Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation, took time to discuss many current issues with Open for Business’ Timothy R. Butler. Stallman provides straightforward answers on SCO, GNU/Linux distribution choices, Digital Rights Management, dual license schemes, and more. Read the in-depth interview at OfB.biz.
This is probably what annoys me the most about RMS…everything is either 100% with him or completely [/i]against[/i] him…
Raymond and Torvalds support the Open Source Movement. They denounce the Free Software Movement’s ideals and values. Torvalds calls himself “apolitical” and doesn’t really advocate much. Raymond cites only practical professional values, such as developing powerful, reliable software, as the reasons for what he advocates. Those are the same goals that Microsoft claims it is going to achieve; the Open Source movement disagrees with Microsoft only in regard to how to best achieve the goals. At this basic level, we in the Free Software Movement disagrees with both of them.
Now isn’t “denounce” a tad too strong of a word to use there? Especially when GNU would be nowhere without the work of Linus Torvalds, and Eric S. Raymond’s contributions are nothing to sneeze at either.
As if that’s not enough, then he goes on to equate the Open Source movement with MICROSOFT of all organizations!!!
A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem like a profitable option to become one of the emperor’s lieutenants, but ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to it.
So if I support non-free software, I “become one of th emperor’s lieutenants”? The man’s a nut job!!! Why do people listen to him? This is one of many reasons why I prefer BSD-style licenses, they help to distance me from religious quack fanatics like Stallman.
Mod me down if you wish, but that’s just how I feel about Stallman and his CRAP!
Especially when GNU would be nowhere without the work of Linus Torvalds, and Eric S. Raymond’s contributions are nothing to sneeze at either.
They where just the wind that filled the sails, without them other winds would have eventually come.
They where just the wind that filled the sails, without them other winds would have eventually come.
Such as the Hurd?
I think Stallman and his minions, vastly underappreciate what Linus and his supporters have done for them.
In addition, Linus didn’t need GNU either if you want to look at it that way, especially since the BSD userland was ripe and free for the taking.
I agree that I wish he would understand that these people agree with him on soooo, sooo many points. He really should focus more on their similarities than their differences.
The fact that he doesn’t officially support Debian strikes me as weird. (Would he support them if they didn’t offer non-free packages…what if they linked to non-free packages…what if they linked to someone who linked to non-free packages?).
I agree with him that more free is better, but I also think that any small steps towards freedom a good and should be encouraged. So I would say “good” to any company that uses free software on windows, better still GNU/Linux with free AND proprietary software, and the best is all free.
I would also consider partly “Free” programs(like some of the ones in debian), more free than ones that you pay for. Even if the only the binaries are available for free, still better than non-distributable.
So basically, I disagree with his all or nothing attitude, but otherwise he’s got some good things to say, and has been saying them for 20 years.
I think this mirrors a historical tendency with political revolutions. Revolutionaries can be divided into two types: the idealists and the pragmatists.
Idealists have a tendency to continue their revolutions forever, because there’s always something else in the world that “needs improving.” Once they’ve ousted the old government, they keep fighting, and usually end up fighting amongst themselves, or, as in Cuba, fighting “anti-revolutionary” sentiment in the general populace until the liberating revolutionary becomes the oppressor itself.
Pragmatists are happy to stop fighting once the old dictator is gone. They get down to the business of building a new government. Eventually, though, the fervor wears off, and often within a few years the governments they create are indistinguishable from the one they replaced, just with a new ruling class. Actually, in some cases the pragmatists, by necessity, ally themselves with the holders of economic power. So in many cases, within a generation, most of the rulers are from the same families as the old dictator’s regime was.
All revolutions have elements of both of these in them. Stallman is this movement’s idealist, and his war will never be over. Raymond is the movement’s pragmatist, and he think’s its necessary to speak to the moneyed interests that made the software industry what it is.
I’m not sure you can quote Stallman without first GPL‘ing your comment. 😀
I don’t know too much about RMS, but when he complains that everything should be free, does he mean all software should cost $0? When he says Debian has non-free packages, does he mean proprietary?
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, I just don’t know much about his stances.
I’ve been following Richard for few years and still doesn’t change my mind on him(after reading all the crap he wrote etc.).
Stallman is a sick fuck! And it doesn’t matter whether you are reading this from moderated down forum or not, you can NOT bend the truth!
Actually if I were alibist I would call stallman 16year old boy(mentally) but I like to name things with right names!
Exactly. It reminds me of the continuous “revolutions” in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe (I lived there so I know what I’m talking). Those revolutions would never end, maybe only when everybody would either die or defect. If Mr. Stallman would have had the chance to experience this perpetual revolution first hand, maybe he would have a more pragmatic approach towards commercial software.
I don’t know too much about RMS, but when he complains that everything should be free, does he mean all software should cost $0? When he says Debian has non-free packages, does he mean proprietary?
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, I just don’t know much about his stances.
That’s another issue I have with stallman…why did he have to use a perfectly clear word like “free” and muddy it up with his ideas and beliefs?
It serves nobody to call what he advocates “free software” because when we think of “free” we think “costs no money” and when we think of “freedom” we think “do whatever we want with it”
According to Stallman these are not necessarily the case when referring to “free software”
I think the term “Socialist Software” would have been a better name for what he advocates.
I don’t know too much about RMS, but when he complains that everything should be free, does he mean all software should cost $0?
I think the best place to start is an essay by RMS entitled “Why Software Should Not Have Owners”:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
The term “free software” does not refer to software that is offered at no cost. It refers to software that does not restrict the following freedoms of users.
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
The idea of offering these four freedoms to users may seem radical or even dangerous to some.
I think the term “Socialist Software” would have been a better name for what he advocates.
I happen to disagree. First, I think it is suicide from a public relations standpoint, and second, I believe it to be an incorrect term. Communism has ideals closer to the way GPL’d software is developed/distributed (i.e. that it is owned by the community, copyright aside,) but Marxist communism also carries a lot of other baggage. In short, I believe it is a hard thing to name this in the English language, due to the ambiguity of free. In other languages, for instance, Spanish, there is no ambiguity. There are libre, freedom, and gratis, free lunch. Though we do have gratis in English, surprisingly few people know what it means, and even less would use it commonly. Gratis may express the idea of free lunch, but (I believe) Stallman cares more about freedom, than free lunch. However, this STILL leaves the problem of expressing freedom in a concise, catchy term.
