RMS kindly agreed to be interviewed again by OFB’s Timothy R. Butler on what he is up to, where the Foundation’s popular GPL license is heading and his perspective concerning various changes in the GNU/Linux community since his last interview here.
Stallman on the State of GNU/Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
When RMS recommended a GNU/Linux distro, he did not mention Ubuntu. I thought that they only used free compnents.
Most programs will adopt it automatically, since they are released under “GPL version 2 or later”; however, the specific advantages that I think will appeal to many developers include: explicit compatibility with certain licenses that are not compatible with GPL v2, better handling of patents, addressing the issue of ASPs, and improving the requirements for credits.
Nope, most programs are not not GPL version 2 or later.
OFB: Some BSD license advocates try to assert that the GPL is hypocritical since it does not grant complete freedom, instead opting to place some restrictions on the code to insure that the freedom continues beyond the first developer. How do you respond to such a complaint?
RMS: It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they are complaining about.
Nope, BSD cannot take freedom away. The code is always there, and in any case it’s insane to say that varying software licenses can take freedom or grant freedom. Stallman must not take his freedom very seriously.
OFB: What GNU/Linux distribution do you presently recommend if someone comes up to you and asks how to get started with Free Software? Is there one that meets the FSF’s criteria completely?
RMS: Yes, there is. It is called UTUTO, and it is developed by committed free software activists in Argentina.
The existence of this distribution is a big step forward for the free software movement. For many years there was literally no GNU/Linux distribution that I could ethically recommend to the general public. Most distributions contained non-free software; the few exceptions distributed non-free software from their sites.
What the hell is UTUTO? I wonder if Stallman doctrine followers will be using this obscure thing.
For many years there was literally no GNU/Linux distribution that I could ethically recommend to the general public.
Stallman should examine his own ethics when he compares proprietary software developers to perjuring cops and murderers.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html
OFB:It sounds like they do. Gael Duval, of Mandrakesoft, tells me that he believes the LCC will follow Mandrakelinux’s compliance to the FSF guidelines.
RMS: That is very good news. I wish they would acknowledge this as a version of the GNU system, instead of calling it “Linux”, but the most important thing is that it recognizes the users’ freedom.
More bitterness.
However, the worst thing about Apple is that it has used patents to prevent free software from handling font hints properly.
One of the few things I agree with him on.
RMS: From what I’ve heard, we are basically there already. The first Sao Paulo telecenters were set up two years ago, to give people in poor neighborhoods a chance to use computers and the internet. They run GNU/Linux, and people with no experience find them easy to use.
Recently I learned, to my great disappointment, that these computers are using non-free software for displaying Flash and running Java programs. Developing the free software for these two jobs is clearly very important.
Nope, the flash players are free in the rational definition of the word.
RMS: I had better correct a common confusion. The Firefox binaries distributed by the Mozilla developers, like all their binaries, are not free. To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code. We’re talking with the Mozilla project about cooperating to change this, but in the mean time, we’re looking for people who would like to build and release free binaries that we can recommend.
Once, again he tries to redefine free to suit his political agenda. And he tries to deny poor people a good web experience by imposing his warped definition of freedom on poor people.
Stallman and his FSF cohorts have nothing to do with open source philosophy.
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503
I’d like to hear Stallman’s take on web services and the GPL. There have been rumors (probably incorrect) that GPL v3 would have something to say about code derived from free software that provides public or external web services. Even if GPL v3 doesn’t address the issue, he probably has some thoughts on the subject.
guess no 3D cards are acceptable to him?
Has anyone ever seen what he claims on his taxes?
Is his referance to ASP the same as web pages?
no he didn’t he really talk about. In any case, yes it appears that one of GPL3’s goals is to increase the viral nature of of GPL code. Don’t expect people to be adopting GPL3
Good catch. That would be a big controversy, if the FSF decides to go after that. Google would dump Linux for BSD or Solaris in a heartbeat if they had to open their search engine code.
Of course, in that case Linus wouldn’t agree to upgrade the kernel license.
For those that haven’t been keeping up with events this all boils down to Mozilla/Firefox having Google as the default search engine on official builds (Google sponsors the Mozilla organisation).
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
According to various people that makes the official binaries for Mozilla/Firefox non-free software. Hell, this is the FSF, leave your sanity at the door.
What the hell is UTUTO? I wonder if Stallman doctrine followers will be using this obscure thing.
A simple Google search would have given you the answer:
http://www.google.com/search?q=UTUTO
http://www.ututo.org/
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ututo
Whether you agree or disagree with RMS’s world views, you gotta respect his consistency [sp?].
He does have a point about the BSD license to a certain extenct, the original code is “libre” but the corporate digested version of the same code is not. From a programmers point of view I can see why the BSD license is so attractive, you know don’t sue me don’t blame me if anything breaks, do with the code whatever you wish just give me credit, but from a radical pint of view it’s not as attractive. Anyways no one is forced to release their code under the GPL, even if they muck around with GPL stuff for internal use.
As for the Flash thing, well it’s free of charge but should Macromedia decide to stop providing binaries for GNU/Linux, BSD, UNIX, etc … well, we’re pretty much ass out.
Overall the interview is not the greatest, but you get what he’s trying to say.
PS: UTUTO (http://www.ututo.org/)
“Once, again he tries to redefine free to suit his political agenda. And he tries to deny poor people a good web experience by imposing his warped definition of freedom on poor people.
Stallman and his FSF cohorts have nothing to do with open source philosophy.”
You should hold your tongue and show some god damn respect.
Without GNU, which RMS founded, this whole open source world WOULD NOT EXIST. He is probably more responsible for for the global existence of Free and/or open source software than any other one person. His brilliant programming efforts in the early years of the GNU combined with his relentless campaigning for the freedom to share software sources have allowed things like Linux to be created, accepted, and flourish. Whilst he is eccentric and radical, scorning him is – to the mind of any true appreciator of the open source software of this world – simply outrageous.
He pushes so hard for Free software and shuns things like Flash because he knows that if all software were free, the poor people of this world would benefit. Do not try to make him out as anything other than somebody who cares about the ideals of this planet. Just because he refuses corporate agenda on any scale does not make him warped.
Richard Stallman is a revolutionary in an industry dominated by money, and for that he should be respected.
less talky, more better free substitutions / replacements for existing commercial software.
if the software was much better it would not need advocating.
You should hold your tongue and show some god damn respect.
Without GNU, which RMS founded, this whole open source world WOULD NOT EXIST.
Nope, I don’t respect Stallman or his definition of freedom, and there was lots of “open source” code before GNU was a glimmer in Stallman’s eyes.
… he managed to clone himself and his clone maintains this distro
See it yourself:
https://e.ututo.org.ar/xp/uploads/photos/85.jpg
That is hilarious.
I agree. Stallman is one of the very few true visionary’s of our century. Those who don’t see that are clearly not thinking close enough to the edges of the box.
[quote]
Without GNU, which RMS founded, this whole open source world WOULD NOT EXIST.
[end quote]
Sorry, Lumbergh. while i agree with your general sentiment in that post, that particular statement is
just
plain
wrong
there have been plenty of other open licences, and whether you agree with their philosophy or not, the existence of open code does not depend on a single one, even if it is the most popular.
I had plenty of software on my amiga that had been released into the public domain, and there was plenty more i never went out and got, same for ms-dos, even back before windows ’95 existed.
did it predate the GNU project? no…
did it predate the GNU project being something the majority of people used, or even knew existed? YES
Sorry, Lumbergh is in love with the thought of supporting monopolies and working for them for free. What power do users need… it is corporations who deserve more power for themselves in his small minded view.
