“We now have two distinct classes of Linux users whose interests are not the same, and perhaps we have more than that if we want to talk about people who think of software in political rather than pragmatic terms. Can these factions work together, or will tensions between them eventually kill the free software and open source movements?” Read the editorial at NewsForge.
A Splintering Linux Community
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Look at Mac OS X, a perfect example of how both types of people can come together seamlessly.
I think there’s a certain element of disagreement with the Linux community that the mac community doesn’t have to put up with. In Linux, you’ve got people who actually get upset because someone wants to add eye candy to something. There are people who swear by OpenBox and look down at people who use flashy stuff like XFce.
Then you’ve got a few people who think everything should be done at the GUI level. This is actually a stage most people pass through fairly quickly.
The two sides need to lighten up; you can have the best of both worlds. Cairo / 3D desktops don’t just add eye candy. They actually take some load off the CPU, which frees up cycles. Imagine; letting a graphics processor *process graphics*! I know, it’s zany. And hey! A lot of distros these days can be used for all non-hardcore-admin stuff without even knowing of the CLI! All of these are good things. If you’re *really* that hardcore one way or another, ultimately, you’ve got choice on your side. It’s part of the nature of Linux.
Good points.
Some younger folks think that Stallman started the free software movement. He didn’t. I was using public domain software (which is a helluva lot freerer than anything GPL) back on my Apple II before the GPL or the FSF was a twinkle in Stallman’s eye.
What a bunch of historical revisionists. You may have used some “open source” tools in the 1980s, but by that time the software world was become rapidly and increasingly proprietary, which is why Richard Stallman founded the free software foundation.
Additionally, open source is a late-nineties term to soothe corporate managers. Free software reminds users that sharing is good and asks them to prefer software license under a free softwarel license and to call it as such because it retains an emphasis on an ethical ontology of sharing rather than on a technical argument, -open source- about code development methodology.
With regards to the article, Roblimo is a polemicist, like many of the people that publish on the web today. He is looking for a nice flamewar to keep his site hits up and retain advertising dollars. Don’t fall for it.
The Linux community is united. We believe that more experienced users can server as mentors of new ones. This is what keeps the ecosystem of knowledge alive.
What a bunch of historical revisionists. You may have used some “open source” tools in the 1980s, but by that time the software world was become rapidly and increasingly proprietary, which is why Richard Stallman founded the free software foundation.
Nice try, but I never used the term “open source”. Sounds like you are the one doing the historical revisionism. There were many public domain programs out there in the early 80’s in the Apple and Commodore worlds and they were freerer than anything GPL.
Pure brain wankin idiotic stupidity … “will this bla bla … kill the open source movement ???” … man go back to sleep and stop being afraid of life.
Hey Eu,
You really shouldn’t use phrases like “because it retains an emphasis on an ethical ontology” when responding to Lumbergh. I mean he has problems grasping really simple concepts-such depth must certainly elude him.
Haha, you are exactly the type of GPL zealot I was referring to. You are the perfect example. Thanks for your post. Now everybody can witness a Stallman cult member in action.
P.S. I guess you’ve never heard of a BBS. That’s how code was shared. Maybe that pre-dates you though.
P.S.S. Stallman appreciates you drinking the koolaid. He loves having drones like you.
… why some people hate Stallman so much.
It’s like he was some sort of devil.
Well considering that I was programming before there were such things as modems I kind of doubt that BBS’s predate my experiences. Hell I remember hacking a bunch of peeks and pokes to get the the keyboard input routed over the serial line to use the first commerically available modem for home users. Just for you’re info BBS’s came a whittle bit later.
Sure invidiuals used to Compuserve, minitel, BTX and such for swapping software-and some may have even sent code to their friends-but there were no community project outside of R&D labs-and Free software is all about communities of developers/coders/hackers who freely and openly share code. What individuals can do with code is nothing next to what communities can do with code. But you conviently failed to name any of these software projects that you are so fond of refering to.
P.S. I have never met or spoken to Richard. His usage of computers is far more philosophically grounded than my more pragmatic usage. But I am smart enough to know that if it was not for his enduring philosophical stance that I would not have the freedom to be so pragmatic today.
P.S.S. I never drank the koolaid. I just went straight for the acid-nothing like the source
But I am smart enough to know that if it was not for his enduring philosophical stance that I would not have the freedom to be so pragmatic today.
So Richard Stallman’s enduring philosophical stance gave you the freedom to be pragmatic? Why don’t you go ahead and explain that one.
has debate in Graphics Arts killed either photography or painting ? Has figurative painting disappeared when abstract painting came up ?
The open source community is an ecosystem where different people have different points of views. But people like me can talk and talk and talk. What matters is what the doers say, people like de Icaza, Tolvards, Perens, IBM, Duval, Stallman, (in a random order) and so on and so on.
But I am sure the community is not in any danger from within. Software patents and a culture of hating standards in the proprietary industry is really where the danger is.
It’s easy to sit back and say “show me the proof”. With the internet as it is today being mainly a ’90ies thing, and people in the 70ies / 80ies not being so god-damn *religious* about them releasing stuff including source code, it’s hard to find “proof” you would accept.
But in the Aminet I find Public Domain software dating back to the early 90’ies easily enough, and not a word of propaganda to go with it…
linux and Open Source were for me a natural evolution of the way I used software from day one on my first computer. Who remembers the Aminet CDs and ftp sites for the amiga. I still have 25 of them. The quality and quantity of open-source and free software was unbelievable, and I’m talking the eighties here well before linux was reality (BSD on the Amiga was my first taste of Unix).
Back in the day (way before my time,im just going from what I’ve read) Didn’t Prime use to give the source code to PrimOS out with a new Prime or upgrade etc ? And I think honeywell etc used to do the same and it was aprently quite common.
As for this whole “kill the free software and open source movements” It’s rather laughable.Do you see car fan sites dying out cause someone doesn’t like a ford and someone else does ? Sure,that was a bad word picture,but it’s all i could think of atm.
Correction, Aminet was late eighties early nineties, fish was before this.
“…to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software” – Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/use-free-software.html
So according to him, anybody that uses software that is not “free” in the FSF definition of the word is not moral.
“I grew up in a community whose other members committed crimes as serious as murder. The city of New York, with its 8 million inhabitants, had hundreds of murders each year, mostly committed by people who lived in the city. Violent assaults and robberies were even more common.
Other evils involving information rather than physical violence were common also. For instance, some New York police regularly lied on the witness stand, and even made up a word for it: instead of “testifying”, they described court appearances as “testilying”. Some New York programmers fell into the lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software: they offered other people attractive software packages without source code, and exacted a promise not to share them with anyone else.” – Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html
That quote is even better. He lumps in programmers that produce “non-free” software with murderers and perjuring cops.