What kind of freedom is there in the FSF, if it’s members can’t use non-free software or develop non-free software without being called some kind of freak.
“The idea of offering these four freedoms to users may seem radical or even dangerous to some”
This is the same as the communist utopia. Wealth distribution is done according to needs, not to merits. It will never work, no matter how good it sounds.
” 4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.”
What is the incentive to do that? Why anyone should do that for free?
I think both systems (commercial and open source) have their merits, they can coexist and that’t how it should be. Everything else is just fanaticism.
Khadrin,
Those four cases apply to Linux and Linux, IMO. So why does RMS think that Linus doesn’t agree to those cases? I can do all four of those things with Linux today.
That’s another issue I have with stallman…why did he have to use a perfectly clear word like “free” and muddy it up with his ideas and beliefs?
It serves nobody to call what he advocates “free software” because when we think of “free” we think “costs no money” and when we think of “freedom” we think “do whatever we want with it”
According to Stallman these are not necessarily the case when referring to “free software”
No, they are quite different, look up the meaning of the words Free or Freedom in the dictionary and you’ll see they have nothing to do with what he’s talking about, if software is free there can be no conditions on what you do with it.
He’s using the term freedom to sell us his ideas which are something else and have nothing to do with real freedom. It’s a devaluation of the word and it’s meaning, and it’s even sadder that so many people have fallen for this trick.
It’s rather ironic that GPL’d software is by definition non-free!
Don’t get me wrong, I do not object to his philosophy, a mixture is a good thing. I do object to how he describes it. It’s sure as hell not a human right.
I think the term “Socialist Software” would have been a better name for what he advocates.
Actually “Open Source” would be the perfect term since ultimately what he wants is for software to be open and remain that way.
WHile he has a lot of good points I think his beliefs are too firm. Such as saying that he would recommend LineX to a new user purely because it’s all free and not based on how easy it is to use, the support etc.
We need BALANCE!
I respect the strongly held beliefs from many OSS/Free Software advocates even though some of them seem very extreme to me. I think that everybody benefits from the development of software alternatives. That said though I think it is silly to steer users away from one product because it isn’t ‘free’. I use several good quality OSS products but I do so because they are the best tools for the job and I suspect that is the reason many people do as well. In the ‘real world’ businesses cannot make software decisions based purely on idealistic notions, if they did they might be jeopardizing the existence of their business. The sometimes uncompromising attitude of some (not all) OSS advocates gives people like Rob Enderle the opportunity to write those stupid editorials like the garbage he wrote. Maybe someday Free Software/Open Source Software will dominate, but it will be the result of economic, not idealistic, decisions.
Kevin,
You are correct, the Linux kernel is free software.
The philosophical difference between RMS and Linus is that RMS believes the *only* ethical way to distribute software is to offer those four freedoms, while Linus does not view non-free software as unethical.
I hope that helps clarify the philosophical differences between Linus and RMS.
//
” 4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.”
What is the incentive to do that? Why anyone should do that for free?
//
Thats the problem. HELPING THE COMMUNITY is the incentive. You dont always have to have a personal gain. Thats what corporations and many people just cant understand.
Helping the community is something that a noble minority does. The fact is, people are motivated by greed and personal needs. That’s the engine of any healthy economy, competition and quality products, like it or not. I lived in a society where you were supposed to work and do things better for pride, country, victory of the socialist cause etc etc etc. IT’S NOT WORKING!
> > The idea of offering these four freedoms to users
> > may seem radical or even dangerous to some”
>
> This is the same as the communist utopia. Wealth
> distribution is done according to needs, not to
> merits. It will never work, no matter how good it
> sounds.
I don’t know much about the “communist utopia”, sorry. The ideas of the free software movement advocate less control of information not more. This seems decidedly unlike at least the Russian form of communism to me.
Strong property rights are a cornerstone of market economies. But, the term “intellectual property” suggests a similarity between ideas and things that can’t be supported. Taking something and copying something are fundamentally different, and they have fundamentally different ethical and economic consequences.
> > 4) The freedom to improve the program, and
> > release your improvements to the public, so
> >that the whole community benefits.”
>
> What is the incentive to do that? Why anyone
> should do that for free?
Well, people do do it. They do it for many different reasons. Some do it for fun. Some do it for fame. Some do it to pad their resume. Some do it for money. Some, like RMS, do it because they believe it is the right thing.
> I think both systems (commercial and open source)
> have their merits, they can coexist and that’t how
> it should be.
Great. A lot of people agree with you. Not everyone agrees though, hence we debate.
> Everything else is just fanaticism.
That is a cheap shot.
//
Helping the community is something that a noble minority does. The fact is, people are motivated by greed and personal needs. That’s the engine of any healthy economy, competition and quality products, like it or not. I lived in a society where you were supposed to work and do things better for pride, country, victory of the socialist cause etc etc etc. IT’S NOT WORKING!
//
You’re right, people are motivated by personal greed. I choose to live my life as an Idealist then. Even though society may never become a utopia, I can still hope.
I live my life by my ethics, and I encourage others to do the same. But people will live their lives motivated by whatever their goals are. I accept that, but I admire the people really trying to make a difference.
I don’t know much about the “communist utopia”, sorry. The ideas of the free software movement advocate less control of information not more. This seems decidedly unlike at least the Russian form of communism to me.
The thing is, the “Russian” form of communism isn’t really communism per se. It is actually Stalinism. Huge difference. What Stallman advocates actually is very much like Marxist Communism in several ways. Go read the communist manifesto and then read the GNU manifesto or whatever its called. I bet you’ll see some glaring similarities.
Marx wanted a workers utopia. Stallman wants a programmers utopia.
There are MANY MANY parallels.
Of course Communism has a very bad rap in the Western world and probably almost everywhere else because of what Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pot, etc. did to Marxism, so nobody in their right mind would want to be associated with such a movement. It wouldn’t surprise me if Stallman’s conclusions were VERY heavily influenced by the writings of Karl Marx.
Thats the problem. HELPING THE COMMUNITY is the incentive. You dont always have to have a personal gain. Thats what corporations and many people just cant understand.
Yes, but what RMS doesn’t understand, is that it is not unethical to do something for yourself. It’s not unethical to make sure you are compensated for your hard work.