Read him at your own peril, if he isn’t a Microsoft shill, then I don’t know who is.
And stay the heck away from BSD unless you want your hard work and time going straight to Microsoft and Apple, while you get jack.
The freedom to be exploited, what a wonderful freedom.
just reread earlier posts… guess it wasn’t Lumbergh’s statement but Charlie’s, and Lumbergh was refuting it
so Lumbergh was right.
yawn, be careful using words like “idiot” lest you make yourself look like one.
at any rate, the idea that the GPL is somehow solely responsible for software with source available is simply not true
I like RMS a lot, and his principles; in fact I used to be one of his big followers I guess.
However that changed. I see the need for free hard/software interfaces, so that everyone can use their hardware or their operating system in any way they want by programming. But is there any *need* for free software? RMS mentions the need for free Flash and Java runtimes? Why? Flash sucks, and for those few occasions where someone shows me a really nice Flash cartoon, I’m happy with the non-free version on my Mac. In fact most of my system is non-free. Important is that I can reimplement all that if I want to; the API documentation is there.
I don’t think people need free software; maybe that’s why most happily run non-free OSes. Much more dangerous are patents, as he mentioned. Apple keeps programmers from using algorithms they like, just because someone at Apple declared that combination of data and control flow as a patent. That should not be possible. Imagine I would patent the words in this post! Nobody could ever (freely, without royalties) use them again, just because I was first. Patents have NO justification in a society based on equality and freedom.
If you’re worried about innovation: don’t. People will always innovate to be better than the competition. I don’t know if Apple patented Spotlight, but anyway they develop it before Longhorn comes out, even though the GNU people might just clone that functionality. That’s competition, baby! People will use the product that better fits their needs.
In fact, small and medium-sized companies have a *chance* to innovate if nobody keeps them from innovating by blocking them with a stupid patent!
No, Microsoft and Apple don’t “exploit” BSD licenced code,
they use it as intended, just like anyone else can,
because BSD code is given.
Absolutely nothing prevents someone else from taking the same code they started with, building something different, and doing the same thing.
Absolutely nothing prevents the BSD projects from using the same code they have always used.
Absolutely nothing prevents someone from using the BSD code for a different open project.
The fact is, saying one can hijack BSD code because they can build a proprietary product with it is just being dishonest.
I can tell you don’t know how to read very well.
“No, Microsoft and Apple don’t “exploit” BSD licenced code,
they use it as intended, just like anyone else can,
because BSD code is given.”
I didn’t say they did, I was saying that working for free for monopolies is exploitation and Stalinist at best.
“Absolutely nothing prevents someone else from taking the same code they started with, building something different, and doing the same thing.”
Didn’t say they couldn’t. But why would you work for nothing for a monopoly to benefit directly, knowing that your code will be part of a package that is not free.
You can argue all day that it gives people complete freedom, but your own code will be used to enable non-free code against others. Really, all you do is propagate a lack of freedom for normal users who have no idea what the BSD is. Blaming them for their ignorance and saying that they deserve it is ridiculous. You are nothing then but an enabler of those who will commit non-free injunctions to others. Who benefits from this? Monopolies which need more power?
“The fact is, saying one can hijack BSD code because they can build a proprietary product with it is just being dishonest.”
I didn’t say that, and you would have to be mildly retarded to think so.
I think RMS needs to be more practical. When one is thinking about one’s own ethical and moral standards one can hold one to high standards. I don’t think it is morally or ethically correct to impose one’s standards on others. The Firefox deal is one such example that shows the need for practicality. You can’t make people jump through so many hoops to be, what you consider to be, free. So I agree with the principle to “help one’s neighbor”, but only when it is practical. RMS does a good work by advocating for free software, but I think is anal retentivness regarding GNU/Linux and insistence on complete and utter freedom in the face of great frustration and lost time could use some level headedness at times. If he was more practical, he would be able to reach out to a lot more people. I know that when I talk to my dad about free software and about RMS I have to make sure to tell my dad that RMS is a bit anal retentive and non-practical at times, but he has good intentions. Despite RMS’ over-zealousness, he still has done and continues to do a lot for free software.
Charlie: He pushes so hard for Free software and shuns things like Flash because he knows that if all software were free, the poor people of this world would benefit. Do not try to make him out as anything other than somebody who cares about the ideals of this planet. Just because he refuses corporate agenda on any scale does not make him warped.
Well… I don’t know about all the poor people of the world. But I do know a lot of the local poor people since I’ve been friends with them all my life and I can say one thing.
Those particular poor people are poor precisely because they chose to be. You can’t “save” or “help” people who have no desire to be “saved”. A number of them will be happy to accept what you give them, but they’ll just take it and use it to hurt themselves some more. In fact, some of them actually improved their conditions after people stopped “helping” them. As a result, for some (most?) poor people you actually do them more good by simply getting out of their way and leaving them alone.
Where you to patent the words in your post I think that somebody would be able to find prior art.
However if you did get that patent then it would be even worse, not only would you own thoughs words but the ideas behind them, and so could sue anyone that was trying to express the same thing in a different way.
However I am not actually against all software patents on principle, the Diffie/Hellmann/Merkle patents on do express some brand new and important invention that was never in the public domain before. Its just that there are so many bogus software patents that it discredits the entire system.
… But back to the article it’s a shame that RMS seems to be playing down HURD, I like the microkernel archtecture, and focusing on the need for Java and Flash instead. Java I can sort of see a need for, get GNU Classpath to the 1.0 compliant stage so it can take the tests and get the patent grant. Once it gets the patent grant it could be of some use for developing Software Libre.
But I don’t really see the need for Flash, what is the use in a Software Libre system without an aurthoring program as well, without one you are simply a passive consumer one of the content which is one of the things that RMS was trying to avoid in starting GNU. Even with an authoring program you would still be reliant on a proprietary file format. Wouldn’t extending SVG to have the same functionality as Flash be more in the spirit of Software Libre.
If you really believe that, I am very grateful you had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution of the US. Freedom might not have been very practical for you.
If someone offers to give out free stuff how is anyone being exploited? It’s the nature of the license, stupid!
If I were Stallman I would
1) get a haircut
2) get a shave
3) Begin pooling together ALL OF MY RESOURCES FOR THE TRUE EVOLUTION OF FREE SOFTWARE:
The reconfigurable FPGA computer. With reconfigurable computing, while some analog electronics are required, your RAM, CPU, GPU, USB Driver, Ethernet Adapter, 3D sound card, keyboard / mouse controller, Serial / parallel port firmware, EVERYTHING is controlled by reconfigurable firmware—that can have parts re-written in real time.
This makes HARDWARE free after the initial cost of the FPGA and analog electronics motherboard. You would be able to make a computer have lots of ram and low cpu, or lots of gpu power and minimum cpu, or any derivation thereof, an upgrade would be to add in another FPGA board to add more gates to make more ram, etc.
Why the hell isn’t his group pushing that? that would commoditize hardware, making it super cheap for poor people to get access to computers. couple it with existing freesoftware and you’ve got an extremely cheap solution.
Look at free ip cores .com for more info.
I don’t understand what the true agenda is, I don’t see how it can be about poor people, or we would be seeing the RMS photovoltaic solar collector system, or water purification system.
Also, about how much GPL work is created by evil companies?