The guy has serious psychological problems.
From what I have read in the comments a lot of you have no idea what “free” means in the RMS sense. Now, I’m not a zealot by any means. I side more with Eric Raymond in the “Free” vs “Open Source” debate, but I understand the difference between the two, the difference between “free” and “public domain” (which is not free in the RMS sense) and the contributions that RMS and other GNU developers have made. If it wern’t for them GNU/Linux would be where it is today.
All I’m suggesting is do some research before you spout off about topics that you think you have a clue on. But above all, show some respect for those that have done the work to even give you something to debate about. Learn that “free” means “Free as in Freedom and not Free beer” before you spout off about public domain. I’d better quit before I get really worked up. I’m out.
I think the free software approach is an effective development model, but its concepts cannot be applied legitimately outside that small arena. So, I’ve never understood the reasoning that leads people to refuse to use software simply because they disapprove of the way it was developed. Why hobble yourself? It just helps solidify the impression that hardcare free software proponents are a tiny, self-isolated sect bent on using a lot of 20-year old software.
“Well considering that I was programming before there were such things as modems ”
There have been modems since at least the mid 1960s, so you must have a long career behind you.
Karl, I, too, used a lot of public domain software back in the early eighties. A lot of the stuff was floating around. And, frankly, a lot of was distributed in BASIC source because several of the PC’s of those days ran tiny BASIC interpreters disguised as quasi-operating systems.
Truth is, I really don’t care if I get the source or not. I’m a user, not a developer. I depend on developers to create software I want to use. AS far as I’m concerned, that’s what developers do; that’s their purpose.
I agree that sharing source is a great way to share knowledge of how software works. But, since it is essentially meaningless to users, it also serves to enhance the closed loop in which so many free software developers seem to work: writing code that they — not users — want to use.
When someone releases software that people want to use, well.. people will use it and they won’t care if the source code is there or not. For evidence, look at the 95 percent of the world not using free software.
@ Slackster:
> From what I have read in the comments a lot of you
> have no idea what “free” means in the RMS sense.
I, for one, know perfectly well what RMS considers to be “free”: GNU/Linux. Check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/udi.html and see how he lumps the two together.
I tend to disagree with this notion of “freedom”.
RMS is not out to create a better software world, or to break open the market for alternatives. He’s out to make the Windows monopoly into a Windows / GNU/Linux duopoly, and once he’s achieved that, he’ll be a happy camper.
Fact is that Windows and GNU/Linux are broken beyond compare, and the hype that people like you are raising around GNU, FSF, and GPL doesn’t help in creating real alternatives.
Broken beyond compare? I meant “beyond repair”, but “beyond compare” is nice, too. 😉
Lumbergh, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand free software. I can see you’re a troll, but I feel that I can’t let it go without telling you once. After that, at least I can say I’ve tried.
Software with sourcecode free-of-charge certainly pre-dates the Free software movement. Indeed, software that could retrospectively be described as ‘Free software’ (in the FSF’s sense) certainly pre-dates the Free software movement. No-one doubts that and I doubt you’ll find anyone willing to deny it, much less ‘RMS fanboys’. In fact, it was because of the historical availability of this software that the Free software movement was founded in the first place!
There is, however, a fundamental difference between the availability of software that might be described as Free software and the Free software movement. Free software may be and is released for all sorts of reasons. It may be that it provides cheap maintenance of code; it may be that the software is no longer relevant. These two, however, do not represent releases from the Free software movement; they describe open source releases. The Free software movement releases software primarily because we feel that software should be free; the goal of the Free software movement is to replace all non-free software with Free software.
While a multitude of software may have been released prior to RMS expressing his desire for a world of Free software, there was no concerted effort to allow end-users (i.e. anyone but those at universities running older computers) to have a computer that had all the source code for all the programs available. This is what the Free software movement represents. It doesn’t matter how many isolated public domain programs are written for Windows or Amigas or GEM or whatever ancient operating system you care to mention! It matters that there is a concerted effort to create computers running entirely Free software. Computers that pay tribute (and at the same time contribute) to the Free software movement do not count how many pieces of Free software there are (‘I run Mozilla Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org and Apache on my Windows box’); they count how many pieces of non-free software there are (‘I run Adobe Acrobat Reader on my Linux box’)!
This is what didn’t exist till Richard Stallman made his post to net.unix-wizards about the GNU project. This is what the Free software movement represents.
You, however, may not care that all the software on your computer is Free. You may prefer to run a Linux box because you feel that Linux happens to be a fine firewall, better than any alternative. You may prefer to run a Linux box because you feel that ROX, or XFce, or KDE, or Gnome happens to be a better desktop environment than Windows. You may prefer to run a Linux box because you can’t afford Windows licencing fees, but can’t afford to be caught with an unlicenced computer. That’s up to you. But let me make my decision too, without labelling me anything but a Free-software user and advocate.
>>Does the GPL fanboys mess up the community?
YES, RMS and alikes are messing up most of it..<<
First off, there wouldn’t be a community without Mr. Stallman and his allies. I know, a lot of people doubt this and while i am not as old as Lumbergh or Karl seem to be, i know the BBS scene based around the Commodore C64. There was some Assembly and BASIC code flowing around but never in the form of a complete application. The situation deterioated, take the german MausNet (similiar to FidoNet) for example, around 1990. Programmers discussed some aspect or the other but that was all that was to it. Only with the requirement to share the code the open development model became what is called the “community”.
Then on to the topic of my post (and excuse the harsh words, but this is necessary): if you really think you can detach the development, the purpose, the production – and any attribute you care to mention – of a tool from politics, you are a fool. Our economic system, the preference for efficience, the pragmatic approach, the very way we do things – all are an expression of political views.
Once this is established it becomes painfully obvious that liberty is dependent on your actions. Modern liberal constitutions of states that haven’t a liberal tradition (e. g. Germany) include provisions to fend of anti-liberal attempts to abolish the freedom enjoyed within their sphere of validity. You may run around and enslave yourself for whatever means you think appropiate, but if you attempt to abolish the liberal constitution these states will (and in Germany have) act(ed) swiftly to stop these attempts. Hopefully Germany will develop a liberal tradition some time in the future to not longer need such provisions but for the time being it is good that they are there.
The system of software development and deployment is similiar because it has no tradition of liberty, it has no tradition to speak of. Mr. Stallman argues that access to software should be free and stay free and since there is no tradition of free software he provided a means to defend the liberty of software, the GPL. And while you may claim that this is less free than the BSD or similiar licenses it says only one thing: No freedom for the enemies of freedom!
