensored press is not better for publishers as well as readers, it cannot (and should not) prevail." This would show that person does not understand freedom of the press as an issue of liberty. For people who value civil liberties, such views are ludicrous. (This example is not entirely artificial, since corporate media owners and corporate advertisers increasingly exclude certain issues and views from press coverage.)
Although I will not join the Open Source Movement, I agree that they do some useful things. They might be the best ones to suggest something useful to say to your IT manager.
Q: Today everyone is hearing the critics about how open source is also hurting the community. All that aside did you ever in your wildest dreams at the very start of the "crusade" think that open source would be a "movment"?
RMS: I thought of free software as a movement years before the GNU Project. I learned about free software as a way of life by joining a community of programmers who already lived it. My contribution, the place where I took things a step further, was in thinking in ethical and political terms about the contrast between our way of life and the way most computer users lived. I made free software a movement.
But I never imagined that the Free Software Movement would spawn a watered-down alternative, the Open Source Movement, which would become so well-known that people would ask me questions about "open source" thinking that I work under that banner.
If we in the Free Software Movement are lumped in with them, people will think we are championing their views, not ours. For this reason, I don't want to discuss my work or the ideas I advocate under the rubric of "open source". If people seem to be lumping me in with them, I have to correct that mistake. The work I do is free software; if you want to discuss it with me, let's have the discussion using the term "free software".
Q: What would happen, in the hypothetical case, where you litigated the GPL, and lost? Do you have a Plan B?
RMS: It would depend on the precise details of the decision. Perhaps we would change some words in the GPL. Perhaps we would just say "Too bad, copyleft can't be done entirely right in that particular country or state." That would be unfortunate, but not necessarily a disaster.
For example, there are companies in China that distribute versions of the GNU/Linux system in China, and violate the GPL completely, by not distributing source code at all. As a practical matter, we cannot enforce the GPL against violators in China, because China does not enforce copyright law very much. (That policy makes perfect sense for China--the US likewise did not recognize foreign copyrights when it was a developing country.) But I don't think this means that the GPL is a failure in general.
Q: Have you ever thought of taking a more conciliatory attitude to things? Does the phrase "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" (I'm thinking of the "GNU/Linux" thing) have any resonance at all with you?
RMS: The reason I continue asking people to use the term "GNU/Linux" for the combination of the GNU operating system with the kernel, Linux, is that it's an important little detail. It makes a big difference for the GNU Project's effectiveness in spreading the philosophy of the Free Software Movement.
Calling the whole system "Linux" leads people to think that the system's development was started in 1991 by Linus Torvalds. That is what most users seem to think. The occasional few users that do know about the GNU Project often think we played a secondary role--for example, they say to me, "Of course I know about GNU--GNU developed some tools that are part of Linux."
This leads users to take their philosophical lead from Linus's "apolitical" views, rather than from the GNU Project. They tend to adopt the goal of boosting the popularity of "Linux" (what Linus jocularly calls "world domination"), rather than spreading freedom. Ironically, these users of the GNU system love the system so much that they cast aside the freedom for which we developed the system, in the name of the system's success. You might call this "success" for GNU, but it is not success for freedom.
Businesses that distribute "Linux" are actively urging people to adopt success as the goal, and sacrifice freedom for that. See http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html for a clear-cut example in a recent speech by the CEO of Caldera. They can do this more more easily and effectively when their audience does not connect the "Linux" system with that inconvenient, idealistic, uncompromising GNU Project. The ability to avoid calling to mind issues of freedom, by using the term "open source", is also convenient for them: they can ask people implicitly to give up their freedom, without explicitly acknowledging this implication of the conduct they recommend.
As businesses get more involved with free software, they will be faced with a choice: whether to do business in a way that contributes to the community, as Red Hat mostly does, or base their business on proprietary add-ons, as Oracle does and Corel mostly does. It will be up to the public--the community--to make business respect our freedom, by rewarding the businesses that do. The future of our community depends above all on what we value. If people adopt the value of popularity or success, we will end up with many people using a system that is based on GNU and Linux combined with lots of proprietary software.
I ask you to call the system GNU/Linux so you can help inform the system's users that it exists because of the GNU Project's idealism. Users who know that will probably take a look at our views, and some of them will agree. Later on, they may stand up for freedom.
Q: Are there any things that you sort of care about, but not very much?
RMS: Sure, plenty--but I don't argue about those things.
Q: What sort of things do you do in your spare time, and do you approach them with the same amount of intensity that you have for free software?
RMS: I like reading, music, eating delicious food, seeing natural beauty. I also like to dance, mostly Balkan folk dance, but an ankle problem means I can't do it any more. I also like sharing tenderness with someone I adore, but I only occasionally have a chance to do that.
Q: How applicable do you think the GPL is to these other areas? (As in, the concepts embodied in the GPL). Also, what are the essential aspects of any license that wishes to convey the same kind of freedom the GPL conveys?
RMS: I don't have a simple answer for this. The ethical issues about copying and modifying works depend on the kind of work and how people can use it. There is a certain basic similarity between all the kinds of works that can be in a file on a computer: you can always copy them, unless someone has gone out of his way to obstruct you. There are also differences. Novels, musical recordings, dictionaries, textbooks, scientific papers, essays, and software are not all used the same ways.
So I don't have the same views for all these different kinds of works. Textbooks and dictionaries should be free in the same strong sense as software: people should have the freedom to publish improved versions of them. For scientific papers, I think that everyone should be allowed to mirror them, but I see no reason to permit modified versions (that would be tampering with the historical record). For some kinds of works, such as novels, I am not sure just which kinds of freedom are essential.
However, a certain minimum freedom is essential for any kind of published work that is in a file on a computer: the freedom to occasionally make copies for other people. To deny people this basic freedom is intrusive and antisocial, and only Soviet-style methods can enforce the prohibition.
Q: I'm currently attempting to persuade a hardware manufacturer to provide unobfuscated source code and hardware documentation to free driver writers.
In your opinion, what is the best and/or most effective way to go about this? The court of public opinion? Economic arguments? Pointing out the higher quality of free drivers? Or should I just advise people to move to more enlightened hardware manufacturers.
RMS: I think it is best to use a combination of approaches:
- Informing them that people who want freedom will have to buy the other hardware for which free drivers are available (which is not quite a threat, because we would be doing this not as a punishment but in order to do the job with free software).