I think, in general, the amount of controversy regarding FOSS software is a sign of growth and maturity. From GPL2 vs GPL3 to the GNOME controversy to RedHat vs Sun to Microsoft vs Linux to incompatibilities every new release f x software package, it all shows the growing pains of a movement and an operating system coming into its own. I’ll bet there will be even more growing pains for a while, and it might hurt a lot, but when it is all done there will be something beautiful to behold.
I for one welcome change, and I also welcome the growing pains!
Stallman and his FSF cohorts have nothing to do with open source philosophy.
You are soooooo right! Its extremely important that kids nowadays getting into OSS realize this and abandon RMS’s ideals when it comes to “free” software. RMS is a radical and personally i feel there is no room for him in OSS anymore.
Somebody buy that man a comb… please!!!
You’re just envious of his ZZ-top beard.
They did not open source the concept of the long triangular beards. Stallman is therefore a theif of a proprietary product.
“For those that haven’t been keeping up with events this all boils down to Mozilla/Firefox having Google as the default search engine on official builds (Google sponsors the Mozilla organisation). ”
Bullshit, you have no clue what you are talking about. The issue does not anything to have with Google. Mozilla’s binaries include non-free software.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/007681.html
Your reply is a good example of bad free software advocacy.
The change from a non-free society to a free society in America did not happen over-night. It took quite some time for people to wrap their heads around the idea. Once people were convinced, THEN they acted in a more radical style, Boston Tea Party-style.
There is more than one way to do anything, becoming free included. Just because the methods used by the founding fathers worked out for that situation, it doesn’t mean their methods are proper in this situation. Yours and RMS’ black and white view of the situation is an immature sort of view. When you block out any other possibilities to accomplish a goal, THAT is when you lose people that need practical solutions.
I really think that there are 2 different kinds of software freedom, and each is pointed towards a different group.
BSD style – Gives freedom to the developer, they can do what they want with the source code and they don’t have to keep it open for other end users.
GPL style – Gives freedom to the end user, they can do what the want with the source, but must grant the freedoms they have to anyone else(eg can’t close the code)
Now, i realize its not a perfect description, and *anything they want* doesn’t mean claim they made it, however, it really is the difference between the two. As for myself, I favor gpl software myself, and in a perfect world(at least in the way i view it) that would be it. However it (obviously) isn’t a perfect world, and I can see where the BSD way could be useful or even required.
>>RMS: It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away >>others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they >>are complaining about.
>Nope, BSD cannot take freedom away. The code is always there, >and in any case it’s insane to say that varying software >licenses can take freedom or grant freedom. Stallman must not >take his freedom very seriously.
You obviously dont understand the BSD licence, let me explain. The BSD licence ALLOWS you(I’m mainly thinking companies here but it applies to anyone) to “embrace and extend” to the point of making the original code that is freely available obsolete and/or practically unusuable (think microsoft and IE with web standards).
The exact same damage would be caused to every programme worth a corporations time on investing in. To use such a licence and be ignorant of the consequences makes free software pointless and doomed….i’m glad other people like stallman can see this too.
Agreed, there is a place for both the GPL and BSD. I don’t think either license has a monopoly on freedom, I think they both serve their own purpose and the purpose of the developer.
Sorry, Lumbergh is in love with the thought of supporting monopolies and working for them for free.
You mean all the people that work for free for Novell, RedHat, Sun and others?
The fact is, saying one can hijack BSD code because they can build a proprietary product with it is just being dishonest.
Exactly. It’s just the BSD license working as intended. Just as the inability to build a proprietary app with GPL’d code is simply the license protecting the code and original (and subsequent) author in the way they desire.
You obviously dont understand the BSD licence, let me explain. The BSD licence ALLOWS you(I’m mainly thinking companies here but it applies to anyone) to “embrace and extend” to the point of making the original code that is freely available obsolete and/or practically unusuable (think microsoft and IE with web standards).
Allowing someone to “embrace and extend” is a freedom. Just because it could happen does not mean it should be stopped. A loose comparison could be the government versus P2P.
I believe that the fear of “embracing and extending” is a red herring. Microsoft has no need for the code since they prefer to go after the standards. Also, they have the money to write their own code to “embrace and extend” even the standard that a piece of GPL code may follow. The only way to protect it is with patents, which I vehemently oppose.
fsck: You obviously dont understand the BSD licence, let me explain. The BSD licence ALLOWS you(I’m mainly thinking companies here but it applies to anyone) to “embrace and extend” to the point of making the original code that is freely available obsolete and/or practically unusuable (think microsoft and IE with web standards).
You obviously don’t understand the BSD license, let me explain.
If the original is only “slightly” obsolete and/or practically unusable, then someone can always update the original and make it so that it is fine.
If the original is “highly” obsolete and/or practically unusable and as a result will take a great deal of work to make it usable again, then one has to wonder how important the original was to start with.
BSD style – Gives freedom to the developer, they can do what they want with the source code and they don’t have to keep it open for other end users.
GPL style – Gives freedom to the end user, they can do what the want with the source, but must grant the freedoms they have to anyone else(eg can’t close the code)
It’s a bit more complicated then that. Stallman would like to limit end-user choice because to him the GPL or like licenses are the only acceptable software choice.
BSD gave Apple the ability to give end-users a kickass desktop by re-using existing software. If you remember, Apple had many failed OS projects during the 90s. So in this case, the BSD license gave end-users more choice.
FTA:
”
Welcome. Create or login to an account.
Search
Topics
Interviews
Stallman on the State of GNU/Linux
March 31, 2005, 00:27:12 EST
Free Software
The Free (as in freedom) Software movement has changed a lot in the past two decades. During that time, there has been one constant that has kept the organization created to promote Free Software on the straight and narrow: Richard M. Stallman. Known around the community as simply “RMS,” Stallman is the founder of the movement and continues to argue the advantages of totally non-proprietary computing. RMS kindly agreed to be interviewed again by OFB’s Timothy R. Butler on what he is up to, where the Foundation’s popular GPL license is heading and his perspective concerning various changes in the GNU/Linux community since his last interview here.
OFB: What are you up to at the FSF presently?
RMS: The words “at the FSF” might be somewhat misleading, since I spend most of my time traveling, and what I do is give speeches about free software and related issues. At the beginning of March I was in Syria; since Syria is not a democracy and doesn’t have freedom of speech, I gave special emphasis to comparing the freedoms of free software with freedom of speech. Now I’m in Colombia, where I had a meeting with people involved in negotiating the free trade treaty with the US. I advised them on various harmful and unjust laws that the US is likely to try to impose on Colombia.
OFB: There has been lots of talk about the upcoming General Public License (3.0) and how it will differ from the present version. What do you see as the key reasons people should adopt the new version?
RMS: Most programs will adopt it automatically, since they are released under “GPL version 2 or later”; however, the specific advantages that I think will appeal to many developers include: explicit compatibility with certain licenses that are not compatible with GPL v2, better handling of patents, addressing the issue of ASPs, and improving the requirements for credits.
OFB: It has been well over a decade since the last time the license was revised. Why now?
RMS: It is overdue. We were working on it several years ago but didn’t get it finished then.
OFB: Some BSD license advocates try to assert that the GPL is hypocritical since it does not grant complete freedom, instead opting to place some restrictions on the code to insure that the freedom continues beyond the first developer. How do you respond to such a complaint?