Hopefully the software developing community will establish a liberal tradition to make the GPL obsolete, but for now, i am glad it’s there.
End of rant.
Don Cox,
There were no commerically available modems for home computers until the very end of the 1970’s-I started learning how to program in 1976. That was the context of my statement and I stand by it.
enloop,
You have been given the freedom to not have to care about how the software is developed-or whether or one has access to the code. You are even given the freedom to take this freedom in vain, or for granted. Perhaps it should be noted here: the freedom I am refering to is freedom in regards to software development-ie. not being dependent upon software libraries(compiler, linker, standard C libraries etc.) to which one has no source code access.
This freedom for developers enables them to create free software for users. If, as a developer I do not have free access to the software tool chain I cannot offer free software to to others, written based on those libraries, without having to pay royalties-If the company which produced the toolchain allows me to develop software for the platform without paying royalties I stil do not have the freedom to improve and further develope the toolchain upon which all software depends.
This is the the whole thing in a nutshell. Once the the software developers are allowed to freely contribute and improve the toolchain upon which all software depends a situation is created which guarantees that I, as a developer, and others will be able to produce free software for users which benefits from the contributions that I and others make to the toolchain. Where this is not the case I either cannot write free software for users and/or I cannot contribute to the toolchain itself in effect delimiting my ability to be a developer of software-delimited to only developing software based on on choices made for me by the developers of the propietary toolchain.
As an end-user of software such issues may seem unrelated or irrelevant. But they have profound socio-economic consequences for entire societies-consequences which work for the benefit of local software developers and for the common needs of the society-in a global context.
solar and Makkus,
The question of free and open access to source code became an issue in the context of the IP-land grab of the 80’s. No one really cared too much about access to the source code in the 60’s and 70’s at bell labs, honeywell, DEC, EDS, IBM etc and the university computer labs. Software source was routinely exchanged amongst colleagues and coworkers-it was preety much normal.
But in the course of the 80’s the IP-land grab came upon us- things which were once trouble-free became very problematic-law suits followed and these lawsuits and the correspondign development of IP regulations involved in institutional and corporate software acquisition created the political dimension of Free software. What Stallman was doing at the time that the GNU was formed was not so very different to what the BSD students were doing in Berkley.
The distinction between the two groups was that Stallman foresaw the far-reaching socio-economic ramifications of the IP land grab which the BSD folks just ignore-at least until they were sued by AT&T. Amiga-as was the case with all of the home computers at the time hire proffessional developers to write propietary toolchains for the creation of their operating systems. Because these companies had an interest in expanding their software- and user-base they made it possible, by providing free development kits, for software developers to develop software for these platforms without having to pay royalties.
But these developers had no say in the software that constituted the toolchain upon which their developed software was dependent. In the same veign hardware manufactures provided wonderful documentation of their products and distributed these freely during this time frame-but the situation changed-no getting access to tthe documentation of hardware is extremely difficult-in the case that such even exists.
The culprit in this entire situation is not those who advocate the GPL,BSD,MITX licesnses-but those who so aggressively pursued the IP-land grap polices of the 80’s and who created the artificial situation where sharing code became legally questionable. People don’t politicize issues unless they need to-unless there is a danger in not doing so. Nostalgia about the early days of freeware software and the then current notions of public domain have become irrelevant in today’s legal landscape-either your software is available under licenses which guarantee it’s fredom or it is simply not free.
No I don’t think he’s right at all. Is the author implying that this kind of user split doesn’t exist in Mac OSX? In Windows? Is everyone booting into Windows expected to know absolutely nothing about computing? Not so…I have many highly technical friends who are windows-only. Has this “user-split” spelled the end of Windows? What about Mac OSX? Because engineers can use it and enjoy it as well as “Grandma”, is it doomed to failure?
No I’m sorry…Linux is in the same state as it always was, and in no danger from a large user base. Some people will say stuff just for the sake of opening their mouth.
… why some people hate Stallman so much.
It’s like he was some sort of devil.
Because he’s extremely narrow-minded. He absolutely will not accept anything that’s not 100% uber-GPL with extra freedom sprinkles on top. Now that’s all good and fine to do that on your own, but here’s a fanatic who’s managed to whine his way into positions of relative power. He met with the Indian prime minister regarding the use of free software. Now that may be a good thing for GNU projects, but other free licenses that don’t have the “Stallman stamp of approval” are left out in the cold. Perfectly acceptable open source projects like Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Apache that aren’t GPL’d just don’t make the cut…as a result if you go by Stallman’s philosophy of GPL or nothing, your choices are very limited and you discount a huge share of great free software.
Stallman is chasing some over-the-hill hippy dream of everyone using 100% free software and sharing code just for the good feeling it gives them and holding hands and singing and dancing and going “lalalalalalala”. It ain’t gonna happen Stallman…not so long as large corporations are involved. There are much less restrictive licenses than the GPL that are still free (as in you don’t pay any money for them). Really I can’t wait for the day the guy steps down off the soapbox.
>>”You have been given the freedom to not have to care about how the software is developed-or whether or one has access to the code. ”
I haven’t been “given the freedom” one way or the other. Code is like anything else that someone creates, it is up to them to determine if, and how, other people can use it. If they want to lock it way, that’s their right. If they want to give it away, that’s their right, too.
>>“This freedom for developers enables them to create free software for users.”
Unless they are so ideologically motivated that they will deliberately hamstring themselves by confining their software choices to free software, I suspect most users choose software based on functionality and cost. To the extent that developers focus on the needs of developers, and to the extent that they leverage and tweak existing software, the existence of all that free source can be seen as something that constrains the development of innovative and attractive software for ordinary users. (In fact, the Unix ethos of making effective use of existing tools can also be seen as countering innovation. Users have had 30 years to decide if they want to use emacs/vi and write scripts; I think their decision is clear.)
As a user, my basic interest is having access to innovative software. It is of little interest, or value, to me if that software springs forth as free software or from the bowels of Redmond. Frankly, innovation is difficult and I don’t see a lot of it anywhere. But I do see that, in regard to user software, free and open source developera are, in general, following the well-trod paths laid out in the proprietary arena. I think it is reasonable to ask if the obvious developer-focus of free software has impeded the creation user-focused free software.
The only one that sounds like a zealot here is you. Time to look in the mirror.
(Oh, and Public Domain != Free Software…)
Personally, I think all those people who clamor for software freedom are full of it. Where are they when the government encroaches on other freedoms?
At least ESR, as pompous as he can be sometimes, is a libertarian. In that regard, he can be consistent.