As you have first-hand experience with this type of government, you have the weightiest voice. I agree, Socialism failed, and good riddance, but the thing about free software is that it is reproducible at trivial costs, and this system seems to be working. I installed Linux on my iBook because I wanted to play around, and I can do this during the summer, as I am a student, and it WORKS great. It has its warts, yes, but the quality of ALL software (free or otherwise) in some ways has gone through the roof. (Though some would disagree, citing the quality of release-time software.) I have to say that it works fine, and I am satisfied. BUT, the great thing is that I can use most of this free software on OSX. I can pick and choose, and use the best tools for the job. I do not get fuzzy feelings while using free software, like some do, but with many programs, I think, WOW! This is GOOD software. Another boon is that I can use it however I want. Hooray! The world is now a (slightly) better place. Everybody’s happy.
Though this post seems to have a bad case of wanderlust, these are my sentiments about open software: It’s produced good results, and people have benefitted, now, let’s all be appreciative of it, and learn from it; let’s learn to work together to benefit other people. I believe there is hope in the world: People do help each other, people do love each other, and though not everyone will serve others, God bless those who learn to humble themselves, and give time, and money to a cause greater than themselves. Now, go and work to solve world hunger, and cure AIDS, use your talents for the good of humanity, and don’t worry if you’re the only one doing it.
RMS: My thinking was that if we made our own modified version of Debian it would not get much usage, and that developing an entirely new distribution would be a lot of work and only worth doing with the Hurd.
This surprised me a little. I often wondered why GNU didn’t have its own distro. Since when have they been afraid of a lot of hard work? And what’s this obsession with the Hurd? Linux is GPL. I think there might be some ego clashing here. I think the real reason, and I wish he would just admit it, is that Debian does a damn good job and the fact that they distribute non-free software is no big deal.
Ok.. so what, I touched a nerve? I thought geeks were beyond such pathetic things like emotion and other such human frailties. Good lord people. Btw, the whole moderation thing is yet another example of geeks being dumb. Does it make you feel important?
Hello, everyone.
I see that there is a lot of negativity towards rms, as always. There was a time when our choice to use free or proprietary products was much more limited, wasn’t there? And, wasn’t rms hugely influential in making the free software movement (and the open source movement, for that matter) what it is Today? Perhaps, he’s not as relevant now, but, what of the past?
As for socialism not working, we should probably keep in mind that there has a been huge, concerted effort by capitalist countries (especially a certain big one) to destablize and destroy socialism. What is more concerning to me is the assumption that capitalism _has_ worked.
I don’t know, friends. Take a look at the Pine Ridge rez or the black neighborhoods of D.C. And, take a look at the millions of people being oppressively employed in China, Burma, Mexico, etc to support a standard of life that they can never hope to experience. There’s a lot of disparity in the successes of capitalism, my friend.
I wouldn’t think that greed and selfishness leads to greater happiness than mutuality and equality. Can a family be healthy operating on capitalist principles? Maybe I missed something; if so, please, help me understand. Why do you believe that capitalism works?
I don’t really believe in state socialism, though, for the hierarchies within it eventually lead to oppression, as the power is not in the people’s hands. What I believe in is anarchy. Oh no, scary word.
But, I won’t take up your time trying to teach what anarchism is really about. Another day, perhaps.
aloha,
chrootstrap
http://dom.neopoleon.com
bytes256 wrote:
> Go read the communist manifesto and then read the GNU
> manifesto or whatever its called. I bet you’ll see some
> glaring similarities.
I suppose it might be useful to read the “Communist Manifesto”, so it’s on my list now.
Note that your phrase “the GNU manifesto or whatever its called” does not at all inspire me with confidence that you are qualified to judge the similarities and differences between communism and the free software movement.
It is worth pointing out that there at least seems to be a practical difference between the communist and free software movements. The free software movement is working! It has resulted in great software. It is the basis for successful companies such as Google and Amazon. Most importantly, this movement hasn’t required revolutions or oppressive governments to progress.
[i]Especially when GNU would be nowhere without the work of Linus Torvalds</o>
I see it as the other way around. The GNU was around for a long time before Linus ever built a kernel.
By the way, what has happened to OSNews lately? Seems like half the posts lately are just people trying to troll.
(1) Linus helped the movement — that is true. Linus, however, did not somehow magically make Free Software. People forget that 90 something percent of the core “operating system” known as Linux is really the GNU System (hence, GNU/Linux). While Hurd may never be released, I’d imagine it would be done by now if it had been necessary (Linux came out first and thus lowered the need for Hurd).
(2) Free Software is not Communism. In fact, one of the basic requirements of a Free Software OR Open Source license is that you can make a profit selling it. Free Software can be compatible with communism, but it is also very compatible with capitalism. I would further note that in the interview RMS is quite accepting of the idea that one could use trademark licensing as a way to encourage purchasing of the product (see the question about Mandrake’s MNF).
(3) Open Source is not really any more ideal than Free Software in terms of clarity of meaning. Many people think Open Source means simply that you can see the source code (i.e. that includes the YaST License, MS Shared Source, even theKompany’s proprietary license that lets you recompile software). In reality, the Open Source definition requires much more — freedom to redistribute, freedom to charge, etc. The OSD is virtually identical in requirements to the Free Software Definition. Please see my editorial on the subject: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110 .
(4) Yes RMS is strong on his opinions… I say, “good for him.” It seems like today everyone must be a wishy washy “whatever works for you” kind of person or they are considered fanatical (so much for “whatever works for you” — that’s only true if you toe the line the “whatever works for you” people want). I think it is commendable that someone like RMS says “this is right and I’m going to stand up for it.”
It is silly to expect RMS to think that ESR and Linus are on the same side. While they both help in one way or another, they also hurt. ESR’s arguments only work so long as a Free Software product provides superior functionality and TCO… if it has slightly less functionality or TCO people going by his advice might choose non-Free software (bad thing for RMS & Co.). Linus actually is willing to use non-Free software even in the development of Linux (take Bitkeeper), so he is somewhat dangerous to Free Software Philosophy too.
Sure they can help each other out when it makes sense, RMS agrees on that, but much of the time, the motives and opinions of the OSS and Free Software movements are two disparate to work together on political issues. RMS and the FSF help to serve as a counterbalance to those who aren’t interested in freedom to insure that freedom is preserved for those who realize its advantages.