RMS: It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they are complaining about. ”
———————————————————–
RMS fell for the OFB troll, hook, line and sinker. Sorry about the U.S. expression.
Well that makes a lot more sense now, thanks for clearing it up. Doesn’t mean I now agree with RMS’s point, but at least I can see the reason he’s making it.
I can’t be the only one that finds these occasional Free/non-Free proclamations creepy as hell.
He has my right eye-brow up? Last I knew they released source and binaries. Maybe they have stopped this practice and gone closed source; or the lack of Windows Makefiles? Sorry, Makefiles aren’t source code of value in my book…
>Allowing someone to “embrace and extend” is a freedom. Just because it could happen does not mean it should be stopped
Correct however if you as a person want software to be free and *ONLY* free the BSD licence will not work unless no corporations exist.
I Quote
RMS: It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they are complaining about. ”
the freedom to take away freedom is not in my interest and that is why i oppose the BSD “philosophy” of total freedom. It would be like letting anyone do anything – not sensible.
>If the original is “highly” obsolete and/or practically unusable and as a result will take a great deal of work to make it usable again, then one has to wonder how important the original was to start with.
Utterly untrue. Look at my example how quickly web standards came to mean absoltuely nothing and how almost no one cared what adhered to them. All it took was IE. It ruined cross browser usage for *YEARS* and we still havent fully recovered. Utterly devistating imo.
>BSD gave Apple the ability to give end-users a kickass desktop by re-using existing software. If you remember, Apple had many failed OS projects during the 90s. So in this case, the BSD license gave end-users more choice.
It was good for 2% of consumers short term and apple long term, yes i agree.
How does this help consumers long term? It doesn’t unless they pick up market share.
In the long term free software is the best thing for consumers in my opinion(and it is only an opinion) anything else such as OS X that barely contributes back and doesnt benefit the long term goal of free software for everyone only hinders its adoption just by existing.
Like Kim Jong-Il.
Anyone here used it?
But why is free software an inherent right? I’ve never heard anything vaguely resembling a good answer.
For the most part consumers just want something that performs a task. They don’t care for how it works. RMS engine analogy doesn’t work. I challenge him to open up his CPU, fiddle around with it modify it etc. Most people buy a car to get them places in safety and comfort etc. They don’t buy it so they can figure out how it works and improve it.
RedHat may be able to pay their employees with GPL only software by selling service and support. But imagine Macromedia released Studio under the GPL. Most people won’t buy their books, training or support. We the people wanting to use this high quality piece of software would not have it.
I am sorry, but the GPL, BSD and other licenses, closed and open all have their place. There is no one perfect license.
“You mean all the people that work for free for Novell, RedHat, Sun and others?”
Ah yes… but they aren’t convicted monopolies. On top of that I do not enable them to use my code in restricting the freedoms of their end users. I have the knowledge that every person who receives it has the same freedoms I do… those being the freedoms to modify, copy, and distribute with freedom.
Those who do that work on gpl programs are working to protect freedom for all. They do not allow their code to become an enabler of product lock-in and monopolistic practices.
Embrace BSD all you want, but as you do you embrace Microsoft even more.
I can take distributions from Novell and Red Hat strip them of their trademarked materials and sell them tomorrow under a new name. I have power then that is greater than BSD could ever grant me. It gives people the possibility of becoming an equal competitor. Which again is why you destroy your point when you mention Red Hat, Novell and IBM in the same sentence, because they are embracing competition… they aren’t running towards monopolistic practices.
The only thing the BSD basically created is a conduit of power to real monopolies, who use their power against the people to maintain their monopoly. The BSD is an enabler of non-free organizations. The GPL is an enabler of freedom for all.
They bundle a bug reporting tool that is not free software. That’s what wrong with Firefox and that’s what RMS is talking about.
Same thing for some of the artwork.
fsck: Utterly untrue. Look at my example how quickly web standards came to mean absoltuely nothing and how almost no one cared what adhered to them. All it took was IE. It ruined cross browser usage for *YEARS* and we still havent fully recovered. Utterly devistating imo.
And what prevented people from implementing the “new standard”? (Meaning IE’s standard) I’m not clear on this.
Also… For a lot of people web pages work (and worked) fine anyway. Even with other web browsers. For example: My parents have NEVER used IE and they use the internet all the time and have for years.
>But why is free software an inherent right? I’ve never heard anything vaguely resembling a good answer.
A very good question but not something i claimed, just because i believe it is right does not make it so and therefore i cannot answer that specifically I can however answer with why I *believe* it is right, so here goes:
I believe free software is right because it makes it available to everyone not just the rich (if you had to buy all software you ever used it would cost you an insane amount).
I believe it is right because it can save lives, by saving money. For example look at the NHS here in the uk, 900,000 MS desktops…think of the money from licencing that could goto cancer patients, dying children etc just from software cost cutting….this is what matters, not abstract “The BSD licence is more free than the GPL” arguments that hold no water.
I believe it is right because it can spread knowledge in a way closed source software can’t.
I believe it is right because everyone can be included, not just the rich, not just the corporate entities, not just first world countries….everyone.
>RedHat may be able to pay their employees with GPL only software by selling service and support. But imagine Macromedia released Studio under the GPL. Most people won’t buy their books, training or support. We the people wanting to use this high quality piece of software would not have it.
You’re right that company and product wouldn’t exist but that doesn’t mean something very similar wouldnt be created in the free software world instead and it wouldn’t be limited to specific os’ too.
>I am sorry, but the GPL, BSD and other licenses, closed and open all have their place. There is no one perfect license.
Life isn’t perfect either, all we can do is try to do what is best for the greater good. I believe this is free software, you may not but either way these are only opinions what matters is how our choices effect other things indirectly…health services and other things of vital importance.
“the freedom to take away freedom is not in my interest and that is why i oppose the BSD “philosophy” of total freedom. It would be like letting anyone do anything – not sensible.”
Fine. So stop calling your GNU half-freedom “free”.
And *no* freedom is being taken away. Come on. If someone gets a BSD-license program and writes some extension to it, it’s *their* code. Why do you want to enforce your views on *someone else’s code*?
Sorry but GNU/freedom is just no freedom at all.
AQ: The only thing the BSD basically created is a conduit of power to real monopolies, who use their power against the people to maintain their monopoly. The BSD is an enabler of non-free organizations. The GPL is an enabler of freedom for all.
GPL is not freedom for all, it’s freedom for everyone who agrees with you. BSD is freedom for all irregardless of whether they agree with you or not.
Is BSD the right way? Possibly not, but to say GPL is freedom for all is a load of nonsense.
A lot of the little companies I work with can’t use GPL code in their products, but they can use BSD code if they so choose. So BSD helps them too, not just Microsoft.
fsck: I believe free software is right because it makes it available to everyone not just the rich (if you had to buy all software you ever used it would cost you an insane amount).
Free software (as in freedom) isn’t about price first of all.
In a “Free” software world, all software could just as easily cost millions of dollars as it could cost nothing.
Second, closed source software isn’t nessecarily about charging an arm and a leg for a software license. There have been plenty of “cheap”/(free price-wise) closed source products over the years. Most people I know have ignored them in favor of “software piracy”.
Also… Why should software be free (as in $0) and research into cancer (as you suggested elsewhere in your post) not be free? People could just as easily donate resources (time, materials, etc) as software companies can give away their software.
On top of that I do not enable them to use my code in restricting the freedoms of their end users.
…
Those who do that work on gpl programs are working to protect freedom for all.