- Saying that the community is encouraging people to do reverse engineering to write free drivers (thus, obstinacy may be futile).
- Offering them the community's good will and commercial patronage if they cooperate.
- Asking them what their concerns are, and creatively suggest ways they can cooperate enough to enable us to write the free software soon, while still partly achieving those concerns.
Q: (from Bruce Perens) - I'm concerned that GPL restrictions on derived works haven't kept up with software technology.
RMS: I am working on GPL version 3, but this is not something that should be rushed. I put it aside for most of a year to work on the GNU Free Documentation License, but now I plan to get back to it.
Bruce: The most pernicious example is CORBA, which lets us create derived works from components that aren't in the same address space at all, yet work seamlessly as if they were. I'd rather not see my GPL work end up in somebody's proprietary program, simply because it's been server-ized to avoid my license restrictions.
RMS: If people can write non-free software that makes use of free CORBA components, that is bad in one way: it means that their non-free software can build on our work. But using our free software through CORBA does not make our programs themselves non-free. So it is not as bad as extending our programs with their non-free code.
I think it will be hard to claim that a program is covered by our licenses because it uses CORBA to communicate with our code. Perhaps in cases of particularly intimate coupling we could convince a court of that view, but in general I think we could not.
Bruce: A more common problem is dynamic libraries that are distributed separately from the executable. You say that a court would hold those to be devices explicitly used to circumvent the license restrictions, but that's rather chancy, and no substitute for explicit language regarding what is, and what isn't, considered a derived work in the GPL.
RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our licenses say, they are operative only for works that are derivative of our code.
A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, if the courts think it is not.
I think we have a pretty good argument that nontrivial dynamic linking creates a combined (i.e. derivative) work. I have an idea for how to change the GPL to make it clearer and more certain, but I need to see if we can work out the details in a way that our lawyer believes will really work.
Bruce: There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who make a work available for people to use without distributing it, and thus would be under no obligation to make the source code of their modifications available. Do I have to see my GPL work abused that way as well?
RMS: I too feel these servers are not playing fair with our community, but this problem is very hard to solve. It is hard for a copyright-based license to make a requirement for these servers that will really stick. The difficulty is that they servers are not distributing the program, just running it. So it is hard to make any conditions under copyright that affect what they can do.
I had an idea recently for an indirect method that might perhaps work. I'd rather not talk about it until our lawyer figures out better whether it can really do the job.
Bruce: It seems there's a lot of new technology that the GPL isn't keeping up with.
RMS: You make it sound as if solving these problems were only a matter working hard enough to change the GPL. But the GPL can only use copyright law as it exists. The recent changes in US copyright law to "keep up" with technology, in the DMCA, were commanded by the software privateers, and they were designed to help them restrict away the users' freedom, not to help us protect users' freedom. They allow copyright owners to restrict the mere running of a program--but only if some sort of hard-to-bypass license manager or access control enforces the restrictions. The freedom of free software means that even if we did put such artificial restriction into a program, the user could easily bypass them--and that's a good thing! But it means that new legal power is not available for use for copyleft.
The DMCA is a perfect example of the harm done when business dominates government and society. One part of the law explicitly says that only commercially significant activities are considered important (to legitimize a program which is often used to bypass technological means of controlling the users)--showing explicit prejudice against educational uses, recreational uses, communitarian uses, military uses, and religious uses.
Q: What kind of a position do you take on applications such as Napster?
RMS: Napster is bad because it is proprietary software, but I see nothing unethical in the job it does. Why shouldn't you send a copy of some music to a friend? I don't play music from files on my computer, but I've occasionally made tapes of records and given them to my friends.
Q: In particular, I see GTK Napster carries a standard GPL. I'd just like to know what happens when someone like Metallica wins a lawsuit against Napster who has a GPL'd counterpart such as GTK Napster? Can they touch it at all?
RMS: I don't know who will win those lawsuits, but I don't see anything that would give free programs any special protection from this kind of suppression. It seems to me that if they win against Napster, they would probably win against any program doing a similar job.
If they do not win using present-day law, we can expect to see the record companies purchase new laws they can use to suppress these programs in the future--and trot out famous musicians like Metallica (only famous musicians get much of their income from copyright) who will say that copying music is like killing their baby.
We can also expect to see fierce attempts to catch individuals who use Napster and imprison them. The War on Copying will become more vicious.
The War on Drugs has continued for some 20 years, and we see little prospect of peace, despite the fact that it has totally failed and given the US an imprisonment rate almost equal to Russia. I fear that the War on Copying could go on for decades as well. To end it, we will need to rethink the copyright system, based on the Constitution's view that it is meant to benefit the public, not the copyright owners. Today, one of the benefits the public wants is the use of computers to share copies.
Metallica justifies their lawsuit saying they think it is an outrage that their music has become a "commodity". Apparently they think music is a commodity when shared between fans, but not when large companies sell copies through record stores. What hypocritical absurdity!
Such drivel is normally laughable. But Metallica is presenting it as an excuse to attack our freedom, and that is no laughing matter. I encourage people to write letters to periodicals that cover this story, stating disgust for Metallica's lawsuit and rejecting their views.
Q: The battle over CSS has been about whether people have the right to use software (I consider DVDs software because they are programs read by a computer chip) when it is controlled by the content control system CSS, even after they've bought it. I hope they'll lose in the courts, but it is unclear at this point whether they will, however, my question is on another, related topic.
Suppose very strong, nearly unbreakable encryption were used on traditional Software DVD (i.e. stuff like M$ software or other companies software, just in a DVD format) and a DVD CCA for software were set up saying, "You aren't allowed to access the content of any DVDs unless you use our licensed DVD decryption software. Oh, and our DVD decryption software contains a legally enforceable (under UCITA) software license which states that you cannot reverse engineer any content you have decrypted using our decryption software." How would Free Software handle it?
RMS: With laws like that, there would be no lawful way to solve the problem. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act comes close to what you imagine, and it may be enough to prohibit free software for this job. (I don't know for certain, and I think the answer is not known yet.) It may be necessary to develop this software in countries which do not have these laws.
Q: Does there now need to be a Free Hardware philosophy which states that "Hardware which exists tied to a proprietary software system must be replaced by Free Hardware standards" or something similar?
RMS: I agree--but it will be hard to get the movie companies to release movies for that hardware. Fundamentally, the only solution will be when enough of the public believes in freedom to change the laws that are the basis for denying our freedom.