(5) Freedom is not just complete lack of regulation… the dictionary definition also permits “lack of being unduly hampered.” Minor restrictions insure the continuation/longevity of freedom — much like a Democratic Republic as opposed to a pure Democracy that often results in anarchy.
RMS definitely has a political/philisophical axe to grind. In a free society he is free to grind away. Copyright and patent laws were created to insure that innovation would be rewarded and the public good enhanced. Personally, I think as originally enacted both goals were adequately achieved. But both are currently being subverted, and people like Stallman are good to have around to man the barricades. But I disagree with him that people shouldn’t be rewarded for their creative efforts as a matter of principle. If someone wants to forego that reward, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t be forced to do so.
Although many people may be motivated by simple greed, I think it more accurate to describe what motivates most people is “shared self-interest”. Human beings are social animals who thrive best when they cooperate with one another to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Socialism doesn’t, hasn’t and can not work simply because it assumes that most people will cooperate from a sense of altruism. They won’t, never have, never will. As Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Castro and many other tyrants have demonstrated, you can coerce and force societies into socialist conformity, but only at the cost of destroying personal initiative. Capitalism didn’t subvert all the socialist utopias of the past hundred years. They imploded under the weight of their own corruption and incompetence.
Capitalism, or “free enterprise”, works because the vast majority of people realize that they have a “shared self-interest” to cooperate rather than coerce or screw their neighbours. It’s not perfect, and there are many who still screw their neighbours, but capitalism and free enterprise has created more shared wealth and social well-being for more people than socialism ever did or could.
RMS is a nut. HOWEVER, he does want people to be able to make money off software. However, he just doesn’t want you to charge only for the software. His idea was to make money off of support and services. Problem is, that hasn’t been established as a plausible business model. It’s working for RedHat, but it’s not proven yet. I believe it will be proven, someday. So, RMS is not against making money. He did say he is leftists. I think this means he’s for social programs like welfare. This doesn’t mean he’s a complete socialist and I don’t think he’s at all a communist.
now @ chrootstrap: GPL is to give freedom. Communism and Socialism take it away. Capitalism is not perfect, but it does work. Your examples of it not working are actually evidences of failed socialism, not capitalism.
DC Ghettos: welfare failing people as they no longer work to make a living but depend on the government. They blame other races for their failure instead of taking personal responsiblity.
China: You blame capitalism for low wages here. How about blaming THEIR own government since THEIR government is in charge there. BTW, THEIR government just happens to be COMMUNIST.
Mexico: The government runs it’s nations oil business. Once again failure because of socialism.
Now, you advocate anarchy? Most people who want anarchy argue for “society” to rule. Which in turn ends up looking a lot like “government” but just with a different name. HOw are you going to change people so they accept responsibility like that? I don’t think you can. You can come close, but you should probably try looking up the ideals of the libertarian party. I’m republican, but I respect the consistency and principles of libertarianism (even if it’s a pain to spell).
Finally, yes there’s disparity in capitalism. There’s disparity in peoples abilities, goals, and efforts. Some people WANT to live in poverty (some –not all — bums on the street as well as Catholic Religious orders as they take VOWS of poverty) and some people only care for material success. IT’S THEIR CHOICE. You have no right to take it away. Maybe you don’t want to, so I don’t mean to accuse you (you did advocate anarchy, welcome to California j/k
). Point is Communism under Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
Back to the subject, RMS is strange. He didn’t explain Ximian’s connector because he considered that advocating proprietary software. He thinks linex is better but uses debian. He calls this an ethical movement yet hypocritically uses debian against his own suggestion. I think it’s nuts we have or at least he thinks we have TWO seperate groups with Free Software Movement and Open Source Movement. I didn’t really know it was two seperate camps. I thought it was just different people with different opinions, but now we have OS Political Parties. Just what we needed.
Perhaps RMS is really a comedian who is saying a lot of these things for laughs. Maybe GNU/Hurd was a joke and Linux screwed it up by actually DOING something. Now the joke is out of control and RMS has his head under water so he just says strange things that he thinks are funny and works on emacs. Anything else, would be ridiculous.
What I believe in is anarchy.
Me too!
can be managed effectively with computers.
If you’re intelligent enough to understand what that means..
Or probably if you think you’re intelligent enough, but really don’t know better.
But what if people want a government? can you force them to anarchy?
Now if your managing “chaos” by computer, how is that different than government and how is that less tyrannical than a constitutional republic?
Unbelievable what people here dare to say about RMS. Read your own posts again, it’s just disgusting. You might not share his ideals, but that doesn’t give you the right to call him names or call him insane.
Good grievance, where are you people coming from? Are people not free to follow their own ideals and try to make the world a better a place? Not everyone is motivated by money, sorry. You’ve a lot of growing up to do.
And who is actually restricting your freedom here? Isn’t that the companies who forbid you to share programs with friends and even with your other computers?
And get an English dictionary will you if you are confused by the word free. Is there any doubt what “He is a free man” means? Or “This is free software”? Or “This is a free nation”? No one is redefining words here.
Hello, Mr. Wassil.
Thank you for addressing my question regarding why capitalism is thought to have worked. I’m puzzled by this statement:
> capitalism and free enterprise has created more shared
> wealth and social well-being for more people than
> socialism ever did or could.
In the U.S., I don’t see most of the people as having benefited from capitalism. I see most people as not owning the work they do or the means of work. I see many people without health insurance, without much education, in debt, and simply poor. I see a very small percentage owning most of the wealth of this country. And, this is a country that is benefiting economically a great deal at the expense of many other nations. I mean, if you look to what happens when produce is imported at lower than regional prices thanks to free trade agreements, for example, and take into account the agricultural subsidization of the exporting nations, I think you can easily see that the U.S. gets the nicer end of the stick of capitalism. Yet, look at the health of the U.S.?
In countries where socialism (and I’m not talking about jackbooted Stalinism — odd, since Stalin routed the Nazis) has a much greater following, such as Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Sweden, the standard of life is generally better and there is _far_less_ discrepancy between the rich and the poor. Many of the most popularly valued U.S. institutions such as social security came out of a period of socialistic thinking knows as the New Deal.