If you disagree with the guy, then don’t listen to him. He has constitutionally-protected rights to stay on his soapbox for as long as you like.
Personally, I think you destroyed your own argument when you mentioned Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Apache. If Stallman had the kind of influence you alleges, then these projects would have suffered from it. As it happens, these are among the most successful open-source projects out there, proving that your allegations are falses.
Live and let live: why aren’t you anti-GPL zealots incapable of doing that? (And, before Russian Guy barges in – we shouldn’t take long in a GPL-related thread, I am using the “zealot” word sacastically…)
I think the free software approach is an effective development model, but its concepts cannot be applied legitimately outside that small arena
a distributed free approach is scalable to other things besides software. there’s currently a free, distributed effort to get the history of Unix documented (i think its being done by groklaw). wikipedia is another great example of community contributions for something everyone can use freely.
science in general has taken this approach from the beginning. one scientist makes a discovery and shares it with his collegues, another expands on the initial findings. only after multiple iterations of that is something fantastic possible. how many scientists start from nothing, no previous scientists work, and come up with something spectacular?
so books and science can follow similar models to open-source software development (or oss-dev follows science’s model), its just a matter of determining how other areas can take advantage of community involvement. almost everything can benefit from the work, sweat, and tears of many.
“I haven’t been “given the freedom” one way or the other. Code is like anything else that someone creates, it is up to them to determine if, and how, other people can use it. If they want to lock it way, that’s their right. If they want to give it away, that’s their right, too.
”
Whether or not you choose to take advantage of the freedom given to you by those who have developed free software is a freedom that you posses-not one given to you. But the freedom to choose to use free software is contingent upon the prior existence of such software- and this freedom is given to you by those who have developed it-whether you take advantage of this gift or not. The rest of your statement stands.
For a developer who wishes to, desires to or needs to have access to the source constituting the entire toolchain of software used in software development for the platform upon which the developer is developing -non-free software is simply not a choice. I myself do not subscribe to the ideal of innovation-for the sake of innovation itself. When it comes to the level of work involved in re-creating “from scratch” a toolchain for software development purposes it must be noted that such has a) not occurred very often given the amount of developers and b) very few individual software developers possess the breadth and depth of skills to pull such off. One can argue-as you do -that perhaps software would be “better”, or perhaps more “user-friendly”, if developers would simply “start from scratch” as opposed to be being bogged down by a legacy of preexisting libraries and tools. You also state that the developer focus on development itself forms a constraint from the point of view of end-user applications. In both cases I find your argumentation weak.
Firstly “starting from scratch” is extremely rare in the OS community. Secondly, innovation is generally something occurs in pre-existing contexts which renew-or revitalize such contexts-and that is of course what is continuously happening in free software. This meaning of innovation is why free and open access to to the source code and communities of contributors are so important. If you believe that developers coding their toolchain to make development easier and better is limiting -or hindering them from simply developing more user-freindly software then frankly you miss understand how development works. The software the end-application developers write is only as good as the quality of the toolchain software upon which their applications depend. If a developer only has poort tools at their disposal then they cannot overcome the limitations of these tools.
Ultimately you are wrong in assuming that free and open source software developement is following the the path already trod by propietary software development. In the case of certain types of end-user applications their is superficially a degree of “following” propietary developments which predate it-yet if you look beyond the surface you will see that this appearance decieves. Take OpenOffice for example.
On the surface it seems as if they are playing catch-up to Microsoft Office. People lament that OpenOffice is not as compatible as MS Office is with itself?! The goal of OpenOffice however is significantly different than the goal which Microsoft pursued in developing Microsoft Office. That goal was that the entire world of computer users would be depenedent upon the ever-newest, ever latest versions of Microsoft Office and that this dependency be expressed not merely economically but in terms of quasi-standards which then dictates the software used by institutions and governements in adddition to home and corporate users.
The goal of OpenOffice is to produce a powerful suite of office applications which makes the data stored in OpenOffice format available to any and or all office applications(databases, archives, web development etc.) -which is achievable due to the openness of format in which the data is saved. This is not following the steps of Microsoft.In fact Microsoft cannot do this. Only Microsoft products can seemlessly work with other Microsoft products-and in those cases where third-party applications succeed in such seemless integration it is due to licenscing agreements with Microsoft-which you as end-user pay for.
The point of such openess is that in the future it will not be important which Office application you are using as long as it supports the format in which the data is stored. As such it serves not only the intrestes of the home consumer and corporate users but is ultimately valubale in the context of institutional and governmental operation: governments have regulations regarding the accessibility of documentation and institutions are dependendent upon their capacity to archive documentation of various forms. Only in the context of open formats can the obligations and regulations actually be fulfilled. Microsoft does not have to license this technology in order to integrate it into their products- it is free. I for one am sick of my tax dollars going to underwrite propietary software companies. If the truth would be known it would quickly become evident that our tax dollars have been artificially supporting market monopolies of propietary corporations. In the context of the US-Microsoft is only one of these monopolies-EDS, which provides the software for Medicare/Medicaid systems has had a far more entrenched monopoly. And of course all of this occurs in the name of “free markets”.
The price to be paid for that which you do not count has gotten exorbitant-and this is fueling the movement away from propietary solutions.
….or so I’ve heard.
As Linus has said, it’s just for fun. Nothing religious. Nothing political. Nothing “grand.” Nothing proprietary. Just for fun. And that’s all.
I don’t understand those Zealots (I mean any zealots…Micro$oft/Linux/GNU/BSD/Mac..etc)…they seem to have narrow visions about the world….Think about Crusaders back in middle ages…they killed thousands of innocent and peaceful peoples. …and think about how blind humankind can be when they are caught up deeply with something…yeah, it’s all too frightening.
I would like ask all of those ranting anti-GPL ranting contributers why they think that big corporations like Novell and IBM use licences like the GPL and CPL which while allowing the free copying and reuse of code stipulate that all derivative work should also have the code made available.
Think about guys – there is something deeper going on than “Rush” Lumbergh and his ilk can understand.
We need only look to the recent changes in licensing terms of Movable Type to understand what the GPL and BSD licenses do: they keep companies and individuals from pulling the rug out from user our feet. The source code or a binary being available is not enough.
Freedom is important and it disturbs me that more people do not care it.
Aren’t semantic discussions great. Free means free, or does it? I love it.
I appreciate you wasting your time by trying to explain free software to me. If you hadn’t noticed in my two previous posts, I’ve been to the GNU website on numerous occassions.
I’m all for people giving out code in source, binary, under whatever license they deem fit. Refer to my two previous posts on why there is a problem with Stallman’s “philosophy” or “movement” as you like to call it.