Q: I've been reading your opinions for some time now, and while they make sense in and of themselves, they beg certain other questions. What interest me most are your meta-ethical notions.
You often speak of notions such as right and wrong as if they were objective things; do you hold them to be so?
RMS: I think of right and wrong as based on how what we could do affects other people--the implications of imagining ourselves in the situation of the people our actions affect.
People can come to different conclusions about the implications. I don't believe in relativism; I don't believe that any conclusion is as valid as any other. If I and someone else disagree, at least one of us is wrong. Unfortunately, there's no way to place to get complete certainty about what's right and what's wrong. We can only try our best to figure it out.
The generalizations that we get from our consciences are our values. Our specific conclusions about ethics derive from these values; arguments about ethics depart from them. So my arguments about free software, or anything else, start from the values I believe in. They are addressed to people who at least partly share these values. When people persistently reject these values, there is nothing I can say to them. But sometimes people will start to share my values when I point out to them the situations the values are based on. They may then imagine the same feelings I felt or imagined.
Q: Are there "natural" rights, and what is the nature of their existence?
RMS: I think there are natural rights, natural in the sense that people are entitled to them regardless of what governments say about them. Freedom of speech is a good example; I think people are entitled to freedom of speech, and censorship is wrong. That is one example that I think most people reading this would agree with. I also believe that the freedom to share software and other published information is also a natural right.
There are also artificial rights, rights that are not natural. I agree with the US legal system, for example, in the view that copyright is an artificial right, not a natural one. It can be reasonable to have a limited kind of copyright system for some kinds of works, but this is a concession made to benefit the public, not an entitlement of authors and publishers. This system should be limited so that it doesn't seriously conflict with other people's natural rights.
Q: If so, how does this fit with your atheism? If not, do you feel that ethical claims have some basis beyond personal taste?
RMS: Religious people often say that religion offers absolute certainty about right and wrong; "god tells them" what it is. Even supposing that the aforementioned gods exist, and that the believers really know what the gods think, that still does not provide certainty, because any being no matter how powerful can still be wrong. Whether gods exist or not, there is no way to get absolute certainty about ethics.
Without absolute certainty, what do we do? We do the best we can. Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral.
----------------
Re:Kook? (Score:3)
I don't see where you get this from Stallman, and I don't think he'd agree with it. Mandatory disclosure, possibly. The right to reverse engineer and share, certainly. But a fixed $0.00 price tag has never been part of his philosophy, as far as I can tell.
These are subtle issues, so we need to be really careful when discussing them. Where RMS says, roughly, "if someone rejects my values, there's really nothing we can argue about," he is roughly describing any axiomatic system--for instance mathematics or formal logic, where an axiomatic system is used for clarity (well, some people think it is a religion, sullied by human issues such as clarity). I think he had such a well-thought-out answer for the 'values' bit because he is a careful, thoughtful, deliberate person.
So--mandatory disclosure doesn't jive with freedom, so I don't believe he'd advocate that exactly (IANRMS?). After all, the GPL doesn't propose to force full disclosure for Microsoft's code, unless this code is derived from GPL'd code (which is where copyright law comes into play, deciding what is a derivative, and whether the copyright holder has any power over the derivative). My right to analyze and share publicly distributed information, whether or not I paid to receive that information, is very much about my freedom. And the price bit is a red herring--the GPL doesn't require 'gratis' software.
RMS is trying to analyze and solve a really hard problem, accomodating freedom within a social structure. I don't think anyone has really solved this yet, especially the USA with it's rather inhumane economy (I am a US citizen, and I feel I can adequately justify this statements).
-Paul Komarek
Re:Scary thoughts... (Score:3)
If you read that interview carefully (and also pay attention to what goes on), you will note that he does not reflexively take the positions that one would expect. For example, when Corel decided to distribute their Linux beta only to people age 18 and up, he jumped in, all right -- squarely on the side of Corel (Corel is not obligated to distribute their Linux to anyone they don't want to, and they weren't restricting downstream distribution). I think he's actually quite careful and measured in what he says. I won't claim that he's diplomatic, just that he thinks carefully about what positions he takes and is very precise in his language.
I won't say that it's "fair" or not to have a low opinion of free software because of personal distaste for RMS, but I think it's very superficial to do so.
Re:GNU/Linux (-1 Flamebait) (Score:3)
That being said, the real contributions of GNU to the Linux kernel are a) all the handy pieces of the Unix puzzle which were made available to Linus and the world at large, and b) the GPL, the use of which even Linus believes was probably his smartest design decision with regards to the Linux kernel. I think it's not hard to argue that those two pieces of the puzzle EASILY represent a more signficant contribution to the movement than the kernel itself.
To suggest that if the "early Linux users had not found GNU they would have hacked their own tools." shows blatant disregard for the magnitude of the situation. For starters, GNU tools were used to BUILD Linux, so there wouldn't be a Linux for users to use without them. Additionally, without those tools, there would not have been a whole lot that that users could do with just a kernel to stare at. One could point to the BSD code base but for the fact that at the time it's "freedom" was severely tainted and people didn't want to come near it. Finally, I think both the BSD and the GNU guys would point out that the extensive set of tools that they built represents signficantly more work than an OS kernel. Indeed, the last time I checked glibc alone was signficantly larger than the Linux kernel.
Finally, you are missing your point about the whole GNU/Linux controversy anyway. The whole point is not to get people to trumpet GNU's horn. The GNU project's work was always meant to be a tangible mechanism to talk about free software, and GNU is trying to keep it in that role. Currently, people easily talk about Linux without talking about free software, and THAT is why GNU is trying to trumpet the GNU/Linux name scheme more than anything else. Indeed, I think the majority of GNU code is actually not RMS's, so it's hard to describe it as his work.
I do agree that it's likely a doomed effort because it's not achieve the kind of grass roots support which is necessary for that to happen.
Re:RMS's time is over (Score:3)
Methinks you miss the point. RMS has never been the leader of the Open Source "movement". He's not interested in that. What RMS advocates is Free Software, and that's a different animal (though they look the same on the surface)entirely. To put it simply:
Free Software is, by definition, open source. It also gives you full usage and reproduction rights, and prevents those rights from being taken away.
Open Source software is not necessarily Free. The source is available to StarOffice - it's Open Source software. But try downloading the code, changing a few text strings, then selling it as "FooOffice". Sun's lawyers would slap the taste right out of your mouth, you'd be hit so hard. And rightly so. Were StarOffice Free Software, this would not be an issue. Sun would not have the right to stop you from doing that.