Many of the basic American values such as liberty and equality are shared by socialists and anarchists throughout the world. Recognizing that capitalism, which is a system where by the means of work (as well as the residences, etc) is not normally owned by the workers is not free enterprise per se, but, a system of property that perpetuates the same injustices that trace back to aristocracy and fuedal fiefdoms and before, is essential to changing to presumption that capitalism is a system that encourages freedom. I mean, think of labor acts and unions — that’s very socialistic stuff. Think of CEOs getting a pay raise when they lay off 40% of a work force and then rehire them as temps — that’s capitalism. Lol, I’m being pretty absolutist…
One more thing:
> Capitalism didn’t subvert all the socialist utopias of
> the past hundred years
Hmm… the Cold War, trade embargos against Cuba, N. Korea, etc, Vietnam, the Red Scare, etc, etc…
Who was fighting alongside our boys in WWII? Socialists, anarchists, communists (again, many American values are very much also socialist values). What happened? Propoganda, my friend, propoganda that continues to Today, perhaps, even this conversation — and greed and corruption in the state socialist countries. Take away oppressive power whether economic or military, and you’ll take away oppression.
As the anarchist creed goes: Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity! How’s that for a ‘shared self-interest’?
Have a wonderful day!
chrootstrap
http://dom.neopoleon.com
A few points:
I thought Anarchy and Socialism/Communism were complete opposites (just my current knowledge or lack therof). Anarchy is NO government Socialism/Communism the Government controls almost everything.
Keep saying Capitalism is a failure while the US is the richest country in the World and the only Super Power.
Let’s continue this discussion on your website because we’re going to probably get modded to death here and we are SOOOO off topic. My apologies. Round 2 at dom.neopoleon.com eh?
It’s not perfect, and there are many who still screw their neighbours, but capitalism and free enterprise has created more shared wealth and social well-being for more people than socialism ever did or could.
China: You blame capitalism for low wages here.
Mexico: The government runs it’s nations oil business. Once again failure because of socialism.
Okay, then what about the US? Where did its economic might come from? Slavery.
Capitalism == slavery. Read some history.
Freedom is the only way to get away from that. The best way to insure everyone has freedom is to make everything free and write something like the constitution. But assume that society will be too stupid to write their own laws, because they fuck it up every time. But society must also be convinced of the problems that our greedy nature can cause. In chaos, when we have so many greedy people not caring where their money comes from, we find that a lot of it comes from environmentally and socially harmful economies.
Do some research. I know a very intelligent professor of psychology and brain surgeon who thinks that all of societies problems are related to our current system of capitalism. And I believe him. Capitalism is not the problem, our understanding of how to manipulate people combined with our greedy nature IS the problem.
We are fanatics because we have different opinions than those of RMS?
Maybe you should go to fsf.org to get open views.
Yeah I find it sad when people resort to name calling, but you calling us childish doesn’t help either. Its the internet way I guess.
Hello, Mr. Yamauchi.
>>
Now, you advocate anarchy? Most people who want anarchy argue for “society” to rule. Which in turn ends up looking a lot like “government” but just with a different name.
<<
I do advocate anarchy as government. Anarchy does not mean no government. Very few anarchists advocate having absolutely no societal responsibilities and structures — this is nihilism and can be just as oppressive as anything else. Anarchism is about lack of hierarchies, where a group has power over another group. It’s seriously about equality. In other words, the common idea that anarchism equals a complete lack of responsibility is simple wrong.
>>
HOw are you going to change people so they accept responsibility like that? I don’t think you can. You can come close, but you should probably try looking up the ideals of the libertarian party. I’m republican, but I respect the consistency and principles of libertarianism (even if it’s a pain to spell).
<<
Hehehe… I find this very funny. You see, libertarian quite recently used to mean anarchist. It was only in very modern times that this term was co-opted to mean something that retains some aspects of anarchism, but, adds a lot of additional, oppressive ideas. Like anarcho-communism, libertarianism isn’t what it sounds like (or would’ve sounded like).
I would completely agree that responsibility is of tremendous importance in anarchism. I think, however, that people in highly competitive, capitalist societies have grown to fundamentally distrust each other. Trust is an alien concept in the capitalism system, as is altruistic compassion. So what do you do?
First off, don’t have positions of unusual power. If some positions are necessary and require more responsibility for the group, you can frequently rotate the person in the position. It reminds of an old Indian chief who sent a different warrior each day to meet with the white men as to prevent them from being bought off. But, for most things of group importance, democratic processes are the key. Whether or not consensus is necessary or even feasible will vary, but, direct democracy is very important.
In companies where this type of change has happened, people often get cross-trained on many, many tasks. One week they are sweeping the floor, the next week they are balancing the books, the next week they are fixing machines, etc. No one is screwing each other — there isn’t someone living off the work of the others. They all work and they all can see that. I’d say that’s a heck of a strong workforce there!
The voluntary nature of participation is important, but, if members don’t contribute, the group can kick them out. You pull your own. It’s like reality instead of this strange system of workers and factory-owners. The people are far more powerful than the capitalists!
> Perhaps RMS is really a comedian who is saying a lot of
> these things for laughs.
hehehe… I like that. Perhaps that’s what it is!
Enjoy the weather!
chrootstrap
http://dom.neopoleon.com
So ONE professor of PSYCHOLOGY (which in itself is crazy, why does sikologee begin with a P?) tells you that and that makes capitalism wrong?
Slavery was a violation of civil rights which my country fought a CIVIL WAR to stop. All economic gains from slavery were wiped out in that war. Capitalism was not built from slavery. I’ve studied History, you study economics.
Greed can cause problems. While I believe in capitalism, I know it can be abused. We have laws against in the US that CEO’s have violated and are currently be prosecuted.
Also, please e-mail me. We can’t continue here much longer. This is off topic.
>>
I thought Anarchy and Socialism/Communism were complete opposites (just my current knowledge or lack therof). Anarchy is NO government Socialism/Communism the Government controls almost everything.
<<
Actually, socialism is of two flavors. There is the anarchist (individual) flavor and the state flavor. Both advocate that the resources belong to the people, except in state socialism the actual responsibility of the resources is delegated to the state, whereas in anarco-socialism the individuals are responsible through direct democratic processes.
>>
Let’s continue this discussion on your website because we’re going to probably get modded to death here and we are SOOOO off topic. My apologies. Round 2 at dom.neopoleon.com eh?