If Stallman would go about his business producing free code without making statements such as “using non-free software is morally unacceptable” or lumping programmers that produce “non-free” software in with murderers and perjuring cops, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the so-called “movement”(once again, refer to my two previous posts for the stallman quotes).
Some of you people talk about “freedom” of software. But Stallman wants to restrict software freedom by calling people that use non-free software “morally unacceptable”. Sounds more like fascism than freedom to me.
In principle I agree with Stallman’s ethic towards free software, BUT at this time it is simply not practical for many users. Should I totally swear off using 3D applications so I can be “free”? There are no free alternatives to the nvidia drivers for my $200 video card or such a project in the works. Where is the free alternative to Flash and Java as well. The fact is that no one wants to reinvent the wheel over a well engineered product that, while it is not open source, it is free to use. This freedom is a double edge sword. If you are not using the applications you truly need or want because they are not OSS are you really free? Freedom means the freedom to choose as well. While Stallman is a good person to have running the FSF I don’t quite agree with everything he says. The reality is that while I use Linux, Firefox, Evolution, and Open Office I also use UT2004, Winex, and Flash.
Stallman can say whatever he wants on his web site. You may agree with him or not – that doesn’t take away from the value of the GPL and of Free Software in general.
I also beleive you’ve taken the “New York crime” quote waaay out of context. I went and read the article, and nowhere does he equate the act of murder with that of writing proprietary software. He simply uses those as examples to set up his “guilty by association” point, which is the main subject of the article.
Stallman has pretty strict moral guidelines, but that doesn’t mean that some aspects of what he writes is true. You can agree with him in part, and disagree with him on other parts. The one fact that we can all agree on is that GNU and the GPL have had a huge impact on the software industry. Linux wouldn’t be here without him – in fact, as Neal Stephenson once wrote, Linux is product of an unlikely trinity: Linux Torvalds (of course), RMS (for the GNU tools and the GPL) and Bill Gates (for being instrumental in making cheap x86 hardware ubiquitous).
One can criticize RMS, and one can disagree with him for his sometimes quirky opinions, but to say that the man needs psychological help is to ignore his talent and contributions to the software world. I don’t always agree with him, but I respect him nonetheless.
I don’t ignore his software contributions at all. I’m sure I’ve used GCC thousands of times to compile code. And I think the GPL is probably a good license for GCC.
I take offense to him saying that using non-free software is morally unacceptable. In reality he wants to restrict your freedom of software use and he’s duped a lot of people into buying his definition of “software freedom”.
>>a distributed free approach is scalable to other things besides software… groklaw…wikipedia.
As efforts apparently dependent on voluntary efforts and contributions, groklaw and wikipedia seem to me to operate much as traditional charities. Charities are neither new or insignificant. But, they cannot exist without a stream of resources provided as gifts from the outside. I.e., they are not self-sustaining. The free softare movement, at least as I understand it, seeks to be, and is, essentially self-sustaining.
>>science in general has taken this approach from the beginning. one scientist makes a discovery and shares it with his collegues…
Yes, scientists share their findings (except when they don’t). But, arguing by analogy from this one case to the case of free software isn’t especially pertinent to my statements. I’m arguing that the sharing of code among developers has resulted two things: (1) the repetitive revision of well-aged software specific to the Unix development environment, i.e., the GNU toolset, emacs, vi, etc. Thses are excellent tools for their purpose, but — in no small part due to the emphasis of Unix on re-using existing tools — they’ve shown they will never break out of that ghetto; (2) the creation of derivative software: Linux, openoffice, KDE, Gnome, etc. All excellent, worthy software (that I use daily) but they all exist because somone wanted free/open software to provide capabilities that already existed elsewhere. Sharing code certainly makes life easier for developers, but, from the evidence, I don’t agree that it conveys an advantage over proprietary development in terms of creating unique and innovative software for users.
>>its just a matter of determining how other areas can take advantage of community involvement. almost everything can benefit from the work, sweat, and tears of many.
“Community involvement” resolves to charity. Absent the willingness of donors to contribute the resources these efforts need to function, they would die.
While to some people everything the author said may be obvious, it still is a goos article. It is short, clear, and puts everything together in a very compact manner, while it is still nearly free from prejudice.
I understand that creating better tools should allow developers to do better work. But, to spin an analogy, even the best of word processors isn’t going to turn me into a Nobel laureate. As I’ve said, the free software approach is an effective develpment model. I just don’t agree that it has delivered to users capabilities that cannot be found elsewhere.
Re: OpenOffice — OpenOffice may seek a world of free and open formats. That’s a worthy goal. But, the format issue facing most people today is conforming to the Microsoft standard, not to open standards. So long as any single format dominates — proprietary or free — then a vision of people using and exchanging data in any format they choose will remain rather distant. And, let’s face it, the primary thing “selling” OpenOffice is the fact that it doesn’t cost anything. If it came in a shrinkwrapped box for $199, few users would give the format issue a minute’s thought. They’d head straight to Office.
Understand, I am not zealous about this issue, one way or the other. I use free and open software, and have for years. (I’m drawn to it because I broke in on Unix, not Windows. It’s a good thing, but it isn’t going to save tw world. Microsoft retains an effective desktop monopoly. That’s a bad thing, but it isn’t going to ruin the world.
I also understand that software innovation is very difficult, for free, open, and proprietary developers. It is a very conservative business, as you’ve illustrated. (Code that “breaks the mold” is likely not to run on any useful platform.) When I argue, as I do, that free software has not been especially innovative from a user perspective, I’m not asserting that the proprietary world has been any more innovative.
for the majority of foss software, you may be right, it is written to fill the void created by proprietary software, but propreitary software is no different, there is no shortage of office suites, development tools, or even desktop operating systems. microsoft’s longhorn will recreate features from at least 4 different operating systems (earlier versions of windows, OS X (hardware accelerated desktop), BeOS (database driven file system), and Unix-like OSes (security), but you’re not criticizing their developing software that’s already existed or revising their own software. its not the development model that’s responsible for the ideas, its just what sees those ideas to completion
i agree that most open source projects cannot thrive without the financial resources of companies, but for the money companies put in, i doubt they would be able to accomplish the same thing at the same cost without an open development model. the projects can survive, but the monetary support from companies helps them flourish.
is it really charity when you’re getting more back then you could ever put in?
I think the Linux community is being deluded. We do not have non technical users, depending upon your definition of technical. But the sheer fact you are running Linux, something either than Windows or Apple operating systems, says you have a certain degree of technical astuteness.
Linux has not reached mainstream, Linux newbies do not always want to remain newbies (no matter how frusterated they are). Few Mandrake users if any will call a Gentoo user a computer geek for wanting to possibly build his system from source.