Open Source is definitely a Good Thing, and useful. I'd rather see Open Source software with commercial restrictions than see closed commercial restricted software. But Free Software is the ideal that RMS has always been striving for - and Open Source is, at best, just a step in that direction. Remember, with people like RMS and his ideals out on the "fringe", it turns ESR and the rest of the Open Sourcers into the mainstream. And that's good for us all right now. Just a couple of years ago, Open Source itself was the "wacky fringe". How far we've come in just a short time!
- -Josh Turiel
Re:Overpopulation a "problem"? (Score:3)
There is a finite amount of resources on this planet. If we don't kill ourselves off with pollution first, we will eventually run out of space. This is a simple fact.
Also, most people would like to preserve some wilderness. Whether it be for recreation, aesthetic reasons, ethical reasons, or all of the above... It is hard to preserve natural areas on an overcrowded planet.
In addition, you say "more goods and services" are a good thing, however if this were true rich people would be the happiest people, and I don't find this to be true.
Re:Pot calling kettle black... (Score:3)
-------
Re:Kook? (Score:3)
Did it frighten you for someone to question your assumptions like that? Was the cognative dissonance making your head rattle?
No has yet given a satisfactory rebutal, only given reductio-ad-absurdum examples that are irrelevant to the axioms that I'm questioning.
I'll rephrase: assuming natural rights are real and not a fiction invented to justify that which is arbitrary, how is the right to share information less valid than the right to have ownership of information? Are either of these "natural rights", and can you support that arguement?
Re:You might be able to use the DMCA, anyway... (Score:3)
Trust me, I've read it. I read the drafts of it. I argued with a bunch of lobbyists about it. It's not as disastrous as it might have been. It's still a horrible law.
First of all, no, users do not "still have the right to crack software they have lawfully purchased". Not in general. They can do it to reverse engineer for interoperability, they can do it for certain research in cryptography. They can't do it just for their own convenience.
Secondly, even the permission to do it for interoperability is screwed up. Take DVDs. You can analyze CSS to figure out how it works, for the purpose of creating a DVD player app. You cannot actually distribute the app... the exception applies only to your own circumvention, not to the separate provisions on distributing tools. Not only that, but you can't actually use your crack to watch DVDs... you can only try to figure out interoperability.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the anticircumvention provisions are also bad in that, once you've put in place a measure to protect your copyright, you can start using it to enforce other restrictions that break fair use. Take CSS again. It's illegal to crack it because it prevents copying. It also enforces region coding. DVD producers have no legal right to tell users where they can play the disks... but, under the DMCA, users can't bypass region coding, because that requires bypassing the CSS, which is also a copy protection scheme, and is also protected.
There are lots of other practical problems with the DMCA... like the fact that it outlaws trying to reverse the encryption on a virus to figure out how it works. These things often look "fair and reasonable" until you actually think about how they can be applied.
What? (Score:3)
Umm, what? This had nothing to do with the question at hand and can be considered a blatant political plug. He wasn't asked about his political affiliation or what his views were on Bush; he was asked what he would do once, if ever, software was all open sourced and he had the opportunity to enter into another career path.
Not to be a face in the croud, but slashdot does seem to be getting more and more political. Naturally, it'll happen with a large body of people, but with politics and religion come hostilities. That's not desired.
-------
CAIMLAS
America the Incarcerated (Score:3)
I have to agree with RMS about the possibility of a "War on Copying" - in fact I used that very phrase just a few days ago in another discussion. And I'd anticipate that strong anti-copying laws would be even less effective that the anti-drug laws that are violated by about thirty million Americans per year.
Re:More Stallman (Score:3)
Let's review the facts here.
From the skeptic's dictionary:
"Three ideas seem essential to the concept of a cult. One is thinking in terms of us/them with total alienation from them."
RMS has publicly admitted that ESR/OSS does some good things, thereby creating a gray area. Every member of FSF knows and regularly associates with people who are not members of the FSF.
"The second is the intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members."
Text is not intense, no matter how big the font.
"And the third is the charismatic cult leader."
RMS is not very charismatic. ESR is more charismatic than RMS. And Linus is a nicer guy than either one, though I think ESR is more charismatic, and has a more dangerous agenda than RMS, though that's a different post.
What makes some people prefer GPL over OSS and proprietary is not that they like the guy that drafted it, but that it appeals to the morals and ideals that they already had even before learning about GNU.
Simply because my ideals are not a subset of your ideals, assuming perhaps prematurely that you have any at all, doesn't make me a 'lemming'. Maybe instead of calling me foolish without justification or qualification, you should raise a question on the specific way in which you think RMS is duping people.
Or maybe you should go troll somewhere else.
Smells like we've been here before (Score:3)
One shared point between Free Software and Open Source software has become more commmonplace in recent years: the releasing of source code to at least certain types of applications. Yeah, Microsoft doesn't give out the source to Word or Excel, but you can get the source to Quake, Descent, an entire OS, C compilers, window managers, device drivers, etc. And that's a good thing. Other times, software is given away in a "free as in beer" way, and that's also a good thing, though some people get very down on it. A student who has to use Windows and would like to work on some projects on his own can get Borland C++ free of charge. That's better alternative than any of the "free" compilers available for Windows (gcc and lcc variants).
Then we get into the whole "We need to be saved from evil businesses" line. The Free Software guys are very extreme about this. The Open Source guys are less so, promoting the collaborative development side of things. There are two things that jump out here.
The first is that, overall, free/open software has been out-done by non-free/closed commercial efforts. I know, I know, the Linux kernel is cool. Ditto for Apache. But in general, gcc is destroyed by Metrowerks and Borland, XWindows interfaces are beaten by Microsoft and Apple, The Gimp doesn't begin to approach Corel Draw or Photoshop, and nobody's come even close to developing a compelling or innovative free/open game (unless you consider a zillion Tetris and Asteroids variants to be compelling). Some halfway decent stuff comes along occasionally and many people fool themselves into thinking they've outdone mighty corporations, but they're scattered victories from skewed perspectives.