The BSD is an enabler of non-free organizations. The GPL is an enabler of freedom for all.
The problem this all boils down to is that you buy into Stallman’s definition of freedom. Most people just don’t buy into Stallman’s redefinition of freedom. And frankly, I take my real freedom a lot more seriously than getting all worked up over source code.
I believe it is right because it can save lives, by saving money. For example look at the NHS here in the uk, 900,000 MS desktops…think of the money from licencing that could goto cancer patients, dying children etc just from software cost cutting….this is what matters, not abstract “The BSD licence is more free than the GPL” arguments that hold no water.
Are you kidding me? you spout the same Socialist drivel that comes out of RMS’s mouth from time to time. Redistribution of wealth the problem is that you and others like you didn’t earn the wealth so it is so easy for you to give it away to others. Not to mention your above train of thought isn’t ever remotely centered in reality, help dying children by reducing the cost of software? ROFLMAO!
>And what prevented people from implementing the “new standard”? (Meaning IE’s standard) I’m not clear on this.
Nothing did, but it was unsuitable for the web (insecure as we’re seeing now and have been for a while) so effectively you could *only* use most web pages if you wanted a hugely insecure web browser so the “features” if you can call them that, weren’t integrated. Things like CSS and the XHTML spec have since overtaken many of those “features” technically at this point in time.
Also… For a lot of people web pages work (and worked) fine anyway. Even with other web browsers. For example: My parents have NEVER used IE and they use the internet all the time and have for years.
The problem is very minor these days…..but it’s still there, alot of features dont work on some websites because they’re designed only for ie…and others don’t work at all but the days when other web browsers could barely be used to “get by” are pretty much gone….for the forseeable future but nothing prevents it happening again apart from there being no uptodate corporate browser that I know of other than opera(but they strictly adhere to standards afaik).
I’d also like to say i agree precisely with what AQ said above about the BSD licence(could this be the mythical AQ from lugradio to which I listen to religiously?)
So I’ll be the first to admit that calling the GPL more “free” than something public domain or licensed under the bsd license is kinda silly in a way. But then, don’t let this turn into an argument of semantics here. Releasing software under the GPL is definitely more altruistic than releasing said software under any other license. I think this is really what the jist of RMS’s philosophy is all about. And that’s why I support the GPL above any other license. Call me a communist or what have you if you like, but I have loads of respect for RMS, because I totally respect anyone who is out to help their fellow man.
“GPL is not freedom for all, it’s freedom for everyone who agrees with you.”
Incorrect, it is free to use, modify and ditribute no matter what part in the distribution chain you are.
“BSD is freedom for all irregardless of whether they agree with you or not.”
Until it is put in a product used for non-free means. BSD is only free at the source. Where most people actually end up using it, it is not free and even put behind restrictive EULAs which force people to restrict their freedom further in order to use it.
BSD is an enabler of non-free means. Being free at the source is useless for most individuals, who deserve to have their freedom protected. If you are an extortionist or a monopolist, you might believe otherwise.
“Is BSD the right way? Possibly not, but to say GPL is freedom for all is a load of nonsense.”
It guarentees freedom for every person who receives it at every part of the chain. It can’t be used non-freeely to restrict the freedoms of others. It is not an enabler of restrictive licenses.
“A lot of the little companies I work with can’t use GPL code in their products, but they can use BSD code if they so choose. So BSD helps them too, not just Microsoft.”
But it gives power freely to the monopoly, and strengthens it. Whether or not it helps them, it does not make the competitive field level. Microsoft will someday use its monopolistic practices against those very same little companies with patents and the like whenever they as a monopoly feel threatened. The BSD never makes those little companies equal competitors with the monopoly. It just guarentees that the monopoly has gained the same equal power as the small company.
If they can make use of it, good for them, that company will only last as long as microsoft allows it. If they actually care about competition in the formation in a strong economy, then they might be more open to the gpl. (If it is in fact software companies we are talking about).
fsck: The problem is very minor these days…..but it’s still there, alot of features dont work on some websites because they’re designed only for ie…and others don’t work at all but the days when other web browsers could barely be used to “get by” are pretty much gone…
Well as I said… My parents have never had the problem and they have been using the internet since before IE up to this very day.
Me? As far as I can remember I’ve had the problem somewhat but not nearly as bad as you’re talking about and I’ve used the internet since about the same time as my parents.
Also… When I got started with web developing, I was aware that there were “competing standards” and I made all my stuff work with everything I could. Different developers can always choose a different path that’s part of “freedom”.
Heck, the problem you propose is actually quite possible even with the GPL. All you need is two competing standards that had the same origin (or close to it). And have one somehow tied to a specific platform. (Like IE was tied to Windows) While they could take the code from the other project, it could potentially be a pain to reintegrate the two.
We have stuff somewhat like that going on all the time.
Releasing software under the GPL is definitely more altruistic than releasing said software under any other license.
Just not true. If you want to talk about altruism, then you have to put most other open source licenses above the GPL. The GPL forces you into certain conditions, like giving the source code away. The BSD license says “I don’t care what you do with this code, just keep the copyright and this little notice in whatever way you distribute. The BSD license is definitely more altruistic than the GPL.
[quote]
I can tell you don’t know how to read very well.
[end quote]
Thank you. Do you always add unfounded accusations of illiteracy to your arguments? Maybe it will help, certainly an interesting debate tactic.
[quote]
“No, Microsoft and Apple don’t “exploit” BSD licenced code,
they use it as intended, just like anyone else can,
because BSD code is given.”
I didn’t say they did, I was saying that working for free for monopolies is exploitation and Stalinist at best.
[end quote]
OOH, AHHH! I changed a few words to ones with basically the same meaning! Somebody call the quote police!
It’s called “paraphrasing” in case you aren’t aware.
[quote]
You can argue all day that it gives people complete freedom, but your own code will be used to enable non-free code against others. Really, all you do is propagate a lack of freedom for normal users who have no idea what the BSD is. Blaming them for their ignorance and saying that they deserve it is ridiculous. You are nothing then but an enabler of those who will commit non-free injunctions to others. Who benefits from this? Monopolies which need more power?
[end quote]
ok… I cant read because I paraphrased your position, yet you talk about blaming users for ignorance and saying they deserve it. Pop quiz: where did I EVER mention users, let alone make statements like these?
[quote]
“The fact is, saying one can hijack BSD code because they can build a proprietary product with it is just being dishonest.”
I didn’t say that, and you would have to be mildly retarded to think so.
[end quote]
I will respond to this one once I quit giggling.
Ahh that’s better. I’ve caught my breath.
My response to this is a question.
Do you think your other posts are invisible?
Deletomn: GPL is not freedom for all, it’s freedom for everyone who agrees with you.
AQ: Incorrect, it is free to use, modify and ditribute no matter what part in the distribution chain you are.
Oh ok. So if I don’t agree with the free software philosophy I can make use of it anyway and not make it free, eh?
No I can’t. As I said, it’s freedom for those who agree with you. Period. It’s not a point that can be debated. By the GPL’s definition it is unfree for those who do not agree with it. That is the point.
AQ: But it gives power freely to the monopoly, and strengthens it. Whether or not it helps them, it does not make the competitive field level. Microsoft will someday use its monopolistic practices against those very same little companies with patents and the like whenever they as a monopoly feel threatened.
Water gives power freely to the monopoly and strengthens it. Whether or not it helps them, it does not make the competitive field level. Microsoft will someday make use of the fact that it’s employees are still alive and hydrated to crush the same little companies the water also kept alive and hydrated.