Because chances are that Mandrake user is also a computer geek.
In principle I agree with Stallman’s ethic towards free software, BUT at this time it is simply not practical for many users. Should I totally swear off using 3D applications so I can be “free”? There are no free alternatives to the nvidia drivers for my $200 video card or such a project in the works. Where is the free alternative to Flash and Java as well. The fact is that no one wants to reinvent the wheel over a well engineered product that, while it is not open source, it is free to use. This freedom is a double edge sword. If you are not using the applications you truly need or want because they are not OSS are you really free?
This is an excellent point. If you swear off non-free software because of your religous beliefs, and as a result can’t have access to the programs that you really need (if there are no non-free alternatives for what you use), then has your computer just turned into a 20lb paperweight? What good is it?
I take offense to him saying that using non-free software is morally unacceptable.
Well, according to his moral values, it is. Just like (to take an extreme example, don’t misconstrue this as flamebait please), abortion is immoral for pro-lifers, and restricting abortion is immoral for pro-choice people. You can disagree with him, but you can’t take offense because he remains true to his moral standards.
In reality he wants to restrict your freedom of software use
Really? Him and what army? No, seriously, if he wants to restrict software use then he needs methods of coercition, since restriction is anything but voluntary. Is he lobbying for laws that will make non-free software illegal? Is he threatening those who use proprietary software?
RMS doesn’t want to restrict anyone from using anything. He is ADVOCATING the use of Free Software, and giving reasons as to why, in his opinion, proprietary software is immoral.
and he’s duped a lot of people into buying his definition of “software freedom”.
Whether people chose to follow RMS’s advocacy or not is a matter of personal belief, not of being duped. If I agree with RMS’s definition of Free Software, then I am not being misled.
You, obviously, don’t agree with it. But that doesn’t mean that you’re right, and that he’s wrong. Rather, like most moral issues, it is a matter of personal choice. This is something that RMS understands – I wonder if you do…
I this you people are confusing the two concepts of Dogma (something which you have to follow, at the risk of being ostracized by a community) and Utopia (an ideal one should strive to attain, even if in reality it might be unattainable, becasue of its higher virtues).
Although RMS might follow the doctrine of Free Software to the letter, a lot of people don’t see it as a Dogma, but rather as a Utopia (i.e. they will use Free Software when necessary, and encourage Free Software projects, but won’t prevent themselves from using proprietary software if needed).
RMS represents the far end of the spectrum, and as such serves as much a purpose as Microsoft.
Well software started out “free” and went “proprietary” at the point where it contained to much “stolen” code.
leave it open-source and people will know, close it and they wont know.
It’s that darn simple…
RMS represents the far end of the spectrum, and as such serves as much a purpose as Microsoft.
I don’t think there is a ‘far end of the spectrum’ .. either you’re a Free Software zealot or you use the right tool for the job. Is there really an ‘in between’ ?
Of course, if you’ve got two software choices equal in functionality, you’re probably going to choose the Free one. Wouldn’t anybody?
The “right tool for the job” is a very subjective concept. Some people have personal preferences for certain tools just because they feel more comfortable with it.
The “far end of the spectrum” is “use only Free software”…
I have to say that Stallman, while he has admirable qualities in abundance, by pushing the FSF agenda as aggressively as he does instills a misplaced sense of guilt in many of us and for those that buy the whole FSF deal it limits their power to learn about computing and stay up on the newest technology. There is a middle way. Don’t let ethics that are very much unnecessary limit your freedom instead of enhancing it. I much more agree with Linus’ view on this subject over Stallman. The FSF really doesn’t care much for Linux and would prefer to see Hurd replace it.
The “right tool for the job” is a very subjective concept. Some people have personal preferences for certain tools just because they feel more comfortable with it.
Well, yeah .. there’s a difference between “I’m going to use this tool because it works best for me” and “I’m going to use this tool because it is free software, even though I think there are better tools out there for this purpose.”
The “far end of the spectrum” is “use only Free software”…
So if that’s one end of the spectrum, then what’s on the other? Even MS uses Free Software, so you can’t say that they represent the other end.
“… why some people hate Stallman so much.
It’s like he was some sort of devil.”
I can’t tell you why people hate him. I don’t hate the man, and I can even agree with some of what he so firmly believes in.
What I can tell you is; watching him speak in a public forum, or on a television interview would make you wonder. He comes off as a really “odd duck”, and a very poor public spokesperson.(perhaps he is just nervous) I would go into more details but I don’t think that would be appropriate in this forum.
Well, yeah .. there’s a difference between “I’m going to use this tool because it works best for me” and “I’m going to use this tool because it is free software, even though I think there are better tools out there for this purpose.”
Well, you could also have “I can do the same thing, albeit slightly differently, with these two tools, however one is Free Software and the other one is proprietary…I choose to support Free Software so I’ll use the first one.”
The “best tool for the job” is not only subjective, but sometimes also relative. Sometimes, there are no “best tools” – all tools suck, but not necessarily the same way. Sometimes, the differences are purely cosmetic – can someone say that Outlook Express is really better than Evolution or Kmail? Sometimes a tool is the best for certain aspects of the job, not very good for others.
Take our project management system, AlienBrain. It’s got great functionalities and a rather good UI. But it’s got shortcomings, and it’s rather unstable under heavy load. Is it the best tool for the job? Hard to tell.
It is quite possible to have a fully useable system with only free software, if that is your philosophical choice. And one should respect that choice, even if one doesn’t share it. As I’ve said, one can not agree with RMS and still respect his views.
So if that’s one end of the spectrum, then what’s on the other? Even MS uses Free Software, so you can’t say that they represent the other end.
The other end of the spectrum is SCO, saying that Free Software should be banned by congress because it will destroy America’s lead in IT, or MS saying that the GPL is “viral” and a “cancer.”
Aren’t the references to religion getting a little old? It seems that people bring up religion when refering to Free Software just so they can justify their overuse of the term “zealot”. If Free Software advocacy is anything other than just that, then it would be political, not religious. Religion has nothing to do with Free Software. I am not a zealot, religious or otherwise, but I choose to use Free Software for political reasons.
Those who equate Free Software advocates to religious zealots are more fanatical than those they slander.
Then there are comments like this:
Some of you people talk about “freedom” of software. But Stallman wants to restrict software freedom by calling people that use non-free software “morally unacceptable”. Sounds more like fascism than freedom to me.
It doesn’t sound anything like fascism to me. No matter what you think of Stallman’s antics, he is not, and can not force you into ultra-nationalism and militarism. He does not hold that kind of power. It is a poor analogy.
