An interesting interview of RMS answering questions on Linux, HURD, free software on non-free OS, Solaris, BSD License, GCC and Standards amoung others.
A lengthy RMS interview
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There’s no freedom in submitting to Stallman’s tyrannical GPL license. The fact that a simple %s/GPL/PPL/g makes a license that’s incompatible with the GPL is evidence enough. Being for Freedom isn’t valid in the FSF’s book — you have to be for them or they’ll do their best to wipe you out.
It’s like our (Americans) President’s take on world politics, but even more extreme.
He is a man who really wants the world with real freedom in software in computers. a small percentage of concepts has led to the birth of GNU/Linux. think of the global world changes due to Linux. then just think if all his ideas are completed. all are praising Linus Torvalds. without RMS concepts , Linux kernel would have been in the dustbin for these many years… all others need name and fames. But RMS is the man who really knows the meaning of the word “freedom” in software. respect him. A Free Software Operating System GNU/Linux which was created mainly and only created for opposing non-free softwares is being maintained by a non-free software. Look what a big ashamming thing this is …… this is for the entire community. credit the correct person atleast all people will know what is really “free software” … if u dont like free software, then dont come here and scribble something. Help or otherwise GET LOST with those non-free softwares..
Stallman: “If you buy a house, you are free to change it.”
Did he ever own a house? Even for such simple tasks as rewiring your house or adding new shower you must get a premit from the city.
The ownership of the house is the worst example of the freedom. City levies property tax on you, police can enter your house almost at will (yeah, yeah, signed order, blah-blah), you can’t renovate it the way you want without a permission, list goes on and on…
Stallman: “If you don’t know how to change it yourself, you can hire a carpenter or a plumber to change it for you.”
These professionals will take care of all permits for you. Hiring them does not mean a permit will be granted.
Stallman: “The problem with proprietary software is that a specific developer controls its development–you, the user, do not. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master–and if you use the program, he is your master.”
The problem with the any given book is that a specific author of that book controls what you read there. Every book has a lord, a master– and if you read the book, he is your master.
Funny, how silly it becomes when applied to anything outside software, even as close as book writing.
Stallman: “We follow all standards when doing so is useful for users. However, we do not treat them as authorities, merely as suggestions. When it is more convenient for the users if we depart from a standard, we do so.”
Whoa! Anyone noticed that very interesting statement?
What, suddenly it is OK to depart for any standard if it benefits your users. Who, may I ask, decides it is?
Stallman: “If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have.”
Why limit yourself with software? Don’t fly: airplane is controlled by the master (i.e., pilot), you are completely non-free in skies.
Don’t drive: not only microprocessors control your car and not you, but you given away your freedom to drive through red lights, for example, or are limited to 60 MPH on a perfectly clear empty highway were you can drive 85 safely.
Don’t buy canned food: the food seller took all freedom from you in deciding what is there and how is packed. Yes, you can read ingredients, but how do you know they are true, you can’t change the list, can’t remove one you don’t like.
Don’t go to college: you give away your freedom of learning what you want, instead becoming a slave of a master who gives you his opinions and makes you pass exams.
Don’t go to the hospital to remove brain tumor. You would never know what was removed, who did it, how they did it. They will take all your freedoms during the operation.
The list will go on and on.
++++++++++++++++++++
If you truly believe that freedom is taken from you when you use services of other people and corporations, may be something wrong with you. You know, too suspicious. Like that: everyone is after me, they planted something bad in the software I am using and I will never know unless I have sources to review.
FB: What is your opinion on the fact that Linux (the kernel!) supports binary drivers without too many problems? I’ll make an example: the OpenBSD project didn’t support Atheros wireless chips because they require a binary HAL provided with an incompatible license for their goals and policy. They act consistently. Do you think that Linux (the kernel!) should try a similar rigorous approach?
RMS: Yes! And so should the developers of GNU/Linux distributions. This is very important.
So important, in fact, that Stallman turns a blind eye to it outside this interview. Theo de Raadt has balls — RMS evidently does not.
Well said.
There’s no freedom in submitting to Stallman’s tyrannical GPL license. The fact that a simple %s/GPL/PPL/g makes a license that’s incompatible with the GPL is evidence enough. Being for Freedom isn’t valid in the FSF’s book — you have to be for them or they’ll do their best to wipe you out.
It’s like our (Americans) President’s take on world politics, but even more extreme.
What a shame, you saying these things that aren’t true. RMS doesn’t impose GPL on everyone. Let’s quote from the interview:
“FB: Which license do you think should be chosen?
RMS: I don’t understand that question clearly. Chosen by whom, for what?”
