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 511270
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I just don't follow...
by danger_nakamura on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:18 UTC in reply to "I just don't follow..."
danger_nakamura
Member since:
2011-06-21

Which part?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I just don't follow...
by Tuishimi on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:23 in reply to "RE: I just don't follow..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, all of it. I mean, does he just mean to apply the philosophy to specific TYPES of software? He does state that the license shouldn't affect "paid development"... so is he referring only to software that has this license applied to it in the first place?

Yet it seems like to me he is suggesting that ALL software be "free".

(Am I asking that clearly?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

Well, all of it. I mean, does he just mean to apply the philosophy to specific TYPES of software? He does state that the license shouldn't affect "paid development"... so is he referring only to software that has this license applied to it in the first place?

Yet it seems like to me he is suggesting that ALL software be "free".

(Am I asking that clearly?)

If I parse his beliefs correctly...

The idea of "Free or Not Free" really finds genesis in the act of distribution. Interestingly this makes his view of 'Software Freedom" completely compatible with his expressed views on "Personal Freedom." I.E. you can do whatever you want in your own home - it would be wrong to enter and tell you that you have to share, or you can only use such-and-such in a particular way.

I think that if you substitute "In House" for "Paid development it is easier to understand. In the role of contracted consultant or employee, the "work" is done for internal deployment, not for the purposes of sharing or reselling. The programmer in this instance is deriving income from one entity - their employer or contracting agent.

This contrasts with "selling software" in the traditional sense. In this event, there is no contracting party or employer. You are distributing something for consumption that is available to parties that you have no relationship with.

Again, Stallman believes that people should be free to do so, and places no restrictions on selling software in his license. However, people doing this have discovered/reported/assumed that it is difficult to do so unless restrictions are placed on the receiving party. Otherwise, every customer becomes a potential competitor. One such restriction is witholding the scource code - you can't change, develop and release what you don't have.

It is this last case that Stallman objects to. Basically, this is where your freedom bangs up against someone else's. You are now selling someone something that, while not useless, is intentionally crippled and potentially dangerous.

Since he believes that this is immoral, he naturally believes that it should not happen at all. However, his license only applies to code written by someone that shares his beliefs/wishes. He has not participated in any lawmaking or dictatorial activities. You are free to choose whatever terms of distribution you would like on code that YOU have written in its entirety. Just remember that he is free to believe that the choice you make is not a good one - even to believe that it is an amoral or immoral one.

Either all that or I am completely misunderstanding the man ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: I just don't follow...
by Tuishimi on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:25 in reply to "RE: I just don't follow..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Also... this:
-------------

If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

-------------

If I am not convinced of this being an ethical issue in the first place surely preferring software that functions better is not superficial?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I just don't follow...
by Brendan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:52 in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't follow..."
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Also... this:
-------------

If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

-------------

If I am not convinced of this being an ethical issue in the first place surely preferring software that functions better is not superficial?


I think he wants people to use free software because it's free (not because it's better, and not because it's less expensive). If someone uses free software simply because it's better then it's less of a victory to him.

It's like an atheist who goes to a church for the bread and wine - I'm sure the church would prefer people attend for other reasons.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: I just don't follow...
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:59 in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't follow..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If I am not convinced of this being an ethical issue in the first place surely preferring software that functions better is not superficial?


Not only that, but there are some areas... actually a lot of areas, where there is no free software solution. For example, I have a piece of software that allows me to edit/organize sounds from my Yamaha synth on a PC, which takes me minutes to do, instead of the hours it would take to do it directly on the synth. This software is not free, and there is not a free alternative, and I sure as hell don't have the time or expertise to build my own. So I'm just not supposed to use this software for ethical reasons? *pfffffffffffft* Whatever ;) Stallman is off his rocker.

My own personal philosophy is to use free software when it suits my needs, but to use non-free software when this isn't the case. For example, there are better (as in technically superior) non-free mail programs than Thunderbird, but TB does everything I need it to do, so that's what I use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

If you have some time read my comment below: Stallman Strikes Again.

Reply Parent Score: 1