The second is that no one has even begun a good attempt to create a business-free computing environment. Wait, that's too wishy-washy. No one *wants* to have a business-free computing environment. There's much hoo-hah about MP3s and Napster and the big bad music industry--stick it to the man--but in the fan-boy computer biz people want multi-million dollar corporations developing toys for them: Pentium III, Athlon, GeForce, Voodoo 5, Soundblaster Live, optical mice, 72GB hard drives, etc. As a result, much of the ranting about GPL and so on is pointless, because nobody wants to get rid of businesses any more than they want Hollywood to stop making movies.
balancing capitalism and (pure) communism (Score:3)
I suspect most developers feel this way; not everybody is an 8-hour-a-day code monkey, just in it for the paycheck, but at the same time, you gotta eat and pay for the DSL line and the AirPort Base Station serving it to your machines. (Er, in some cases.)
RMS is content with remaining on the frontline of the free software fight, and I can't help but admire his ability to remain committed to what many consider a pointless fight (I can't even commit to what I'm going to have for lunch -- pisses off the people in line behind me daily). Other companies (Microsoft, NVIDIA, Sorenson, etc.) prefer the money-making at the expense of personal freedom and satisfaction, i.e. being able to look through the code for a neat hack and saying, "oh, so that's how it's done!" I plan to try and walk a line somewhere in between. I gave to the EFF and complained to my state's leaders about UCITA (MD passed it anyway, bastards), but I could no more get rid of my Macs and their proprietary software than I could quit my job supporting them and live off the land. Anybody else feel they're in a similar position?
Say what you will (Score:3)
...but he does fight for what he believes in, unabashedly and boldfacedly. In doing so, he's winning a few friends and more enemies, but he's also pushing for political and social change for what he perceives as the greater good.
I don't agree with everything that Stallman says, and I don't believe that he's taking the most reasonable path to his goal (or even pushing for moderate change), but in being inflexable and combative, he's pushing for freedoms and benefits which benefit us all, ultimately.
I think that RMS is extreme and abrasive, but I'm damn glad he's there, fighting for what he believes in. If he weren't doing it, then I might have to.
Re:balancing capitalism and (pure) communism (Score:3)
It should be noted I'm not a Free Software zealot. All this happened long before I was intimately acquainted with Free Software at all.
Things never do work out the way we want; I am going to have to give up my ideals (unless I can find some kind of job in Open Source, which is too much to ask). I can satisfy myself by saying it will only be temporary, but I'll still have to live with a profound sense of guilt.
I believe my situation fits in with what you're saying, even though my philosophies and ideals are independent of those of RMS and Free Software for the most part; it's still in the same league.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:3)
I thought it kind of odd that the replys were set up that way. I mean, of course I could go back to the original interview and look over the posts easily enough (in fact, I remembered almost all of the questions and could peg about three people to their comments without looking), but I digress...
I consider the differing format an experiment that maybe didn't work out as well as had been hoped for.
May I make a suggestion? Provide a link with each question to the original comment in the original story. That way, I can see who made the comment and what kind of discussion it sparked.
I can also give credit where credit's due
Thanks
Here's my [redrival.com] copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
Re:Kook? (Score:3)
No. Freedom is me getting to do whatever I want with my code, including selling it to whoever I want at whatever price I want with whatever conditions I want.
Yes, freedom means that you can do whatever you want with your code, but it doesn't meant that you can tell someone else what they can and can't do with that software. Ownership of intellectual property is an illusion, a byproduct of living in a capitalistic system. Like RMS and the US legal system say, Copyright laws protect an artificial right. The original intent of copyright law was to encourage creativity in a capitalistic system by allowing authors to profit from their work for a limited time, not to uphold some sort of fundamental ethical belif.
The problem today is that copyright law has been abused to no end. It is now a tool for those is power to try to control and own information. That is wrong. They have launched propoganda campaigns in an attempt to convince us that violation of copyright law is "theft" and "piracy" and is the equvalent of a felony. That is just untrue.
Right now I would also like to state that I consider the GPL a necessary evil. Yes, it does force restrictions upon the use of the work, but it is our only weapon against those who would try to take ownership of the work. In a perfect world without copyrights and licensing, everything would be in the public domain and we would not have to protect ourselves from those who would try to own thought.
However, I do sympathise with you in that RMS's approach is quite radical and idealistic, and unfortuntely doesn't do much to help those working in the "real world". That, I feel, is the gap that Open Source fills. While RMS is right in saying that Open Source alone is not what we should be ultimately striving for, it is a step in the right direction. Free Software is not applicable to the current economic situation like Open Source is, but one also has to realize that RMS is not trying to address economic issues. RMS is concerned primarily with ethical issues, and that is a Good Thing(TM). Whether or not we can follow his philosiphies today is not as important as recognising that his belifs are fundamentally good. Only then can we hope to see a world where there is no need for copyrights.
thePsychotron
Stallman not a "radical" (Score:3)
One could take much more radical positions. For example, Lawrence Lessig [harvard.edu] proposes that copyright law be changed to make copyrights on software expire much sooner, perhaps in five years. Now that's a radical position. In some quarters, it would be viewed as a blatant taking of private property by state action. Stallman is nowhere near that radical; he just wants to give away stuff he, and people who agree with him, create.
What scares people about Stallman is that he's effective. He's a good programmer, and people use his free software. He's figured out a way to make his world of free software slowly expand, by carefully engineering the General Public License. With the rise of Linux, multibillion dollar companies find their market share threatened by products that sell for nothing and can be worked on by anybody. Stallman has found a way to change the world for the better, and some people don't like that because it threatens their profits. Tough. Closed-source vendors can compete with free software, but their stuff has to be better and cheap. They hate that.
Re:Stallman = 2 scary for sesame street (Score:3)
For Linux to get mainstream we must get rid of the radicals and focus on the quality of the results.
1) I don't think GNU/Linux would be where it is today without the radicals that helped develop/code/test/push/hack/smash the system. do you think all the kernel hackers out there are "non-radical normal people"? The more a person belives in something, the more a person cares about something, the better job he is going to do.
2) The quality of the results will increase in ALL software once it is Free (as in speech).
FSF and Open Source (Score:3)
Re:You might be able to use the DMCA, anyway... (Score:3)
It's all in the interpretation of the DMCA. In fact there are provisions already in place within the very sections that prohibit "circumventing a technological measure", that take into account 'fair use' when refferring to a users freedom...
For example: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Lower there are provisions to allow the copying of these works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; etc in sections C.