Victor.
let me try to shoot some holes in those comments
first of, yes you need permits but that is mostly as your hooking something up to their service (sewer system and so on) andwnat to make sure you do a proper job. its kinda like supporting a network standard that way so we all are sure you dont gum up the works.
this allso takes care of the carpenters analogy, they make sure the building codes are followed. a programmer makes sure that file and network standards are followed.
and the people decide what standards works and what does not by popular vote, this as long as they know that there is more then one option. most people didnt know that there could be other os’s on a computer then windows (in fact they didnt see the seperation of the computer and the os, to them the os was the computer) until recently. hell, some still dont…
and those examples used about how non-free the world is, they are allmost to silly to bother with. yes they have a point but only by going to the extreme. and i fear this is where rms fails, his presentation with no if’s, can’s, maybe’s or anything read more like a religius text then a suggestion. do it my way or go straight to hell. maybe its needed to present the danger that is but it still triggers peoples “bin laden”-alarm.
but still, let me try to shoot some holes:
yes you give up your freedom when flying, for a limited time. there is nothing limited about proprietary software. and if you like you can allways get a private plane and fly it yourself.
and about those microchips in the car, its your car. you can remove them if you like. or replace them with chips you make yourself. only thing that may stop you are lack of info from the car makers (sounds familiar?) or the law.
can food youself. and you can buy a can, pop it open, check the content vs the list on the outside and then decide if you want to eat it or not. yes you paid for it so you loose some on it, but you will know to avoid that product in the future, and you can tell your friends about avoiding it. and whats stopping you from removeing what you dont like after opening the can? as long as its a very small portion of the whole then its not great loss (if its a big portion then avoid the product alltogether). last time i checked i cant removes stuff like internet explorer or windows media player from a default windows install. on your avarage linux distro however your presented with a long list of stuff install or not install. in fact you can forgo installing everything but the kernel, a bootloader (unless you feel like makeing a boot-diskette) and some basic commandline tools. how is that for freedom of choice?
and given the information available in books, on the net, and a number of other sources, why go to college? still, there to other people present their opinions and you choose to accept them or challenge/ignore them. thats how our world works. if you dont like it then feel free to retreat to some far away cabin somewhere or kill yourself (those are the options present. its not a attack on the poster).
this last one shows that your running out of arguments. in a life or death situation you have allready lost your freedom. you either refuse treatment and die, or take the treatment and leave your life in someone elses hands for some time. the point here is that its time-limited (alltho the results may stay forever, unless they can be changed by a third party. this however is most likely not the case in brain surgery). allso, if the service is important to you then you make sure that either you or someone you can trust review previous works of that person and evaluate from that. but this is starting to border on paranoia. even with free software you put your trust in the person that writes your software, but you have the option to inspect the work first hand and evaluate. this cant be done with a closed source application.
Why limit yourself with software?
You actually don’t need to limit yourself with software; similar concepts can be applied to some other areas.
But: what is the difference between the airplane pilot, you car, food, teaching, hospital, and software?
Well, the difference is that software is or will be a vital part of all those things, but not the other way around.
So, software is like the new oil (it’s everywhere, on everything) But it doesn’t have some of the natural constraints oil has. And we don’t want software to be controlled by a few, like oil is.
Victor.
well said!
Did you even try to read the article?
Yes I did. And unlike you I’m not trying to misrepresent what RMS said.
Stallman says he is all for forcing hardware manufacturers to release specs and basically came out and said making software manufacturers release source code wasn’t a bad idea either.
Yes, and we were talking about the freedom to use proprietary software or not. The problem is that, for some reason, you equate closed-source with proprietary. This is a false equation. Software can be proprietary AND have its source code available – it just means that you can’t modify and redistribute the software.
From a legal indemnification point-of-view, having the source code available to prove that it does not infringes on anyone’s copyright isn’t a bad idea.
Stallman doesn’t want people to be able to use proprietary software.
No, he wants people to make what is to him the right choice and choose free software. No amount of misrepresentation on your part is going to change that.
Yeah, forcing people to do things is what you on the left are always trying to do.
Corporations, Lumbergh, not people. There’s a difference between the two. Corporations, unlike states, do not have the well-being of the community at stake, and so restrictions must be put on their behavior to protect citizens in general and their customers in particular.
Why do you hate customers? (See, that’s a strawman, just so you can understand what you keep doing instead of a rational debate.)
You’re bitter because I make reasonable arguments to Stallman’s fallacy and emphasize my points by pointing out the absurdity of Stallman’s thinking.
I’m not bitter, I’m having a blast demolishing your arguments and exposing your logical fallacies. It seems to me that you are the increasingly bitter one (I would be, too, if someone was pointing out the glaring errors in my reasoning like I do to yours.
And yes, you and I disagree politically. Get over it. People disagree all the time.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me and/or RMS. I have a problem with you using insults and misrepresenting what others are saying in an attempt to prove your point.
I’m not going to come around to your side and I’ll continue to point out the absurdity of Stallman’s socialist mindset.
Except the only thing you’ve pointed out is the weakness of your whole argument.
I reject politically correct groupthink. And I will make fun of the absurdity of political correctness anytime I can.