>>…you’re not criticizing their developing software that’s already existed or revising their own software. its not the development model that’s responsible for the ideas, its just what sees those ideas to completion
Thought I did say the proprietary folks are not expecially innovative, either. As I said, it’s a conservative business by nature.
>>..for the money companies put in, i doubt they would be able to accomplish the same thing at the same cost without an open development model.
I have no way of knowing, but I suspect you’re correct.
>>is it really charity when you’re getting more back then you could ever put in?
Depends on what you get in return. I’m talking in economic and market terms, where goods and services are exchanged for money or other goods and services. Charitable donations to organizations you support don’t involve that kind of exchange. You’re giving them a gift because you want to support them.
Charitable donations to organizations you support don’t involve that kind of exchange. You’re giving them a gift because you want to support them.
However, if you profit from the organization you’re supporting, it’s not really charity. After all, the poor don’t give money to the soup kitchens.
A charity is a bad analogy because of this detail. In fact, there are no real analogies since the Free Software development model is something that is completely new (which is why it’s so misunderstood).
Here’s an analogy: When I give the clerk at McDonald’s some money, he gives me a Big Mac. I get the goods I wanted to purchase, and McDonald’s makes a little profit, which is what they’re interested in. My money is not a gift, and McDonald’s is not giving anything away, either.
If McDonald’s was a charity, any money I gave them would be a gift because they would give me nothing in return. I may believe they are doing good work and wish to support that work, but they will have not sold anything to and neither they nor I will derive a profit from the transaction.
I understand what a charity is, except that for Free Software the analogy doesn’t apply (or applies partly, which makes it a bad analogy).
Actually, you do get something in return for a gift to a charity: you help someone, making this world a better place (if only by a tiny amount). Still, the analogy doesn’t really apply to Free Software, because sometimes when I give money I will directly get something in return (for example, a boxed set). At other times, donations to a Free Software project will speed up the next version of the software.
Finally, what most people donate to Free Software is time (as developers or testers) and the results of one’s “donation” are immediate (i.e. making the program better). In the case of large corporate sponsors, such as IBM or Novell, the impact can be quite significant, and can generate return on investment (i.e. a better Linux can help IBM sell more servers).
As I’ve said, the “charity” analogy is inaccurate, and therefore isn’t worth much (if you’ll excuse the pun).
I discount the “make the world a better place” notion. That’s not profit. If I agree with you that the end the charity serves has value, I accept that your action will, potentially, benefit people. (That’s not profit, though.) If I disagree with the goals of the charity, I’ll conclude otherwise.
If you send money to the FSF and they send you CD’s in return, you’re buying something from them, you aren’t making a donation. They can call it what they want, but it is still a sale. If the FSF makes a profit on the sale, they may choose to spend it however they see fit. If they don’t make a profit on it, they are incompetent.
If individuals donate their time or corporations donate money or staff, it is still a donation to an organization that is accepting contributions. It is not a sale. There’s no difference between donating money or time to, say, the Cancer Society and donating money or time to the FSF. You may believe that your actions may be beneficial, but beneficial is not the same as profitable.
You are confusing your belief that your donations will benefit you with a sales transaction in which the buyer receives something from the seller, who has priced the “something” at a level that will assure a profit.
A nun, he moos[/i]
Well, you could also have “I can do the same thing, albeit slightly differently, with these two tools, however one is Free Software and the other one is proprietary…I choose to support Free Software so I’ll use the first one.”
Ahhh, see .. how you’re side-stepping the issue. You are now equating two different programs with the same level of functionality, but just work differently. All I’m saying is this – If you refuse to admit that sometimes no-free software is just plain better than free software and that people should use the non-free stuff when it has every advantage other than being free software, then you are a Free Software zealot .. plain and simple.
The other end of the spectrum is SCO, saying that Free Software should be banned by congress because it will destroy America’s lead in IT, or MS saying that the GPL is “viral” and a “cancer.”
Oh please … these companies are both using free software in their products, and SCO even uses the viral kind. I would imagine that their developers both use free software as well. MS and SCO do it for financial reasons. Stallman does it for religious reasons, so I can’t believe they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, unless Stallman himself uses non-Free software. Kinda makes me wonder if he even knows what Flash looks like
Abraxas
Aren’t the references to religion getting a little old? It seems that people bring up religion when refering to Free Software just so they can justify their overuse of the term “zealot”. If Free Software advocacy is anything other than just that, then it would be political, not religious
Ummm … there’s a different between advocating free software and questioning somebody’s morality/insulting their intelligence when they choose to use something other than what they are advocating. That combined with the fact that free software zealots have this thing about ‘Absolute Morality’ where using non-free software is absolutely out of the question under any circumstances – that is a form of zeal that equates to a religion, so therefore I think the parallel is warranted.
enloop
Here’s an analogy: When I give the clerk at McDonald’s some money, he gives me a Big Mac. I get the goods I wanted to purchase, and McDonald’s makes a little profit, which is what they’re interested in. My money is not a gift, and McDonald’s is not giving anything away, either.
Here’s a better analogy – If McDonalds was a Free Software vendor, they would sell you the Big Mac, and hand over the recipe to you, at which time you could reproduce at no cost (assuming this were possible in the physical sense) and give a Big Mac to anybody you wanted. Therefore, McDonalds could sell you the Big Mac for $10 million and still lose money in the long run, because who would bother to pay for a Big Mac when people are handing them out for free? Oh wait, lemme guess …. they’re gonna make money on the service, right ?
Guess that’s what I get for not using the damn Preview button
“Some of you people talk about “freedom” of software. But Stallman wants to restrict software freedom by calling people that use non-free software “morally unacceptable”. Sounds more like fascism than freedom to me.”
Okay, implying that Stallman == Hitler means you lose the argument via Godwin’s Law. Sorry, try to think before you post next time.
cheers,
dalibor topic
I discount the “make the world a better place” notion. That’s not profit.
Well, if it reduces social costs (as charities tend to do), then it does save money to the government, which means less taxes for the same level of services, so it may in fact have a positive effect on the bottom line. But I was just pointing out that you do get value for the money, if a better world is among your priorites. Anyway that’s besides the point – I was actually trying to see how your analogy could be valid, by showing that you can actually get something back from charity donations (in addition to tax deductions – don’t forget about these).
But the point I was making is that with donations to FOSS projects you can actually get real monetary value, if you use their software in your business. If the software you use (and possibly modify in-house) performs better, it can have a direct impact on your bottom line.
There’s no difference between donating money or time to, say, the Cancer Society and donating money or time to the FSF.