AQ: f they can make use of it, good for them, that company will only last as long as microsoft allows it.
Nonsense. These companies aren’t even in the same area. Software yes, but totally different product line. It wouldn’t make sense for Microsoft to target them. Could they? Sure. However…
Microsoft could show up to “crush” them anyway even if they used the GPL or even if they didn’t use either BSD or GPL software. And the “free software community” could do the same one day themselves. Anyone could decide to do it some day.
“The problem this all boils down to is that you buy into Stallman’s definition of freedom. Most people just don’t buy into Stallman’s redefinition of freedom. And frankly, I take my real freedom a lot more seriously than getting all worked up over source code.”
Actually, I buy into my own definition of freedom, which happens to coincide with Stallman’s.
I believe that computers and everything we can do on them are an extension of our mind. To allow others to put freedom restricting treaties on my mind, or to enable others to create freedom restricting treaties on my mind would be the absolute destruction of the word freedom.
The question is, does your mind deserve to be free, or should others have the ability to control it. The issue is thought control.
I believe in the freedom of mind, and guarentees that all can have that freedom protected. The freedom of the mind to visualize what it wants to is in fact a practical definition of freedom, no redefining needed.
In fact, I have to wonder what definition of freedom you seem to think is the standard.
“And frankly, I take my real freedom a lot more seriously than getting all worked up over source code.”
But what could this mean if you didn’t believe in the freedom of the mind?
“the freedom to take away freedom is not in my interest and that is why i oppose the BSD “philosophy” of total freedom. It would be like letting anyone do anything – not sensible.”
>Fine. So stop calling your GNU half-freedom “free”.
I never mentioned what kind of free I meant
>And *no* freedom is being taken away. Come on. If someone gets a BSD-license program and writes some extension to it, it’s *their* code. Why do you want to enforce your views on *someone else’s code*?
They’re welcome to use the BSD licence if they wish no one is forcing them to do anything, i would simply prefer they used the gpl so that the code cannot be made obsolete directly by corporate competitors.
Sorry but GNU/freedom is just no freedom at all.
Just as freedom in anything does not really exist you’re free to do what you want but everything has consequences……that is not true freedom because you will change your actions based on those consequences and therefore lose your choice just by having one.
The GPL simply enforces the right freedoms in my opinion you can disagree or disreguard whatever I think but I will still think it…that is what freedom is about.
>Is BSD the right way? Possibly not, but to say GPL is freedom for all is a load of nonsense.
The GPL forces opensource code under its licence to remain free and that is the main point. It is what it is and that is all it is.
>Are you kidding me? you spout the same Socialist drivel that comes out of RMS’s mouth from time to time. Redistribution of wealth the problem is that you and others like you didn’t earn the wealth so it is so easy for you to give it away to others. Not to mention your above train of thought isn’t ever remotely centered in reality, help dying children by reducing the cost of software? ROFLMAO!
I’m socialist yes as i live in a (mainly) socialist society, that is what created many of the freedoms we have today.
Reducing the cost in the NHS by *ANY* means will provde better funds for treatment/research which directly saves lives, i don’t see how you can deny more research and better treatment DOES NOT equal saving lives.
On the other point you attempted to make, I regularly donate to good causes but whatever anyone does donate I can see how to improve what we already have and save more. More money and indirectly, more lives.
How many times did you say “free” or “freedom” in your last post? That’s the problem with you people. You think that if you say freedom enough people are going to buy into Stallman’s philosophy.
The question is, does your mind deserve to be free, or should others have the ability to control it. The issue is thought control.
And statements like that is why the vast majority of people think that Stallman’s philosophy is nutty. That you somehow equate closed-source with thought control is beyond ridiculous.
The GPL forces you into certain conditions, like giving the source code away. The BSD license says “I don’t care what you do with this code, just keep the copyright and this little notice in whatever way you distribute.
I won’t debate that. However I will debate which license is more altruistic. When you license your code under the GPL you’re effectively saying to the rest of the world: “Here, this is everyone’s to share, and always will be.” But if you license your code under the BSD license or something similar then you say to the world: “Here, this is everyone’s to share, but if at some point you want to take this and change it and not share anymore, that’s fine.”
Certainly the GPL will force you to share. The BSD license will not. But which is more altruistic is not answered by the question “which license forces you to do what?” But rather that is answered by the question “which license will benifit the rest of mankind more?” So which is it? Sharing with the rest of the world? Or not sharing? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Free and freedom can mean many things to different people. Again, it’s not a question of semantics, but rather which is the more altrustic path. In my opinion this is the heart of RMS’s philosophy.
[quote]
I believe that computers and everything we can do on them are an extension of our mind. To allow others to put freedom restricting treaties on my mind, or to enable others to create freedom restricting treaties on my mind would be the absolute destruction of the word freedom.
[end quote]
This post is one I actually agree with, while I disagree with the rest of your views on licensing, and with your dishonest tactics earlier on, I do believe it is about freedom of the mind.
However, my problem with the GPL is just that. The FSF and Richard M. Stallman expect others to think the way they wish them to think.
With GPL licenced code you are free to think the way you want as long as it fits within their guidelines.
BSD licenced code allows your mind to go where you want it to go, wherever that may be.
The BSD license will not. But which is more altruistic is not answered by the question “which license forces you to do what?” But rather that is answered by the question “which license will benifit the rest of mankind more?” So which is it? Sharing with the rest of the world? Or not sharing? I think the answer is pretty clear.
“Benefit of mankind” is highly subjective and what you think is a benefit is only your opinion. Mac users will say that having the BSD code available to Apple was a benefit to them. Stallman wants to impose his “benefit of mankind” on others, and that’s what the problem is. Once again, the BSD license is more altruistic than the GPL, because that producer of BSD code is saying I don’t care who uses it or how you use it. The GPL is about restrictions. You can say that public domain code is the most altruistic of all.
“Oh ok. So if I don’t agree with the free software philosophy I can make use of it anyway and not make it free, eh?
No, if you can’t respect your own freedom, you don’t have that right to be a code nazi and deprive that freedom for someone else.
No I can’t. As I said, it’s freedom for those who agree with you. Period. It’s not a point that can be debated. By the GPL’s definition it is unfree for those who do not agree with it. That is the point.”
That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying free speech isn’t free because once you use it, someone else can repeat it. Or that free speech isn’t free because you can’t take free speech and put it behind a license that says others can not use free speech.
“Water gives power freely to the monopoly and strengthens it. Whether or not it helps them, it does not make the competitive field level. Microsoft will someday make use of the fact that it’s employees are still alive and hydrated to crush the same little companies the water also kept alive and hydrated.”
Water? We’re talking about human controllable freedoms here, not the weather.
“Nonsense. These companies aren’t even in the same area. Software yes, but totally different product line. It wouldn’t make sense for Microsoft to target them. Could they? Sure. However…”
But why make a monopoly infinitely stronger? Because a few companies below are also helped? They aren’t helped to compete with the monopoly, they are only helped to compete against a new startup, and hope to one day become a monopoly.
“Microsoft could show up to “crush” them anyway even if they used the GPL or even if they didn’t use either BSD or GPL software. And the “free software community” could do the same one day themselves. Anyone could decide to do it some day.”
IF they used the gpl in a distributed product, they’d have to give up the source, meaning that a competitor would rise out of the ashes the second it smote a competitor. It is a case of “the free press is dead, long live the free press”.