In fact in section (f) which you don't really hear about that often because people are yelling about how evil the DMCA is, it says:
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The DMCA seems like a reasonable and fair document if you actually read it, it *already* takes into account most of the things people mercilessly bash it for not having. It seems like from what I've read users still have the right to crack software they have lawfully purchased and I see nothing wrong with having to pay for a product. I'm not really sure if giving someone a copy of software is fair use though, if you let someone borrow a book you no longer have the book, software can be reproduced indefinately with exact copies.
Anyway here are the offending sections. [loc.gov]
Scary thoughts... (Score:3)
Straw man (Score:4)
Note that nowhere does Stallman advocate "mandatory disclosure and a fixed $0.00 price tag on software". He does not speak of laws to "do away with the markets". You've fabricated this out of thin air.
What he is advocating is that users of software do what is in their own best interest (which RMS believes is to use Free Software). This is in fact using the free market (by boycotting non-free software), nowhere close to trying to legislating it out of existence.
A point that he did not directly make is that companies are users of software, too. Most companies use a lot more software than they produce. And so, by his argument, it would follow that it is in the best interests of most businesses to use free software as well, so that they could have control over its use and freely modify it as necessary. So free software could be good for the economy as a whole, even while bad for software compaanies themselves.
Re:Pot calling kettle black... (Score:4)
From the following case:
A DEWAYNE OLDHAM v. THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE, INC.
No. 3-93-0472
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION
849 F. Supp. 611; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4974
An excerpt from the Judges ruling:
"[*613] In early May, 1993, the ACLU sent a letter to Tennessee public school officials. The letter stated, in part, that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 2649, 120 L. Ed. 2d 467 (1992), precluded all speakers, including students, from leading prayers at graduation ceremonies. The letter further stated: "Please understand that if your school system does sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremonies and we are contacted by students and their families, we will most likely pursue litigation." Exhibit No. 1 to second amended complaint (filed October 25, 1993; Docket Entry No. 38). "
Granted, there is a lot of wiggle room here based on what "sponsors" and what "prayer" are meant to say. There were a couple of other cases in the news local to Cincinnati here where student led prayer was challenged by the ACLU.
I am not trying to slam the ACLU in general. I think they do for the first ammendment what the NRA does for the second ammendment, and I think both organizations are extremely important to our nation. I _want_ them to be a little nutty on defending the extremes, just to protect the middle.
I just wish they would treat conservative Christians with the same extreme views with which they treat everyone else.
I would be happy to listen to any counterexamples. Surely there is a case somewhere where the ACLU defended the rights of a conservative Christian to share their personal belief system in a highly public forum...
Bill
GNU/Linux (-1 Flamebait) (Score:4)
Calling the whole system "Linux" leads people to think that the system's development was started in 1991 by Linus Torvalds.
and later on
I ask you to call the system GNU/Linux so you can help inform the system's users that it exists because of the GNU Project's idealism.
IIRC the GNU's website has an entire page (actually it is several screenfulls) arguement for Linux being called GNU/Linux, and these statements are sort of contradictory to that. On a side note I would call it GNU/Linux if it had spread from the community and not RMS shoving it down everyone's throat. How could anyone deny that Linux was started in 1991? The GNU project and Linus were not working together. According to your own arguement RMS, people started using the kernel Linus built and then they wanted tools so they could use it everyday, and it was not accident that they found the GNU project. Previously and until HURD is ready to be used prime time, the GNU's only obstacle was a kernel. The GNU project exists (well is so big now) because of the Linux kernel, not the other way around. If the early Linux users had not found GNU they would have hacked out their own tools. But I think everyone can agree that downloading source and compiling is a lot easier than roll your own. I think you need to stop shoving "GNU/" down the throats of everyone (BTW it should be Linux/GNU since the kernel is before the programs) let GNU stand on its own feet, I think you'll be suprised at what happens. Everyone (well the smart ones) know that the smart hackers, coders, aren't out blowing their horn all day (maybe to their friends) to the world, only the idiots do. The idiots have something to hide, their skill is not good enough to deserve praise. Well I think the GNU movement is a good one, but hell if I'm going to give it to you if your trying to force it on me.
You might be able to use the DMCA, anyway... (Score:4)
I think this is a misreading of the DMCA. The protection measure does not need to be "hard to bypass". People think that it does because the DMCA talks about measures that "effectively protect" rights of copyright holders... but if you look at the text more closely, you'll discover that "effectively protects" is redefined to mean nothing that any rational person would recognize.
A measure "effectively protects" something if, in the course of its normal operation, the measure enforces some kind of policy. It doesn't matter how trivial it is to bypass the measure... it's still effective by this definition.
I think (IANAL) that you could very probably enforce the DMCA against anybody who tried to bypass (say) a makefile hack that e-mailed any modified source to the FSF whenever it was compiled. It's that broad.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4)
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I always find it interesting when people point out the lack of "morals" in our society, usually referring to those who are poor and or do "bad things". It's interesting because this lack extends from the top all the way to the bottom, which most people don't realize. A wealthy businessman can do nearly infinitly more damage with his pen and a contract than can any number of drug dealers with a gun. It's simply much harder to see. A contract is just a piece of paper, it's effects aren't immediatly obvious. A child laying dead in a pool of blood from a driveby shooting is a clear source of anger and disgust.
Did the poor create this world? Of course not. It was those on top, wealthy, or with political power, or both. That doesn't let anyone off the hook "morally" but one poor person doing drugs does way less damage than, say, the CEO of nike who likes to brag about how cheap they can make their products overseas in their slave labor shops.
At least RMS tries to do something positive that helps everyone. Apparently this is some sort of liberal (or, obviously communist) conspiracy. That word "community" is just too clse to the word communism! No, I think you miss the big picture of social issues. RMS's view is academic compared to yours, as people like you limit your view to whats on the street, whats on the surface. In law enforcement though this doesn't really suprise me, thats how the job works. Law enforcement has as much to do with the bad conditions in many parts of this country as the drug dealers and others do, from corruption and oppresion to a nearly fascist police state. In that respect, our problems are very much legislative related as much as they are social.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4)
> and conservative politicians in general were
> completely unnecessary in this forum.
I disagree.... slashdot is a discussion forum, not
a purely technical one (not even a mostly
technical one). Discussion of politics and social
issues are definitly relavent...especially in an
interview.
> The same drug policies have continued for eight
> years under Clinton's administration -- does
> that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment
> in this country continues under a Democratic
> administration, yet the implication is that it's
> the fault of Republicans.