<<
I think that is a great idea. I won’t be able to create a post until Tonight, unfortunately. Still, I’ll be very interested in what you have to say. Have a nice day!
chrootstrap
http://dom.neopoleon.com
Hey if anybody want’s to continue this debate (which I think we should) let’s go to chroostraps site as he posted above.
Good discussions. Should we make a econnews.com?
“Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected, but the commercial use of a logo is a very different matter.”
A human right?! And really, what distinguishes software from a logo, when it comes to asset value?
I take pride in contributing to open source projects. It can be fun and very, very rewarding. But, I also create software for a living, and although RMS doesn’t have anything against me making money of the software I create, he sure thinks it’s wrong that I not show everyone how I make it. If I would, I wouldn’t have a job.
RMS is the worst spokesperson the Open Source community could have.
That pretty much explains why so many people think GPL stinks. This guys philosophy is completely rotten… and so is his ambitions with GPL I’d say.
Pathetic
RMS advocates GNU/LinEx but uses Debian for a reason he clearly stated: his system was setup before GNU/LinEx was available.
In the U.S., I don’t see most of the people as having benefited from capitalism. I see most people as not owning the work they do or the means of work. I see many people without health insurance, without much education, in debt, and simply poor.
Sure… a few. Still, the majority of people have health care, better education and more disposable income than at any time ever before in history. Is the situation bad in the U.S.? Maybe. Is it better than any alternative present or past? Yes!
Well, once people can show me how the “horrible” GPL managed to create a system that Fortune 500 companies love, that even proprietary software companies try to emulate, and managed to create a community that can create software as fast or faster than the proprietary companies… then I’ll agree with you.
RMS has a philosophy that isn’t unlike what many people expect in areas outside of software. RMS’s philosophy, and more importantly, his hard work, can almost single handedly be pointed to for getting the ball rolling that has created all the Free Software/Open Source Software we enjoy today. If that’s pathetic, then I like pathetic stuff.
-Tim
History, as taught most people, is often skewed to glorify whoever is in power, and to paint everyone who disagreed with the current power holders in a bad light.
How many people today think some European countries would be as rich as they are now without slavery. Yet no one wants to pay Africa for their labour. In fact, they continue to take the little that Africa has and enrich themselves.
In the USA, the wants of big business have slowly become more important. I think in a real sense freedom is “an illusion created between those without power and those without” (Shameless plug from Reloaded). Seriously, with things like DMCA, you wonder how the focus shifted. Its simple, as long as people are comfortable, they will not complain. What happens when those same people become poorer. Do you think they will just sit around enjoying capitalism.
I know this sound silly and smacks of jealousy, but how many americans are able to become billionaires, and at whose cost do you think they become that. Whilst I do not support communism, why is it that many people seem to think that the idea that resources that occur naturally should be owned by the people, even though in practice this would be wuite difficult.
Lets take a look at language for example. Its something developed by people, for people. No one is made to pay to speak a language. It helps bring people together in communication. Same with software. Not everything has to be a product. Software can be a product or a tool. I advocate strongly that tools, like resources be available at the least possible cost. Capitalism was founded on the basis of a man getting a reward for his work, but it has increasingly become to resemble serfdom in the England of old. Instead of land, people do not own a means to production. Open source gives that back to the people, albeit as a platform on which everyone is able to to use his/her skills to get reward if he so wishes.
I’m interested in discussing this, but I think we’re BEGGING to get modded down here. Off topic.
Let’s go to
http://dom.neopoleon.com
to discuss it. chroostrap has started a post here.
Every answer that Richard gave was substantive and well thought out. You may disagree with the fundamental values Richard espouses, but you have to admire the coherence, sincerity and depth of his ethical position.
I admire the man and believe that we will only become aware of the true reach of his thought many generations down the road.
In a world of bits and bytes, free software might one day be our only hope to retain democratic values and pluralism in society.
By the way, his description of the social effects of proprietary software couldnt’ be more accurate. Of course, it seems it has become trendy to take pot-shots at RMS these days. I find this odd, particularly with the SCO suit looming over our heads. I believe it will be the GPL that will save the day and we will have Richard to thank for it.
even if RMS is on one extreme, we need people like him. I mostly agree with him, but he is awefully anal about free or nothing. Ah well, he keeps us honest if nothing else. Insofar as his behavior goes I hear he’s at least somewhat autistic, which should explain much. While his ideal ever be realized? Heh, NO. But had he never started all of this where would we be?
Alrighty, heres my communism bit. Communism has never been achieved. The Soviet Union probably got the closest, but its simply never been realized. There is a world of difference from what Marx wrote and what Lenin did with it. Marx fully intended that Communism would be a historical inevitability, it would happen naturally once Capitalism reached a certain point and then, all on their own, the oppressed workers would revolt and demand something different. Russia at the time of the revolution was hardly a Capitalist powerhouse – in reality it was terribly backwards. Just a half century before Russia finally, hundreds of years after the rest of Europe, did away with surfdom. Ouch. So, how then under such conditions could Communism be potentially realized? Its worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in the Communist Manifesto thats anti-democracy, or anti-human rights, or anti-freedom. Hardly, in the early days of the Soviet Union not only were elections held but women could vote well before they code in the US. Back to the point – how could Communism ever hope to be realized in such a backward nation? Strong central control to “guide” the nation towards that goal. It was thought, however nievely, that once it reached a certain point the central-gov was supposed to just disappear. Right. Did Lenin not realize that power is addictive? Well, to a point it worked like magic – within forty years Russia went from an industrially backward nation of peasants and farmers into a powerhouse that beat the US into space with Sputnik and scared the shit out of us. By the 1960s they had achieved 60% of the US’s economic output, the closest third was less then 10%. Well, ultimately planed economies will run out of steam and the Soviet Union collapsed onto itself, but compared to Cuba or China or anyone else they seemed to be closest to that goal, even if it was never realized. I’ve read that in the 1950s they had hoped to achieve true Communism by the 80s. Didn’t happen, did it? Also, its not wise to confuse socialism with communism – socialism isn’t dead, as should be evident in Canada and parts of Europe. Americans, thanks to cold-war propaganda, always confuse the two. And finally, to defend myself before the arrows come my way – I’m not a Communist, rather I’m the radical opposite – I’m Libertarian.
Continental Europe is racist like you wouldn’t believe so I think Europeans should be quiet about race issues. Trying to cover up racial problems with government subsidies to keep minorities quiet is just ignoring the problem.