“With GPL licenced code you are free to think the way you want as long as it fits within their guidelines. ”
Which is to guarentee freedom of mind to others. That is really the only restriction.
“BSD licenced code allows your mind to go where you want it to go, wherever that may be.”
The BSD says that you are free to use freedom of mind in any way, even to restrict the freedom of mind of others. That is typically where it goes to and is used most. Yes, we will help you form a monopolistic dictatorship.
“How many times did you say “free” or “freedom” in your last post? That’s the problem with you people. You think that if you say freedom enough people are going to buy into Stallman’s philosophy.”
I actually defined my interpretation of freedom. And we are talking about freedom here, whether you like it or not.
“The question is, does your mind deserve to be free, or should others have the ability to control it. The issue is thought control.”
“And statements like that is why the vast majority of people think that Stallman’s philosophy is nutty. That you somehow equate closed-source with thought control is beyond ridiculous.”
Closed-source EULA ridden software deprives freedoms of the computer as an extension of the mind. If you had to obey a Eula which prevented you from certain thoughts in your head, wouldn’t you consider that thought control?
I don’t expect a thoughtful answer, Darth Gates, so knock yourself out with a come-back.
This discussion doesn’t make much sense when some people try to claim
their own definition of ‘freedom’ in a GNU article just to let others know that they didn’t even understand BSD. These guys are trolls since they already know the direction the discussion would go by their argument. But if they didn’t, as a supporter of the GNU project I have to remind you that I agree with FSF that freedom isn’t power. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html)
[quote]
“BSD licenced code allows your mind to go where you want it to go, wherever that may be.”
The BSD says that you are free to use freedom of mind in any way, even to restrict the freedom of mind of others. That is typically where it goes to and is used most. Yes, we will help you form a monopolistic dictatorship.
[end quote]
once again, no
if a company makes a proprietary product with the code, the original is still there, just as free as it ever was.
If Microsoft one day did a cvsup of, say, the FreeBSD source tree, did a little work and released MicroSoftBSD, distributing no source to their modifications, the code in the FreeBSD cvsup repository will be ~exactly~ the same as it was before they did it
it would still be there for Freebsd to release FreeBSD, Apple to release OS X, AQ to release AQBSD, etc.
no matter how many people use it, and no matter how many people release or don’t release the source to their modifications, it is still there.
no freedom compromised.
“Benefit of mankind” is highly subjective and what you think is a benefit is only your opinion.
Certainly. But then it’s your argument that not sharing with the rest of the world, as in your Apple example, is the more altruistic path?
Mac users will say that having the BSD code available to Apple was a benefit to them.
But had Apple gone with the Linux kernel as opposed to using BSD licensed code it would benifit far more people than just Apple customers. No?
Stallman wants to impose his “benefit of mankind” on others, and that’s what the problem is.
Well, I would argue that wanting to help your fellow man certainly not a problem.
Once again, the BSD license is more altruistic than the GPL, because that producer of BSD code is saying I don’t care who uses it or how you use it. The GPL is about restrictions.
And once again I would say that being forced to share is more benifical to your fellow man than not.
Argh, I oughta go with the preview button next time. =)
>once again, no
if a company makes a proprietary product with the code, the original is still there, just as free as it ever was.
*sigh* once again, missing the point. It doesnt matter if you can access the original if it’s been made obsolete by the adapted closed source version.
>no matter how many people use it, and no matter how many people release or don’t release the source to their modifications, it is still there.
>no freedom compromised.
Again i’ll mention the “embrace and extend” strategy as you and others dont seem to grasp the point of it.
It is to prevent you from using anything but the extended product it is to attract people with the new features and then make you dependant on them so you lose all viable options. It *IS* lock-in
[quote]
Closed-source EULA ridden software deprives freedoms of the computer as an extension of the mind. If you had to obey a Eula which prevented you from certain thoughts in your head, wouldn’t you consider that thought control?
I don’t expect a thoughtful answer, Darth Gates, so knock yourself out with a come-back.
[end quote]
1. an exercise for you:
Name one single thing you can think of with GPL code that you can’t think of with BSD code.
just ONE will do.
2. Are you going to continue to rely on insults to make your point, or are you going to try to actually focus on the issues? You have shown you actually have the ability to make valid points. Why continue to weaken your stance by using insults when that does more to make you look bad than the person you are arguing with?
[quote]
>once again, no
if a company makes a proprietary product with the code, the original is still there, just as free as it ever was.
*sigh* once again, missing the point. It doesnt matter if you can access the original if it’s been made obsolete by the adapted closed source version.
[end quote]
no, actually its you missing the point.
because you can access the original it isn’t “obsolete” and can NEVER be, for the exact same reason your precious GPL code can’t be.
with the source there, you can make it equal or better than the proprietary product. just sit down and start coding.
You’re wasting keystrokes. It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with you when you equate closed-source with thought control.
I’m LAUGHING my ass off. Let’s see you many stupid things he said:
It is absurd to speak of the “freedom to take away others’ freedom”. The absence of that absurdity is what they are complaining about.
…
It is called UTUTO, and it is developed by committed free software activists in Argentina. … For many years there was literally no GNU/Linux distribution that I could ethically recommend to the general public.
…
I would guess that when they say “Linux” they mean the entire GNU/Linux system, and not just Linux, but that’s just a guess. … I wish they would acknowledge this as a version of the GNU system, instead of calling it “Linux” …
…
We have recently started a campaign in which we hope to pressure hardware developers to cooperate with free BIOS.
…
The programs Apple liberated were those that did the jobs we already had good free software to do–in other words, those that did not make a significant contribution to the community.
…
The Firefox binaries distributed by the Mozilla developers, like all their binaries, are not free. To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code. … we’re looking for people who would like to build and release free binaries that we can recommend.
I won’t waste arguing this again after this, but what you’ve done is enabled those who do restrict others. I think you seriously misread what I wrote. I am not talking about the intentions of the BSD, I am talking about what the bsd actually causes. Whether the BSD is always free at the source is not an issue I brought up. The issue I brought up is that code you BSD can be used to make non-free restrictions of others, and giving others that power can create and prop up monopolies.
You can say “no freedom compromised”, but it is sort of like a gunmaker whose guns were used in the latest school shooting… “it’s not my fault how they use it, sure they took away the freedom of life of others, and I gave them the freedom to do it, because I wanted them to have complete freedom”.
Of course software is somewhat less dramatic, but the basic principles are in that scenario.
>1. an exercise for you:
Name one single thing you can think of with GPL code that you can’t think of with BSD code.
just ONE will do.
I’ll bite. Create an open source product that will benefit from all legal forks/changes.
[quote]
Mac users will say that having the BSD code available to Apple was a benefit to them.
But had Apple gone with the Linux kernel as opposed to using BSD licensed code it would benifit far more people than just Apple customers. No?
[end quote]
but, if Apple had not had the option to choose BSD, they might have chosen to write a new proprietary licenced os, which would have been even more “unfree” by Stallman’s standards.
there is no way to know they would have, but there is no less reason to believe they would have than to believe they would have magically chosen to use Linux, or any other GPL’ed solution.
[quote]
>1. an exercise for you:
Name one single thing you can think of with GPL code that you can’t think of with BSD code.
just ONE will do.
I’ll bite. Create an open source product that will benefit from all legal forks/changes.