Which, in my mind, goes to show that there is very
little, if any, real difference between the
Republicans and the Democrats. Lately, I have been
refering to them, collecitvly, as the
"Republicrat Party", which is split into 2
factions, which hate eachother for no real reason.
As for the war on drugs, I have to agree with the
people who have said it is a "religous war". It is
the only context in which it makes sense. Any
practical view of it shows that it is an utter
failure. It has not reduced use, or supply in
any real way. In fact, current day drug
prohibition, is a failure in ALL of the same ways
as Alcohol prohibition of the 1920's.
In fact, in an interview, the head of the DEA
advocated bringing back alcohol prohibition, and
stated that he believed it could be done within
"the next 10 years".
However, I digress. yes, there are social problems
here in america. Our legislative problems just
amplify them. You can't legislate away a social
problem, yet time and again, our society tries
to do just that. (the war on drugs is just 1 set
of examples)
-Steve
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5)
It was the way RMS formatted his replies, taking one question at a time in informal dialogue fashion instead of replying to multi-part questions in one big lump. I left Bruce's name in because Richard did, and because they're both high-profile people in this particular area.
Besides, I get bored using the same format for every interview and thought doing it a little differently -- just once -- would break things up.
The choice had nothing to do with the Hellmouth book thing (which I had *nothing* to do with, BTW). I didn't even think about it while I was formatting this interview.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
- Robin
Pot calling kettle black... (Score:5)
RMS is the strongest religous fundamentalist I have ever had the pleasure of hearing speak, and anyone who does not see the dogma in his open source philosophies has not thought them through(IMHO).
I have plenty of respect for RMS, though I don't agree with much of what he has to say. I have plenty of respect for C.S. Lewis also. They are both religious fundamentalists, with different belief systems.
I would love to join the ACLU, but not until they stop their bigoted prejudices against people of faith. If a validictorian senior wanted to quote Nietzce in her speech, the ACLU would be defending her to the death. If she wants to quote the New Testament, they would have her for dinner. I believe she should have the right to quote either.
Anyway, Christian Dogma, or Open Source Dogma, I don't see much difference in methods, and I think both should be afforded the same constitutional protections.
As a side note, when RMS spoke in Cincinnati, he spoke at the beginning of his speach spoke of how women are unfairly repressed both professionally and by the institution of marriage. Half way through the speach, when he was handing out M&M's to the audience, when he got to an attractive woman he made her eat them out of his hand if she wanted them, while everyone else got to grab them from the bag. The whole thing made me feel very uncomfortable, I can't imagine how she felt.
This kind of behaviour would get you fired under existing sexual harrasment guidelines in any US company. Apparently, his personal behavior is currently at a lower standard the US legislated laws. RMS is welcome to do whatever he wants in his public speaches, but I am just as allowed to call him on it in public forums.
These are just my opinions based on first hand experience. Feel free to post your own opinions based on YOUR first hand experience. I am not looking for a flame war, believe it or not.
Bill
Kook? (Score:5)
I hope those of you who seriously detract from Stallman's ideals do so only out of some bitter need to put other people down, or for pure trolling fun - you MUST understand that if you don't stand up for yourselves, or support the people who stand up for you, you will lose. You will lose everything from the right to pick what brand of peanut butter you eat to the right to call Stallman a whacko.
If commercials on television don't revulse you, if you can't see the social conditioning inherent in modern advertising, if the idea that someone might tatoo themselves with the NIKE symbol does not make you ill and sad, then you're already lost.
--
blue
This guy is nuts.. (Score:5)
And what other crazy ideas does he have? I'm sure that if he had his way, scientists would actually _share_ things they discover with other scientists! Don't you know that that would lead to?!? Lifesaving medical advances and the technology to reach the stars! Do you want to live in a world like that?
Base Philosophies (Score:5)
Reply to all (Score:5)
First, I am glad that the mention of the Second Amendment did not immediately generate into a pro-gun/anti-gun flamefest. I only intended it to be an example of the ACLU's "selective enforcement" of the Bill of Rights. My own view is that we NEED organizations like the ACLU and the NRA who are known for no-compromise, even extremist stances. When rights we DO care about are threatened, these groups become our friends.
Second, I am neither suggesting that Stallman is a Communist nor that Communism itself is evil. It is a system of government. That's all. It happens to not be the system of government which the United States has chosen. From a pure political science standpoint, the US is a representative democracy with some elements of socialism (i.e. welfare). Furthermore, I do not take the breakup of the Soviet Union as proof that Communism cannot work. One could argue that the system which the Soviet Union employed fell short of the Communist ideal. China also aspires to a Communist system and is still around.
I should point out that my degree is in political science with a minor in criminal justice. Before finding my true calling in software development, I did work in the criminal justice system.
As a result of my experiences, my view on these matters is different from the opinions Mr. Stallman expressed. From my perspective, Stallman is, frankly, a little naive.
The statement about more people being imprisoned in the United States than in communist Russia means very little by itself. We are supposed to draw the conclusion that the US system is therefore more repressive than communist Russia. There is no real evidence on which to base this conclusion, however. You are comparing two very different systems of government with very different levels of individual freedom. Communist Russia was known for "re-education" of people who disagreed with their political philosophy. At various times, people who opposed the people in power were simply executed (rather than imprisoned). Prison conditions in Russia were nowhere near as bearable as they are here.
Having worked with these "repressed" imprisoned individuals, my own conviction is that we have too many people breaking laws in the United States. This is not the fault of the laws, but rather the people. There is a subculture in this country in which going to prison is expected -- kids grow up visting their dad on Tuesdays and their uncle every other Thursday. They expect to be on the other side of that plexiglass themselves someday.
One may argue that we should change the laws to make fewer things illegal. Again, having been there, I am convinced that the majority of people imprisoned SHOULD BE.
(Or, as Richard Pryor once said after visiting a penitentiary, "Thank God we got penitentiaries!")
Regarding drug laws -- I am not in any way convinced that legalization of drugs will reduce imprisonment numbers. While alcohol is legal for many, a huge number of people end up commiting harmful acts as a result of their alcohol consumption. The same applies to currently illegal drugs.
I would happily accept drug legalization as long as people are still held responsible for their actions when they take the drugs. If you commit a murder on PCP, you get locked away for murder. Under such a system, I very much doubt that we will see a net decrease in prison population. The increase in drug use will very likely cause an increase in other punishable offenses. This will offset the decrease in possession/distribution offenses.
