OpenBSD slams RIchard Stallman in release song...

[Sporkman]

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43

http://www.openbsd.org/images/43song.gif

[Ozor Mox]

Lol what the hell is that?!

[swoll1980]

Stallmans a cry baby. I've seen a dozen interviews with this guy, and in every single one with out being asked he starts talking about how Linux is such a small part of the project and that it is basicly a plugin to his GNU free software stuff. This guy is salty that Linus stole his thunder, and needs to get over it already

[TeraDyne]

Stallmans a cry baby. I've seen a dozen interviews with this guy, and in every single one with out being asked he starts talking about how Linux is such a small part of the project and that it is basicly a plugin to his GNU free software crap. This guy is salty that Linus stole his thunder, and needs to get over it already

After listening to both of his TLLTS interviews, I'm inclined to agree with you. The second one was just... well, 'embarrassing' is too light of a word to use there, and I can't think of another word to put in it's place..

[Sporkman]

Lol what the hell is that?!

The puffy fish is OpenBSD, navigating the treacherous & demanding seas of the proprietary software market, until finally it happens upon the community of good, kind, freedom-loving folk, who are in need of free software. Open BSD tried to provide them with free software...until the evil, bearded oligarch intervenes!

[lingnoi]

Just ignore it, BSD users love to troll anything GNU, go anywhere on the net and you'll see them expressing their "views" on the GPL ..

I wouldn't have minded trying out a BSD distro but their whole community is based on hatred of GNU and I'd rather be here talking about games or something then sit around talking about how much Stallman sucks, which is almost as bad as sitting around talking about how awesome Stallman is.

[LaRoza]

I like Linus's thoughts on the matter. I prefer RMS over Ballmer anyday though.

[eurobloke1]

Stallmans a cry baby. I've seen a dozen interviews with this guy, and in every single one with out being asked he starts talking about how Linux is such a small part of the project and that it is basicly a plugin to his GNU free software stuff. This guy is salty that Linus stole his thunder, and needs to get over it already

I totally agree with you, rms only made the GNU libraries and gave the GPL licence, while Linus turn the libraries into the kernal/OS that is Linux.
RMS requires that any interviews that he makes for whoever must say either, GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, rather then just Linux.

[LaRoza]

I totally agree with you, rms only made the GNU libraries and gave the GPL licence, while Linus turn the libraries into the kernal/OS that is Linux.
RMS requires that any interviews that he makes for whoever must say either, GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, rather then just Linux.

RMS is eccentric. He is also brilliant. He has his quirks, but if one can ignore that, he is a great guy for the Free software advocates. We need a fanatic to keep things together I think.

I wonder what he would have us call Windows with GNU software?

[swoll1980]

I think he spends his days fantasizing about tying Linus up and torturing him

[TeraDyne]

I wonder what he would have us call Windows with GNU software?

Probably GNU\[Censored], judging from what I've heard from his speeches and interviews.

[swoll1980]

I wonder what he would have us call Windows with GNU software?

Gnudows

[SunnyRabbiera]

Personally the more we argue the worse it gets for all of us.
Though I do like the BSD license more then the GPL

[TeraDyne]

Think he spends his days fantasizing about tying Linus up and torturing him

Why did that give me VERY nasty thoughts? Ugh... I need a brain-brushing.

[Ozor Mox]

Though I do like the BSD license more then the GPL

I think it's a tricky one. The BSD license is clearly as free as free can get, but I would say that's the main reason BSD hasn't taken off like GNU/Linux has, relatively. I know if I was a developer of an open source project, I would no way want a commercial company like Microsoft to be able to use my code in their proprietary software, yuck! I would choose the GPL no doubt.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The thing is that the GPL can be too restrictive, in fact its become just as extreme in its own right as Microsofts EULA...
Both are very frustrating to those who just want to get by like me, thats why I like BSD's license being "copycenter"

[nrs]

Stallmans a cry baby. I've seen a dozen interviews with this guy, and in every single one with out being asked he starts talking about how Linux is such a small part of the project and that it is basicly a plugin to his GNU free software stuff. This guy is salty that Linus stole his thunder, and needs to get over it already

I disagree, it's not about Linus, or even himself really. The issue is that most Linux users are using GNU systems, and most remain either blissfully ignorant of this, or just don't care.