[end quote]
NetBSD/OpenBSD
>no, actually its you missing the point.
because you can access the original it isn’t “obsolete” and can NEVER be, for the exact same reason your precious GPL code can’t be.
>with the source there, you can make it equal or better than the proprietary product. just sit down and start coding.
I can compete with microsoft in my *free* time?? I think you overestimate the ability of a person.
I(or anyone else) could start a company and 3 years later release something that embraces and extends BSD to such a degree that you could not live without it once it becomes popular….just the possibility of that is unacceptable to me.
Do you really think all those years of work can be reproduced in an instant? and when they are i’ll have released something that makes them obsolete…..you cant win against an enemy that is always ahead of you no matter how good you are as a developer.
>You can say “no freedom compromised”, but it is sort of like a gunmaker whose guns were used in the latest school shooting… “it’s not my fault how they use it, sure they took away the freedom of life of others, and I gave them the freedom to do it, because I wanted them to have complete freedom”.
>Of course software is somewhat less dramatic, but the basic principles are in that scenario.
I’m glad someone can see this at least.
“Name one single thing you can think of with GPL code that you can’t think of with BSD code.”
Knowledge that my code will be free to people at all points of the distribution chain.
It would be illogical to think that in BSD.
And I apologize that I offended you. I sort of get in a slashdotish mood when I get here, and Lumbergh doesn’t help much. Take it with a grain of salt, everyone plays that way here.
ok, I will refrain from the smart alecky comments since you have stopped with the insults.
[quote]
You can say “no freedom compromised”, but it is sort of like a gunmaker whose guns were used in the latest school shooting… “it’s not my fault how they use it, sure they took away the freedom of life of others, and I gave them the freedom to do it, because I wanted them to have complete freedom”.
[end quote]
unfortunately, the gun analogy can go both ways:
“I’m sorry that homeowner got killed by that crook because I wouldn’t sell him a gun, I was afraid he would use that gun to take away the crook’s freedom to enter his house and take his life”
Although, I have to admit, I do see your side a bit with this one, the GPL could alternately be likened to the restrictions that the law provides in preventing said crook from doing his thing.
unfortunately(or maybe fortunately) , software licences and guns don’t operate the same way.
Bsd license + Anticipate the probable developments and patent them + hide behind non-disclosure agreements what people are really being charged for.
Some people named that violence.
Linux continues to develop around “show me the code”. We get to see the code easily with gnu. I have to have the discipline to engage all the people with friendship. A little bit of discipline is cool.
I take it you’ve never heard of OpenBSD systems turned proprietary then?
And on Mac using BSD, vs. Linux, vs. whatever, sure without BSD they may have just kept their OS proprietary, but then you’re still missing the whole point.
It’s ok, there are no hard feelings, I was having fun. I apologize for my comments too.
Sometimes I think I enjoy bickering a bit too much.
Truth is, I think both you and fsck have several valid points.
It is a complex issue, and I am glad you feel strongly about your viewpoints.
[quote]
“Name one single thing you can think of with GPL code that you can’t think of with BSD code.”
Knowledge that my code will be free to people at all points of the distribution chain.
It would be illogical to think that in BSD.
[end quote]
This is a good reply. I will concede this one.
here is my personal opinion… RMS is an opensource-(free as in speach) zelot, and he believes that there should be no proprietary software….. i disagree… i believe gnu/gpl/bsd, and any others i am missing can and should peacefully coexist with proprietary software. Opensource is awesome, and if it is better than proprietary software, than people will use it instead…. competition is good
[quote]
I(or anyone else) could start a company and 3 years later release something that embraces and extends BSD to such a degree that you could not live without it once it becomes popular….just the possibility of that is unacceptable to me.
[end quote]
this statement I have a problem with.
no matter how popular something is there’s no guarantee someone can’t make something better that will knock it out of the market.
As much as people believe Microsoft is invincible, It isn’t, and the monopoly can be broken.
It wouldn’t be easy, it wouldn’t be quick, but it ~can~ be done.
Remember, there was a time when no one thought the PC would be a success, later there was a time when no one thought Windows could eclipse DOS.
so no, I don’t believe anyone could make something someone “could not live without”
I haven’t missed the point, I see it but disagree with it.
I told you why and you say “but that doesn’t matter”
The fact that the source is still there is not moot, whether you want to try and claim it is or not.
[quote]
>with the source there, you can make it equal or better than the proprietary product. just sit down and start coding.
I can compete with microsoft in my *free* time?? I think you overestimate the ability of a person.
I(or anyone else) could start a company and 3 years later release something that embraces and extends BSD to such a degree that you could not live without it once it becomes popular….just the possibility of that is unacceptable to me.
Do you really think all those years of work can be reproduced in an instant? and when they are i’ll have released something that makes them obsolete…..you cant win against an enemy that is always ahead of you no matter how good you are as a developer.
[end quote]
I never said it could be quick or easy, just that it could be done.
The difficulty of competing with large companies is there with the GPL also, if Microsoft released a linux distro, and all source is available, sure you can fork it if you want.
But then your source would be released. so Microsoft takes it to make their next version, and the cycle goes on.
Who do you think is going to sell more, given their economic clout and connections to distribution routes? I have a feeling Microsoft would.
>no matter how popular something is there’s no guarantee someone can’t make something better that will knock it out of the market.
>As much as people believe Microsoft is invincible, It isn’t, and the monopoly can be broken.
>It wouldn’t be easy, it wouldn’t be quick, but it ~can~ be done.
I agree with all of these, it would *eventually* but by then i may be dead and it wouldnt matter to me anymore.
>Remember, there was a time when no one thought the PC would be a success, later there was a time when no one thought Windows could eclipse DOS.
This was very predictable to me at least.
>so no, I don’t believe anyone could make something someone “could not live without”
Using the embrace and extend strategy you can *potentially* make anything unusable by winning over people that don’t realise or don’t know of the consequences of using the product.
Windows has very easy to use gui, set most people at a console and expect them to use that instead for the same tasks….it wont happen. Its not a case of “could not live without, its a case of “will not live without”.
The same sort of thing will happen again, eventually it is inevitable even if it doesnt happen in my life time it will eventually.
I haven’t missed the point. I see it but disagree with it. I told you why and you say “but that doesn’t matter”
No, you told me that without the option of BSD Apple may not have opted for the Linux kernel route. Regardless, that completely misses the point. The point being that, thanks to the GPL, if they did choose to go with the Linux kernel then that choice would benefit far more than just Apple customers.
The fact that the source is still there is not moot, whether you want to try and claim it is or not.
Sorry, but I’m having a hard time understanding this. You’re saying that the original BSD code Apple used is still there? If so, I never said it wasn’t. However, had they gone with the Linux kernel, the original code plus any of their modifications would be freely available under the GPL.
Now before you jump down my throat, I also understand that Open Darwin is out there. But Apple can take that code and close up shop any time they feel like it, as it is no longer under the BSD license. See the difference?
[quote]
Windows has very easy to use gui, set most people at a console and expect them to use that instead for the same tasks….it wont happen. Its not a case of “could not live without, its a case of “will not live without”.
The same sort of thing will happen again, eventually it is inevitable even if it doesnt happen in my life time it will eventually.
[end quote]
ok. worded this way I don’t have a problem with it.
I hope it does happen in our lifetimes, and I hope it happens sooner that we think.
I concede that it may take too long.
My desire is to take the approach I believe is the best way to speed it up.
I personally feel BSD is the best choice for that. You feel GPL is. How about we agree to disagree, and each code the way we want?