Minorities, especially blacks, are persona non grata in the European corporate world, especially in France, Austria, Denmark and Italy. Likewise in government — there is no way in hell that a black person would have as high a position in Austria as Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice have here in the USA. Even a half-black person would be frowned upon.
Far right racist politicians do very well in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. Those types rarely get even 1% of the vote in the USA. Inter-racial marriage in the US is __far__ more accepted than in Europe.
Europe within just the last decade gave us yet another attempt at genocide (in Bosnia/Kosovo)…somehow the Europeans want to ignore that as if it weren’t Europeans committing the atrocities. EUROPEANS WERE TRYING TO ERADICATE ALL MUSLIM MALES FROM THE HEART OF EUROPE. Nice going Europeans!!! Who led the rescue…against the wishes of the United Nations since European Russia would veto any UN assistance??? Yep, the US, going _against_ the UN led NATO to rescue the muslim Europeans from being slaughtered by their fellow Europeans. And the Europeans still hate Americans for that because we demonstrated how racist Europe is and how unimportant the UN is.
Dutch “peacekeepers” permitted the slaughter of over 6000 European muslims. THANKS EUROPE!!! YOUR LOVE OF DIFFERENT CULTURES IS ASTOUNDING!!!
The USA is FAR FAR FAR from anywhere near perfect but I think the arrogance coming from Europe is a big joke. Europeans still haven’t gotten over their love of National Socialism.
Bashing the USA may make the European feel good but the root problem is their fear of looking inward and realizing they should change. They would rather complain at others than change.
They will get lost in the dust as the Far East picks up steam and they are caught between two competitive juggernauts…the European welfare states will collapse and they all will start to enjoy the freedom of 80 hour work weeks
he’s a socialist. enough said. why doesn’t his happy ass move to europe with the rest of the socialists.
That was a good interview with RMS. I think that the FSF would benefit from finding ways to assist open source software, especially source code to be more understandable to beginners.
One of the primary barriers to open source thinking are a lack of a knowledge base and tools that assist beginner developers from taking advantage of the source code. This is a direction that the FSF could take to further it’s cause and it is not a direction available to vendors. Instead of free software emulating vendor software, it would be better if free software established it’s own path. The fact is that if free software was more accessible than we would be seeing different software architectures taking shape.
If you have the source code, that does not necessarily make the code accessible. It is only open, but you need additional tools and a knowledge base to be able to find the value in open source. Since the industry is still based on the sales mentality, the developers are dependant on vendor products rather than open source platforms, and I’m not definately not just talking about the operating system as the platform, but generic components and quality software that is popular for it’s value, rather than being popular due to a brand name.
…or popular because you are forced to use it.
just like the slashdot dorks, you always have morons defending socialism. oh well, europeans will never grok reality.
Chill out. For one, your horribly off topic, for another you seem to forget that europe is still recovering from two back-to-back world wars. I have a friend from Belarus, her nation lost one third of its population in that war (then it was part of the Soviet Union) and her city, Minsk, was literally leveled. Only a handful of buildings predate the war, according to her well under ten. Some parts of Europe have come further along then others, such as Germany, the U.K., or France while others like eastern nations or some central like Italy are still trying to recover. Do many Americans realize that in the 50 something years since WWII Italy has gone through *twelve* different governments? Stability isn’t a word known by many Italians. Are Europeans racist? I wouldn’t know, never been – but I have noticed a distinct lack of visible minorities there, in leadership possitions in business or politics. I don’t know. My Belarusian friend seems to have a high opinion of blacks, so who knows.
Two things about Europeans, in general (and most certainly not are all this way), is the following. The whole “American Imperialism” crap for one. How can the French, or the British, or any other nation that once colonized most of the developing world dare to say such a thing and keep a straight face? Africa is in its current state *because* of European occupation. Once they up and left they left a huge vacuum only to be replaced by dictators. Oopsy. Once, before the 1960s, America was *loved* by the Arab nations for we were the *only* Western nation who *didn’t* colonize them. That atttiude changed when America began backing dictators for oil, proping up corrupt governments so we could get at their wells. American Imperialism? How dare they point their finger!
Second, the death penalty. I, for one, am for its abolish for strictly cost associated reasons then any ethical or morali qualsm. Its simply cheaper to keep someone alive then to execute. But beyond that do many people realize that the French used the guillotine as a method of execution up until the 1960s? Yet they point their fingers…
Okay, end rant. Europe hasn’t had it easy and much is still struggling forward, but America largely doesn’t deserve much of the crap tossed our way, though some is true. Are Americans arrogant? Most likely, but we earned it.
I saw on linex.org, the LinEx contains mplayer, so mplayer don’t have any problem of licence because of codecs or they just ship a cripple version of mplayer without commercial codecs
One can say a lot of bad things about RMS – but damn the man has integrity. I’s 100% or 0% – I for one respect that!
If You dont like free software then pay
Don’t worry, 95% of desktop users have spoken.
Watching what the Americans (and now many other western nations) let their government do to freedom rights, I can only come to think that most people (with voting rights) don’t know much about freedom, don’t value it, and don’t care about it at all. And it doesn’t matter if we talk about free software or other freedom rights. It seems poeple see a cage’s bar only if it’s right before their own (mostly closed) eyes.
“If You dont like free software then pay”
Pay with the incredible high price of a all the things you can’t do with propritary software and all the controll you loose.
RMS is an extremist, and it’s always handy to have extremists around, if only for colour commentary.
What I am curious about is at which point the decision was made that he, and only he, is capable of deciding which software is “free”. Since at no point during his comments does he qualify his assertions of the “free” nature, or lack thereof, with a statement indicating that they are solely his opinion.
“”The problem is complicated by the fact that most users have not yet ceased to consider Windows a viable alternative. “”
This flies in the face of reality. Viable alternative to what? Windows occupies the lion’s share of the market, it is up to the OSS community to provide a viable alternative to Windows (Which it has), not the other way around. To imply that Windows itself is not a viable system is a very extreme position to take.
“”Ximian was once a good example of a successful free software company, but that changed in 2002 when Ximian introduced a non-free product. (I won’t say what it does, because I don’t want to promote a non-free program.)””