(Side note: FWIW, I think marijuana is a less dangerous drug than alcohol. Drunks want to fight. People who are stoned just want to eat and be your friend.)
Again, I highly respect Mr. Stallman and think he has done as much for software developers than any single individual. I just can't align myself with his social views. This is based on my own life experiences and probably doesn't mean anything to anyone else.
Sorry for the length of this post.
Oh dear (Score:5)
I agree completely that there is no shame in supporting the efforts of the ACLU to preserve the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, the Second Amendment is one of those freedoms and the ACLU chooses to ignore or "interpret" it in a such a way that it becomes meaningless. Therefore, painting the ACLU as the Grand Defenders of the Bill of Rights omits a pretty important detail.
Furthermore, the attacks on the "War on Drugs" and conservative politicians in general were completely unnecessary in this forum. The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
Perhaps Stallman should come down from his throne and spend a few months actually working in law enforcement. Perhaps he should see the kind of cruelty and callousness exhibited by elements of our society. Perhaps then he wouldn't be so quick to complain about high rates of imprisonment in the U.S.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I respect the work of Stallman. I use and will probably continue to use the GPL. After reading this, though, I see the point of those who criticize him as a stereotypical ivory-tower liberal academic. He simply doesn't see the big picture with regard to social issues.
Thank you for the GPL, Mr. Stallman, but I can't in good conscience align myself with your view of the world.
Re:Overpopulation a "problem"? (Score:5)
Huh??? Maybe you would like to spend a couple of years living in a village in Bangladesh, or in a slum in Bombay? (I think not.)
I guess I'm not used to seeing blatant trolls starting at +2...
Re:Kook? (Score:5)
In some post long ago, someone called RMS a 'kook' for standing up for freedom. I replied that maybe he is crazy, and maybe I am too, and that if standing up for freedom means being crazy, then that's fine.
I hope those of you who seriously detract from Stallman's ideals do so only out of some bitter need to put other people down, or for pure trolling fun - you MUST understand that if you don't stand up for yourselves, or support the people who stand up for you, you will lose. You will lose everything from the right to pick what brand of peanut butter you eat to the right to call Stallman a whacko.
This isn't meant as an attack, though I am sure it will read like one. I just don't think many people understand the principles that RMS and ESR are standing for. It doesn't help that RMS characterizes everyone who opposes him as an agent of evil-- hopefully, this will be food for thought and not a troll.
RMS calls free software an issue of freedom. But think about this as a person who wants to keep the fruits of their hard work. Or wants to see it used right. What RMS is really talking about is mandatory disclosure and a fixed $0.00 price tag on software. Is this right? I don't think so, but many do. Is this 'freedom'? No. Freedom is me getting to do whatever I want with my code, including selling it to whoever I want at whatever price I want with whatever conditions I want.
It is easy to just say "it's us or the corporations". But let's get all the critiques on the table, then, and see who is for freedom and who isn't.
If commercials on television don't revulse you, if you can't see the social conditioning inherent in modern advertising, if the idea that someone might tatoo themselves with the NIKE symbol does not make you ill and sad, then you're already lost.
OK, so to promote freedom, would you ban these commercials? Or just put out restrictions on what can or can't be said on TV? Or on their shirt? 'Social Conditioning' as used by anti-business zealots, could mean virtually any kind of persuasion. So while RMS is to be loved for advertising his development model, Nike should make people ill and sad for doing the same thing?
Free for RMS, then, means I am free to tell you what to do with the fruits of your creativity. At least until another tyrranical majority finds someone else to pick on. Because if we aren't pushing Open Source on the basis of the better value and lower cost it brings to the end users, we'll get stomped on by the marketplace. Of course, RMS would do away with the markets-- how? Laws, of course, which ultimately boils down to the use of force to make end users' decisions for them, and more laws to tell coders that their creativity belongs to someone else.
ESR is doing a great thing. What everyone should realize is that he and others (including the people at Valinux and RedHat and the other 'evil sellout corps') are the ones fighting for freedom. Open Source is a better choice for the consumer. People don't need it shoved down their throats-- they are willing to pay money for it. That is the reason for the movement's success. Better products at lower prices.
Prevent people from getting better products at lower prices, and you are restricting freedom. Telling a programmer that he must release his source and charge nothing for it is wrong. If it is the better way to create happy endusers and programmers, then it'll happen anyway.
That word 'freedom' is one of the most important words we have. It is also one of the most easily abused. Take a good look at what people are propagandizing for. If you think RMS is right, fine. There are tens of thousands of people like you. But don't call telling other people how they should do their job freedom.
Previewing this, I guess it is a little more of a rant than I intended. But it really annoys me that people have so much hate in them. ESR and other classical liberals (or economic conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever the label is this week) always take great pains to respect differences of opinion. Then they get trashed by zealots who call them either stupid or evil.
Agree with the above, don't agree, whatever. But at least take a minute to try to understand what both sides are all about. Even if you decide that RMS is right and this post is crap, at least realize that the only thing you do by demonizing those you don't agree with is blind yourself. In the end, (and I don't mean Blue here, I mean it in the general sense) you only fool yourself.
I almost completely agree with everything RMS says (Score:5)
I also believe strongly in the underlying battle for fundamental civil freedoms and rights behind GNU, and certainly see the distinction between that and Open Source.
Unfortunately, while I rage against the machine (and donate generously to the ACLU and the Libertarian party), I also see it as an inevitably losing battle - I'm becoming more convinced by the day that humans (at least Americans) simply don't truly want freedom - they want to be bounded and "safe". Folks say they want freedom of speech until some KKK member says something they don't like - then it's all about how we need new laws limiting hate speech and whatever else they don't want to hear. Folks like property rights until their neighbor parks some trashed pickup in their front yard - then it's all about how we need new laws restricting what people can do with their property.
It's really not about big business, though I wish it was. It's really about fear people have that somebody else will get a better deal than them, and how to stop that from happening. You could blame the record companies for the rash of new lawsuits and restrictions on freedom, but frankly they can do that because most people just don't care. Freedom is just not an important issue for most people, those of us for whom it is a big issue tend to stand out on some lunatic fringe.
The Open Source movement, while emasculated from a moral/ethical/rights point of view, is at least crafting a message that is getting heard by more folks because it caters to their greed rather than a hope that they will care about freedom and what a lack of it might mean to them in the future. But, it's certainly not the same message that RMS is trying to convey - which ultimately is a far more important message.