Linked by Linux Review on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:07 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source It's been a while since we caught up with Stallman. But a couple months ago we took a look around at what's happening with law, politics and technology and realized that he maybe perhaps his extremism and paranoia were warranted all along. So when we were contacted by an Iranian Linux publication and asked if we would like to publish an English translation of a recent interview they had done with Stallman, I thought that it was a particularly rich opportunity.
Thread beginning with comment 511252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Re:
by Sodki on Tue 20th Mar 2012 18:14 UTC in reply to "Re:"
Member since:

Really? Stallman never loses an opportunity to remind people how "Free Software" can't have DRM and how switching to free software is a way to make sure you will be free of DRM.

Free software can have DRM, of course, and of course he aknowledges that. That's why he created the GPLv3 in the first place, so we can have a free software license that doesn't restrict the user's 4 fundamental freedoms regarding DRM. It doesn't prevent DRM, it prevents some restrictions that come with DRM.

When asked about how DRMed "free software" can be tivoized to pervent people from changing it (if it's tied to specific hardware), he will claim such software is not really free, despite the fact it is according to the definition, free.

Oh really? I dare you to find a single quote from him stating that. Just one. Hint: none in this article, although you might be tempted to think otherwise.

Anyway. Stallman is an egoistic ungrateful jerk that damages open source.

How can you say that? The guy quit his job so that he could make free software. Without him you wouldn't have GCC, glibc or other basic software foundations. BSD wouldn't have evolved the way it did, Linus or other contributors wouldn't be able to afford a C compiler for Linux, etc, etc.. The guy may be a wrecking ball in terms of PR, but he's anything but egoistic. Perhaps the ungratefulness lies with you.

Access and distribution rights over the source code is a priviledge (a convinience), not a right.

You have the right to believe in that, but remember that a lot of people don't agree with your view. I don't care about proprietary code, I just choose not to use it. And it's ludicrous to think that free software didn't help the advance of all software, including proprietary. Remember the old UNIX days? What a mess!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Re:
by lucas_maximus on Tue 20th Mar 2012 19:14 in reply to "RE: Re:"
lucas_maximus Member since:

Most sane people actually think that free software is a convenience, unfortunately Richard Stallman is quite clearly a bit mental and a bit of an arse.

Also Stallman was fired from his Job.

Edited 2012-03-20 19:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Re:
by danger_nakamura on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
danger_nakamura Member since:

Most sane people actually think that free software is a convenience,

This depends greatly on your definition of sane. I'm not sure that I agree with this statement at all. Mind you, I'm not at all convinced that the subset of people that would qualify as well-adjusted to a society necessarily belong to the subset of people that are sane. I could think of other adjectives...

unfortunately Richard Stallman is quite clearly a bit mental and a bit of an arse.

Yes, he seems to be. I wouldn't rent an apartment to him or have him for dinner - I find him personally repellent and I'm not convinced of his overall mental stability.

However, none of this impacts on the validity of his views on this subject.

Reply Parent Score: 3