It’s not groupthink, it’s being sensible and open to other cultures. But that’s besides the point. The point is that, to satisfy your petty urges to provoke those who think differently than you, you actually go against the very message you’re proclaiming. That you don’t see the inherent contradiction in your actions shows how much of a one-track-mind you have.
Whatever, I don’t think I’ve ever called you a troll.
That’s because I’m not one.
I don’t think like you and never will – get over it, grow up, and learn to put forth reasoned arguments to support your claims and stop basing your arguments on emotion like you on the left always do.
That’s called projection: all of those things apply to you, not me. You’re the one who needs to get over it, to grow up and to learn to produce reasoned arguments instead of rehashed conservative talking points, half-baked arguments and personal attacks.
A good example is your belief that people on the left are more emotional, while in reality emotional people are equally represented on both sides of the political fence. The problem, of course, is that you’ll try to use that as an argument to invalidate my arguments, which is another type of logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack (i.e. attacking a person or a group’s character instead of trying to challenge their arguments logically).
It seems I struck a nerve here…
Once again, you are bitter that me and others make fun of Stallman for his clear absurdity.
As I’ve already told you, I’m not bitter at all, I’m having a blast! Deconstructing your arguments is pretty easy (especially since most of the time they’re either strawmen or ad hominem arguments). The only downside is my girlfriend who can’t figure out why I’m still in front of the computer instead of doing the last-minute Christmas shopping I’m supposed to…
You can’t stand that not everybody hast been indoctrinated into Stallman’s extremist view like you.
Even at the last sentence of your post, you can’t refrain from misrepresenting other people’s views, can you? In order to disprove yet another one of your lies, I’ll state (as I’ve stated before) that I do not completely share RMS’s views. I think he’s mostly right, but I wouldn’t make all the choices he does. In particular, I will continue to use proprietary software when needed (i.e. when there’s not an acceptable alternative for my use), and I will continue to work at a company that produces proprietary software.
However, because I don’t agree with him on some points doesn’t mean I don’t respect the man and his achievements. Free Software is an important part of modern computing, and he played a crucial part in its development.
Hey, I even respect you even if I think your political and economical positions are mostly wrong…It’s Christmas, why can’t you respect those who hold different opinions that you?
Anyway, Season’s Greetings from socialist Canada! 😉
So, software is like the new oil (it’s everywhere, on everything) But it doesn’t have some of the natural constraints oil has. And we don’t want software to be controlled by a few, like oil is.
Hear, hear. Very well said.
First, a message to whoever submitted Lumbergh’s comment for abuse: please don’t. Postings such as these do more to damage his credibility than anything I could say.
Okay let’s wrap this up then.
I don’t respect you, Stallman, or any other of the leftist groupthink slashdweebs that troll around here.
Thanks for confirming what I said. At least now you admit that you can’t partake in a rational debate on these issues, and that you can’t respect those who hold ideas different than yours.
I’ll continue to make fun of them all and if you don’t like it then go cry in the corner or something.
Nah, I’d rather continue to demolish your weak and/or illogical arguments for everyone to see. Each time you show lack of respect for people who think differently from you, you make my job easier.
There’s ad-hominem for you.
I applaud your decision to admit that your arguments are mostly logical fallacies. It took a bit of time but at least now you’re being honest about it.
I’m not suprised that you get nervous if someone is offended, coming from the People’s Republic of Canada and all.
I don’t get nervous. Unlike you, I just don’t like to be insensitive towards people I don’t know.
Then again, I don’t consider ad hominem attacks to be rational arguments, either.
(People’s Republic of Canada – heh, that’s rich. Well, at least I don’t live in “Jesusland”…)
With all of those anti-free speech laws
Anti-free speech laws? Would you care to name a few? Because last I heard, people were pretty much free to say anything here, as long as it’s not libellous (“hate speech” can also be the target of investigation, but that hasn’t prevented neo-nazi groups from posting their crap on the Internet).
I’m sure you’re checking your speech-law handbook before every post in order to not offend.
No, that’s just me being civil, because I believe that using insults, inaccuracies, strawman and ad hominem attacks in a debate is an indication that one doesn’t have an argument (as you’ve demonstrated yourself). Just because you can say anything doesn’t mean you should…
Oh well, Happy Holidays nonetheless.
A nun, he moos:
Now that the RMS article is in the “Last Seven Days” area, and there have been 112 posts, I doubt that you’ll see this. But in case you do:
Very well done on your posts, A nun, he moos. Your posts were very well thought out, and funny as well. I really enjoyed watching you intelectually and humorously b!tch-slap Lumberg and his ultra right wing, anti-RMS, straw-man attacks on anyone who disagreed with him. To this end, your posts were works of art.
BTW – I was born, grew up and still live in northern California, and I’m a very proud American and political moderate. I’m also quite fond of our friendly neighbors to the north, which made me crack up at Lumberg’s outrageous “People’s Republic of Canada” comment. As a proud American, I cringe when the Lumberg’s of the world make comments that make Americans look like a bunch of goose stepping, lemming-esque, nazi dolts.