And as original author, it seems completely reasonable that he continuously remind people why, and how, we got here. Personally, I think when the bastion of free-software becomes a haven for people crying for more proprietary software from major developers, he's needed more than ever.

[nrs]

I find the BSD position more extreme than the GPL. Virtually every civilized country restricts the freedom to take away someone elses freedom. In this regard the GPL is no different. The BSD position seems more radical in that they believe in the freedom to take away freedom, and a kind of turn the cheek radical pacifism when it happens.

[swoll1980]

And as original author, it seems completely reasonable that he continuously remind people why, and how, we got here.

Yes, because thats what the spirit of giving is all about, so that we may continuously remind people that we were the ones that did it not someone else. Do you really believe this?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Yeh but I do like the BSD license in its neutrality...
The GPL3 to me is no better then DRM, even Linus thinks its a bad call.

[DoctorMO]

Yeh but I do like the BSD license in its neutrality...

You may like it, but anarchism as attractively free as it looks in the summer turns bitter in the cold winter. The BSD license has done nothing but promote proprietary software over free software. All the while trying to get people to feel sorry for them for being abused when they clearly want to be abused.


The GPL3 to me is no better then DRM, even Linus thinks its a bad call.

Bull droppings, Linus said that it's not right for the kernel at this time, he in no way said it was a bad license. I've actually read it and actually use it for my software projects so I know how good it is at protecting my freedom not to be robbed.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The thing is though that yes I like the GPL as it protects people from Microsoft and junk but I feel it is a bit full of itself and I also feel its overcomplicated.
For corporations the BSD license is more ideal, that way they can still keep what they feel belongs to them but also be a contributor to us as the same time.
Dont get me wrong I respect the FSF and all, but all this in fighting gets us nowhere.

[nrs]

Yes, because thats what the spirit of giving is all about, so that we may continuously remind people that we were the ones that did it not someone else. Do you really believe this?

No, I don't. And I'd appreciate it if you kept your straw-men locked away. ;) The point is GNU was started with seeming other than the desire to be generous, after all, he could've just gone public domain or whatever, the desire to was to ensure freedom -- and we've had considerable success.

The notion that he's just out there going "me, me, me, me!" for egos sake is completely unfounded. Like it or not he holds a position of authority within in the community, and when he invokes 'me'; a.) he does it GNU's name b.) it's always a device to get people to listen.

Lest of course we became just another crappy UNIX clone, excelling in neither technical excellence or freedom.

[nrs]

The thing is though that yes I like the GPL as it protects people from Microsoft and junk but I feel it is a bit full of itself and I also feel its overcomplicated.
For corporations the BSD license is more ideal, that way they can still keep what they feel belongs to them but also be a contributor to us as the same time.
Dont get me wrong I respect the FSF and all, but all this in fighting gets us nowhere.

:-s

[koenn]

You may like it, but anarchism as attractively free as it looks in the summer turns bitter in the cold winter. The BSD license has done nothing but promote proprietary software over free software. All the while trying to get people to feel sorry for them for being abused when they clearly want to be abused.

Sometimes it's slightly more complicated.
If developer A publishes something under BSD license, and developer B modifies it and publishes his result under GPL, dev A has a problem if he wants to re-use B's modifications, build on it further, because he'd be modifying / deriving from a GPL'ed work so the result would have to be GPL'ed as well.
I think it's that sort of thing that annoys BSD-people so much, both about GPL / GNU / FSF, and about Linux, because BSD code gets re-used in Linux projects, and GPL'ed in the process.

