Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Apr 2009 15:38 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source On June 29, 2007 the Free Software Foundation released the GNU General Public License, version 3. What happened since then? Federico Biancuzzi had the opportunity to discuss many subjects with the FSF's founder and president Richard Stallman.
Thread beginning with comment 358549
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Tue 14th Apr 2009 21:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

FSF is far from victory and with Sun's business going down the drain, RMS will have even harder time making companies believe that there is money to be made with FOSS.


Well the problem I have always had with this fool is simply he talks the talk, but...He really seems to live in this fantasy world that all software should be free, but doesn't really explain who pays the developers? Or should they all just get cushy jobs at MIT? I never thought it took rocket science level understanding to figure out that to pay for the cost of development for a lot of software, companies will HAVE to sell it, and in order to sell it they can NOT have closed source.

The whole Red Hat/Novell model, as well as a few others simply can not be extended to the whole world of software. The best example I can think of is game development. Games now take quite a considerable time to make, and the cost of that has to be paid somehow. Now can anyone name even one open source game that is a success? Is there a Call of Duty, or Diablo 3 open source competitor? Not even close, and for a damn good reason. Development takes time, time is money, money does not grow on trees, except for in the world of RMS.

I would not find him so damn annoying if he wasn't so god damn clueless, arrogant, ignorant, and down right foolish.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by karl on Tue 14th Apr 2009 21:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

You know in all likelihood RMS more thoroughly understood the software industry than you ever have, prior to you even being born. Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.

RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. When you write software others are going to be forced to use it. These users will be at the mercy of your software and if that software is not available in source form and allow for modification then those users have absolutely no ability to change the software to better fit their needs.

RMS's point is that their comes great responsibility with writing software-something which most softwares authors are completely oblivious to. When you realize that you yourself alone cannot shoulder the burden of that responsibility it behooves you to share your code so that others can improve the software for other users.

Right now a handful of Programs dictate how 80% of those who work with computers work-day in and day out. Those people are forced to use this software by their employers and this software becomes a tool of their employers to further dictate how these people do their jobs. When the programs are Free, the employers can hire people to improve the software for their employees, and in turn the employees can have input in the way the software works that they are forced to use.

I see nothing naieve, clueless or arrogant about such.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by DrillSgt on Tue 14th Apr 2009 22:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

That applies to most everything. The fact of the matter remains in that, I would guess, at least 80% of people do not truly enjoy their jobs. You know, the thing that actually puts food on the table, and which Stallman has held only briefly, then moving into that fantasy world of Academia? People write software to make money, though there may be a few who actually enjoy it and don;t want to make money off of it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by darknexus on Tue 14th Apr 2009 22:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

So what your saying is that, if someone wants to get paid for writing software, they don't enjoy it? They don't wish to support themselves, their families, etc by doing what they enjoy? Taking it further, are you saying that no one should ever be rewarded for doing something if they enjoy it, and should only be paid for doing jobs they don't like?
I don't think RMS has much understanding of the software industry at all. This is not to say he does not understand software, but he seems to have no respect for either the developers who get paid for work they most likely do enjoy, nor respect for the economics of the situation. If that is ones fulltime job, should not that person be paid for their efforts? He dismisses economics as casually as a Christian dismisses the views of an atheist.
I have a lot of respect for the movement he started, and a lot of respect for free software and those who develop it. But, I'm sorry to have to say, I have very little respect for Stallman himself anymore. He's withdrawn into his fantasizing and it doesn't look like he'll be coming down to earth anytime soon.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Apr 2009 14:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You know in all likelihood RMS more thoroughly understood the software industry than you ever have, prior to you even being born. Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.


RMS has never worked in the software industry. He has been in academia his entire career, which is very, very different.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 18:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.


That would only be a valid analogy if Armstrong had spent 20 odd years talking about going to the moon, without ever making it past the stratosphere.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by Lennie on Tue 14th Apr 2009 23:21 in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You really don't know where most money goes that is spend on writing software, do you ? 80% is custom build, custom changes to software. If the base is Free Software (as Stallman would call it) the changes still would be needed and people would need to be paid to do it, but life would be easier because it would be easier to use an existing program.

Edited 2009-04-14 23:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Wed 15th Apr 2009 01:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

You really don't know where most money goes that is spend on writing software, do you ? 80% is custom build, custom changes to software. If the base is Free Software (as Stallman would call it) the changes still would be needed and people would need to be paid to do it, but life would be easier because it would be easier to use an existing program.


Compare the number of profitable companies selling closed source software (thus employing devs) to that of companies selling OSS? Then get back to me on this...

I do not think of him as evil or bad. In fact there are areas of agreement I have with him, and areas I respect him for. But in regards to his whole position of OSS vs closed source, he just has absolutely no understanding of business models, job markets, investment, growth, and anything economic related. While he preaches a nice and rosy picture, the moment a person walks outside the door it will be easy to see that he just does not understand the world outside of his sheltered existence.

OSS, GPL, etc.. are a great addition, and certainly is nice for any development team to have choice in determining how they want to distribute software. But taken as a whole, it just simply is a fantasy model that would quite simply see the end to technological development, especially in software.

Irony is that large companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, etc.. are usually the companies that pay the research and investment dollars, as well as the larger endowments universities have. As a researcher, even RMS is very much paid by closed source software model, albeit very indirectly. But who exactly HAS the investment dollars to give to universities for research labs?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 04:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

So the basis of your nonsense is that nobody will pay for free software and that in your failed mind Free Software is gratis software ...

#1 People pay for Free Software
#2 Free Software is a Billion dollar market that is in almost every industry.

Why do Free Software need replacement for **games** that exist on other platform ? Answer it don't.

Your criminal defamation should not be tolerated by OsNews as they become accomplice of your crime.

Note : RMS MIT position was unpaid ...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 19:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Your criminal defamation should not be tolerated by OsNews as they become accomplice of your crime.


Hmmm...

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_lawyer

"During a big drama meltdown, someone claims to have been the victim of some crime such as: slander, defamation, libel, copyright infringement, harassment, spam, forgery, impersonation, whatever. The victim's sock puppets then all rise up to describe and define the alleged crime. In 99.999% of these cases, the alleged crime doesn't even come close to meaning what the e-lawyer thinks it does.

Rising to the level of e-lawyer requires that one side start spouting off a bunch of legal sounding bullshit in the most serious manner possible. A good e-lawyer will use recycled arguments from TV shows like Law & Order or Matlock. The very best e-lawyers practice during their spare time playing Phoenix Wright. And of course, everyone gets a laugh when, on the advice of an e-lawyer, some aggrieved party actually consults a real attorney and has to pay $200 to be laughed at and told they have no case."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by rramalho on Wed 15th Apr 2009 10:14 in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
rramalho Member since:
2007-07-11

You mix everything...

Did he ever said that software must be for free? He clearly didn't say that, and you're just being unfair.

In the FSF site, if you just try (you clearly didn't...) to understand the principles. No one said that you don't have to sell the software - in fact, the FSF sites says you should sell the software.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by jokkel on Thu 16th Apr 2009 15:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

[The best example I can think of is game development. Games now take quite a considerable time to make, and the cost of that has to be paid somehow. Now can anyone name even one open source game that is a success? Is there a Call of Duty, or Diablo 3 open source competitor?

A lot of closed source games use the same engine e.g. Quake or Half-Life in some version. What makes a game a success is mostly the design of the game's inner workings and the artwork plu story design. This is what makes the bulk of the production cost of a game.
The engine might as well be open source software. And there are lot's of open source libraries that are used for game production e.g. SDL, pyGame, ogg vorbis for music.

Reply Parent Score: 1