Implying that the act of releasing a commercial product irrevocably taints the company in relation to it’s participtation in the OSS community. (I think the product is Ximian Connector, can’t be sure though)
“”We still recommend GNOME first of all because it’s part of the GNU Project, but that’s without prejudice to any other free software developers.””
Pure hypocrisy. First he implies that the FSF/OSS community are the guardians of “free” software, then that GNU, which is perhaps the loudest voice within that community, recommends one free desktop environment over another. The very act of recommendation is prejudicial by implying that GNOME is somehow more in-tune with the ideals of the FSF/OSS community than other free desktop environments.
“”The name “Trusted Computing” (I think they’ve changed it since) is a deceptive half-truth. The idea of this change in computer hardware is that application developers will be able to trust your computer to obey them instead of obeying you. To describe it more honestly, we call it “Treacherous Computing”. “”
Oh my, is the failure of Microsoft’s initiative really going to be discussed using name calling as the primary argument?
“”But the GPL may put some limits on some of the changes in Linux (the kernel) that would be needed to include DRM support in Linux itself. “”
So the GPL could possibly be used to limit inclusion of code that the developer of the Linux kernel wishes to include. How very “free” thinking of you Richard.
“”I think we should modify browsers to encourage and help users to send messages of complaint to those sites, to pressure them to change. “”
Ahh, the age old technique of “sign my petition”. In the meantime the end-user is presumably supposed to put up with only seeing content produced for media that RMS considers “free”. Since most of the plugins desribed are available as free (As in beer) downloads what RMS is actually describing here is limiting the rights of the artist to use the media of their choice to display their work. So by advocating total adherence to the use of only “free” software he is also advocating the restriction of other freedoms in order to attain that goal.
“”The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps.””
The perpetual revolution. Like nirvana freedom is unattainable, it is the journey that teaches us. How very zen of you Richard.
***
I think the man is starting to become a little delusional. That’s not name calling, that’s my honest belief. Very often RMS seems to show complete diregard of the reality that the world represents and instead appears to base his comments on some fictional view that has been twisted to better suit his personal prejudices.
” Pay with the incredible high price of a all the things you can’t do with propritary software and all the controll you loose.”
what control? i don’t code, i don’t do programming, i just use whatever tool is available, free or propietary based on merits, not on religion
And Americans are murderers and Belgians are childrapers and Germans are nazis and you’re a fucking idiot!
Fuck off Boshon!
You anti-capitalist fanactics just dont give up do you?
You trounce it while you enjoy its benefits.
One man’s gain is NOT another mans loss. There is no ‘Owning wealth’ in capitalistic economy. Please get some education on a subject before you open your mouth.
When gates makes another billion, it doesnt detract from ANYONE, because wealth is created, not some zero-sum commodity floating around that needs to be redistributed.
No one here is forced to do anything.
If you do not:
1. Get an education.
2. Start a business.
3. Demand better wages/find a new job/ get new job skills.
Then the person to blame for not making enough money is YOU.
And dont give me that ‘people need help’ liberal garbage. I worked thru college working at Dominos Pizza.
“Okay, then what about the US? Where did its economic might come from? Slavery” Yea, moron. We were a super power in the mid-late 1800s…which is when slavery last existed here. The US abolished slavery LONG BEFORE most other countries did.
Truth is, anti-capitalists don’t like the freedom in this country. You don’t have to give any corporation anything(unless you WANT their products), and you dont have to work for anyone.
Here is Democratic party/Howard Dean platforms :
http://www.nationmakers.com/com_man.htm
” Pay with the incredible high price of a all the things you can’t do with propritary software and all the controll you loose.”
what control? i don’t code, i don’t do programming, i just use whatever tool is available, free or propietary based on merits, not on religion
Exactly!!! What percentage of computer users can actually code well enough to modify a piece of open source software? I bet the number is < 1%
So for Joe User, the argument of freedom to modify software falls apart. They don’t care anymore than most of us care about the fact that we COULD turn our car into a toaster.
Joe User uses this stuff out of the box and just wants it to work, so in that sense free software is irrelevent to over 99% of the population.
Also, I love all these “how dare they criticize RMS!!!” arguments. Yeah, he’s done good stuff, and I use software that he helped create every single day, BUT that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize his opinions. In the same vein, criticizing his opinions in no way invalidates his good work.
I appreciate what he’s done, but I think his time of relevency is past…shooting your mouth off and acting like a nut job is a helluva lot less useful to me than writing excellent software, so for this reason, I have a lot more respect for people like Miguel de Icaza, Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, etc. It’s okay to shoot your mouth off, but do something USEFUL too.
The end user would be an ultimate benefactor of open source software and free software and democracy, but a vendor who controls the research and development, much like a dictator, would want to make it impossible for open source software to exist. They also don’t care for freedom of choice.
Right now, people can use Kazaa and get pirated software, but that is not free or open source software. Microsoft intends to take those capabilities away, and they have every right too.
Than end users in larger numbers will be looking at Linux and open source. Yet right now a software pirate can have a good time using Microsoft Windows.
“RMS advocates GNU/LinEx but uses Debian for a reason he clearly stated: his system was setup before GNU/LinEx was available.”
I don’t buy this. First it seems wrong to chastise Debian when GNU/LinEx is a derivative of Debian. Second I think his action and his reason for not switching to GNU/LinEx is a bad example, and perhaps hypocritical. By his example and reasoning, most people should continue using the OS their system was setup with (i.e. the vast majority have a proprietary OS installed by the OEM.)
I think that you have a good argument and that you should e-mail him with it. I’m sure that he intends to switch (and I’m also sure that he doesn’t have non-free software on his laptop), but, I think that you should communicate the importance you place on it.
Personally, I’m glad for people like RMS in this world. He is a man of conviction surrounded by people who flutter in the breeze.
You don’t have to agree with him about everything; but only a fool would disagree with him about everything he says. He makes some really good points.
If you really had to summarize RMS’ feelings you could say that he fears that the corporation will control the tools which will in turn control the individual. His rants on ‘trustworthy computing’ are all about that. Without freedom in software, we could find ourselves slaves to the machine – the machine telling US what we can listen to, what we can watch, what we can play, what we can learn.
RMS is the one extreme in the argument whereas people like the music/movie industries and software firms are the other. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle but to find that midpoint, don’t we need someone like RMS to give us that balance?
“All your Linux are belong to GNU”
of course not, everybody knows a C program works perfect without a compiler.