On the other hand, all that is made possible because the BSD license doesn't put any restrictions. At least Stallman, like it or not, had the foresight and intelligence to figure out how to license free software in a way that it would remain free.

[DoctorMO]

Sometimes it's slightly more complicated.

I understand their point, it is however unfounded. There is no point shouting about how great the extra freedoms are that your license gives and then complaining about how those freedoms are being used. It's important that if I do work that my work is under a license that protects me and other people. A lot of what the BSD people need to work out is Ego, not politics, they lost the war over who had the better free system.

[swoll1980]

The notion that he's just out there going "me, me, me, me!" for egos sake is completely unfounded.

Have you ever seen an interview with this guy. It seems to me this is exactly what he is doing. If he's not doing this intentionally he certainly comes across that way. Since I'm not the only person that formed this opinion of him perhaps he should change the way he presents himself less he make make him self look like a jackass

[LaRoza]

Have you ever seen an interview with this guy. It seems to me this is exactly what he is doing. If he's not doing this intentionally he certainly comes across that way. Since I'm not the only person that formed this opinion of him perhaps he should change the way he presents himself less he make make him self look like a jackass
He doesn't have good social skills. I doubt he is completely aware of how he comes off.

[swoll1980]

He doesn't have good social skills. I doubt he is completely aware of how he comes off.

I saw an interview with him were he took his sandal off, and started eating something off his foot (dead skin perhaps)

[Sporkman]

I saw an interview with him were he took his sandal off, and started eating something off his foot (dead skin perhaps)

:lol:

[vexorian]

OpenBSD slam their credibility by childish behavior.

[TeraDyne]

He doesn't have good social skills. I doubt he is completely aware of how he comes off.

If you want a good example of that, go listen to The Linux Link Tech Show, episode 165. He's extremely hard to interview, too.

Warning: Show has some vulgar language. Download at own risk.

http://tllts.org/dl.php?episode=165

[SunnyRabbiera]

:-s

Well I believe that software copyrights and even patents should be retained, its how software patents and copyrights are applied that make them wrong or right.
I am not as extremist with software patents or even DRM as both can be used for good purposes, its what you do with them that matters.
Companies like adobe, apple and others have the right to protect their software as much as we do but so far it is microsoft who has given us all the biggest burn on software patents and DRM because the way they implement them.
If I had a software I would want it protected under something, even if its under a EULA.
If we want the world to be open we must be open to the world, it is greed that drives this world but by taking a neutral position we dont seem forceful in our goals.

[vexorian]

I am not as extremist with software patents or even DRM as both can be used for good purposes
I like how common sense is nowaways considered extremism.

[TeraDyne]

I like how common sense is nowaways considered extremism.

Only in the eyes of extremists.

[nrs]

Have you ever seen an interview with this guy. It seems to me this is exactly what he is doing. If he's not doing this intentionally he certainly comes across that way. Since I'm not the only person that formed this opinion of him perhaps he should change the way he presents himself less he make make him self look like a jackass

I've read many. I don't think I've come across and interview where he randomly starts talking about his background, demanding worship & harem. It almost always boils down to 'GNU/Linux' which is simply a case of asking for credit where it's due -- and he doesn't ask for credit himself, but rather the project -- not out of egos sake, but as a vehicle to promote free-software, which is pretty much the only thing he's concerned with, making friends doesn't appear to be a priority.

Can you find me one single interview, which wasn't intended as biographical, where all he does is talk about himself? That'd go a long way towards proving your point.

[swoll1980]

If you want a good example of that, go listen to The Linux Link Tech Show, episode 165. He's extremely hard to interview, too.

Warning: Show has some vulgar language. Download at own risk.

http://tllts.org/dl.php?episode=165

I'm listening now
interviewer: What's the purpose of gpl3?
Stallman: There isn't one

This guys a freakin' space cadet

[SunnyRabbiera]

Only in the eyes of extremists.

Quite, extremism will not get anyone anywhere.