Well, for the analogy to be less inaccurate, you should say that there’s little difference between donating to the FSF while using Free Software and donating to the Cancer Society when you have cancer. By donating to a FOSS project, a FOSS user has a direct benefit. Not profit, directly, but since he’s likelier to use a free as in speech AND beer program instead of a proprietary one, then it does factor in reducing the costs – which we all know is one of the two ways to increase profit.
You seem to forget a very important thing: donations are not only for charities. Indeed, you can donate to a political party or a PAC (and believe me, lots of people do!) Donating to Free Software has more in common with that than with charity.
Darius
Ahhh, see .. how you’re side-stepping the issue.
No, I am introducing nuance into your “religious” attacks.
If you refuse to admit that sometimes no-free software is just plain better than free software and that people should use the non-free stuff when it has every advantage other than being free software, then you are a Free Software zealot .. plain and simple.
We’re not talking about me. I use both free and commercial software. And I’ll agree that, for a small, specific number areas, there are no viable Free software alternatives. So obviously, in these cases you don’t have a choice – but that represents a rather limited number of applications.
For a large number of applications, Free software alternatives and are “good enough” for the majority of users. For such cases, someone could choose an application that may have less features, but that fulfill the user’s needs, over a better proprietary one based on privileging free software. There’s no zealotry involved – the user chooses to use software that suits his needs adequately in order to encourage those particular projects. It’s a question of personal values.
Also, zealotry involves proselytism, so your definition would be inaccurate in the case of someone who made that choice but didn’t try to convince others to do the same.
Oh please … these companies are both using free software in their products, and SCO even uses the viral kind.
Are you seriously saying that MS and SCO are just fine with the GPL? Come on, now: unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, you must have heard SCO’s attacks on the GPL! Can you honestly say that SCO is all fine and dandy with free software when it has sent letters to congress in which it called it unconstitutional? In any case, by signaling their intention to place a proprietary license on top of Linux (which has got them counter-sued by IBM), SCO made it clear that they don’t consider it free software at all.
As for MS, it fears free software. Also, while it’s true that MS has used software under the BSD license in its product, it’s quite misleading to say that it is still free software, as you cannot get the source code for it – it has been made un-free, adapted into a proprietary product as the BSD license permits.
I would imagine that their developers both use free software as well. MS and SCO do it for financial reasons. Stallman does it for religious reasons,
Actually, they are political and philosophical reasons. There’s nothing religious about it, despite the misleading use of the term “zealot.” You’re simply using words like these to paint RMS as some kind of cult leader – in other words, demonizing the subject of your critics to support your argument. Let’s try to use accurate terms, please.
so I can’t believe they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, unless Stallman himself uses non-Free software.
They are on opposite ends of the spectrum because one wants to promote the use of Free software until it is ubiquitous, and the other ones want to maintain the supremacy of proprietary software. In the case of MS – who’s really pulling SCO’s string, let’s not kid ourselves – it is deathly afraid of FOSS, as it directly challenges its monopoly in completely novel way.
I don’t think Stallman uses non-Free software, but that’s irrelevant. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum as to the direction they want FOSS software to take. One wants to have it everywhere, the other one wants its products to be everywhere.
” Can these factions work together, or will tensions between them eventually kill the free software and open source movements?” ….
This sounds more like a Hollywood trailer trying to get a few people to watch a rotten film ….
the free software & open source movements can not be “killed” xcept if they are made illegal …. but certainly not because some one doesnt like the look of what the other one is doin …differnet tastes => differnet flavours of Linux …. they excist .
Your right to envoke Godwin is hereby revoked until you learn the difference between “fascism” and “nazism.” Implying that something is “fascist” is not neccessarily implying that it is “nazism” (Mussolini and Franco were fascists, but not Nazis) therefore, Godwin cannot be envoked.
However, Lundbergh did use “fascism” incorrectly. He ought to have compared it to communism. Ideal communism is the state where all private property is abolished and is shared amongst the population. This is indeed what Mr. Stallman proposes; the abolishment of intellectual property rights, which is why he is so “hated” by so many as it is seen as a direct infringement on individual liberty.
Michael
“This is indeed what Mr. Stallman proposes; the abolishment of intellectual property rights,”
So sharing=communism? Nice.
@Darius and other “best solution wins” proponents
Sometimes i am confused by the ignorance displayed here… ever reflected what “best” means?
You obviously argue “best” is “best performance” or “most features” or whatnot.
An absolutley superior tool in all regards but built by child slaves in some desolate place is not the best tool for the job, even if it beats all other tools performancewise.
The means of production of a tool are part of the tool and influence the “value” of the tool. Attributes of a tool that aren’t part of its job are still part of the value calculation of a tool. Translated this means: software that is not free can’t possibly be the best solution. There is more to a tool than its performance specs.
I gladly accept “inferior” performance if the object or idea in question adheres to my standards of conduct. Even if, say, communism would be the end all of equal and sufficient supply of all necessary goods i would refuse it because it limits my activities and opinions. Being more of the “free” and “individual” kind this is unbearable and i prefer a system that may cause more strife but doesn’t limit its participants ability to choose their own way.
Since i fully expect to be blasted as “religious” or “idealistic” i challenge you to consider what you are doing when you make “performance” the unit of your measurement… Obviously you are expressing a belief, the belief that “performance” is more important than, say, “looks”. A possible justification is as feeble as the justification of any other preference. Food for thought…
Well said. People who focus on efficiency at all costs often forget that a dictatorship is much more efficient than a democracy. Mussolini, after all, got elected on the promise that “Trains would come in on time.”
Whether one considers politics relevant or not doesn’t mean that he is not affected by it.
So sharing=communism? Nice.
No. Pay closer attention. Under communism all property ownership is abolished. That means no one ones any property. It belongs to “Everyone” (and functionally, that has tended to mean the state). So, you could not buy a nice little plot of land and farm it, build a house on it, etc, and you have no choice in the matter. Your right to own property does not exist. Stallman’s views on intellectual property, specifically software, are that he does not believe (or so he has written) that people have the right to “own” any intellectual property, and that once a person creates a bit, it no longer belongs to them, but to the “community,” and that is, indeed, analagous to communism. Sharing in of itself does not enter into it. Under communism, and in Stallman’s professed beliefs, no one has the right to share, or not share, but must subborn their individual right to their property to the community as a whole leaving no choice, or freedom, to the individual. OTOH, sharing is a choice made by the individual. If he chooses to share that is his individual right. If he choses not to share, that too is his individual right, and there is the difference between sharing and “communism.” That is also the reason why so many abhor Mr. Stallman’s views, because he seeks to remove their freedom.
Michael