[ivze]

GPL is definitely a more vitaluous license that BSD. This is proved by the factthat GNU-licensed software is more widely used. Desite some restrictions, it solves the problem of closed-source software, providing an alternative. BSD also does it, but receives less support from the community because of a too liberous software license.

[swoll1980]

I've read many. I don't think I've come across and interview where he randomly starts talking about his background, demanding worship & harem. It almost always boils down to 'GNU/Linux' which is simply a case of asking for credit where it's due -- and he doesn't ask for credit himself, but rather the project -- not out of egos sake, but as a vehicle to promote free-software, which is pretty much the only thing he's concerned with, making friends doesn't appear to be a priority.

Can you find me one single interview, which wasn't intended as biographical, where all he does is talk about himself? That'd go a long way towards proving your point.

I saw Linus accepting an award for something and he did at the award ceramony

[Ozor Mox]

I'm listening now
interviewer: What's the purpose of gpl3?
Stallman: There isn't one

This guys a freakin' space cadet

I like the bit where the interviewer starts talking about the Linux kernel being under the GPLv2 and then RMS goes off on one about how it is GNU/Linux and not just Linux and I was thinking...but he didn't say that! Later on when the interviewer was calling it 'GNU Linux' instead of 'GNU-slash-Linux' I was cringing!

Yeah RMS is a bit of a nutter, but he has done such great things for software freedom I for one feel I have no place to criticise.

[nrs]

I'm listening now
interviewer: What's the purpose of gpl3?
Stallman: There isn't one

This guys a freakin' space cadet

Work. At. FOX. You have an knack for misconstruing sound bites. He was asked what the single big issue was for the GPLv3, he responded that there was no central issue, it's still the same premise, just with various details changed/added.

Reeeeeaaal crazy man!

[SunnyRabbiera]

GPL is definitely a more vitaluous license that BSD. This is proved by the factthat GNU-licensed software is more widely used. Desite some restrictions, it solves the problem of closed-source software, providing an alternative. BSD also does it, but receives less support from the community because of a too liberous software license.

Uh huh, but i am a very liberal person so the BSD license appeals to me more

[koenn]

I saw Linus accepting an award for something and he did at the award ceramony
I saw that too, and no, he didn't talk about himself at all, but made some comments about the Linux kernel in the GNU/Linux operating system.

[phrostbyte]

The BSD license basically allows anyone to come along, take you code and put it in their proprietary software without paying you a shiny penny. The only people who benefit from the BSD/MIT license are blood sucking leeches. So it's really a terrible license. I only write BSD/MIT if I'm getting paid for it in advance.

[swoll1980]

I saw that too, and no, he didn't talk about himself at all, but made some comments about the Linux kernel in the GNU/Linux operating system.

and about how linux is a small piece and how they were making there own kernel and Linus beat them to it, during Linus's award ceremony thats what I'm talking about

[swoll1980]

The BSD license basically allows anyone to come along, take you code and put it in their proprietary software without paying you a shiny penny. The only people who benefit from the BSD/MIT license are blood sucking leeches. So it's really a terrible license. I only write BSD/MIT if I'm getting paid for it in advance.

Correction: Everybody benefits from it up to and including blood sucking leeches

[ice60]

i saw a panel discussion at the UN with rms, lots of people were watching and the panel included m. shuttleworth, and that open source guy who talks slowly as well as some businessman and others.

when the businessman was talking, in this packed room in front of lots of people, rms was tapping the side of his head and spinning his finger around trying to make out the other guy was a little crazy lol. i don't think he realised he looked like some crazy drunk off the street who hadn't bathed and shaved for years and the only person who looked crazy was him lol. it is difficult to take him seriously in those circumstances.

the fsf certainly have some big problems! rms is the front guy for them, but they don't seem to see how awful he appears to people who don't know him. i honestly believe fsf followers think rms is the bee's knees.

gnu is the most awkward name i have ever heard, i think if you really want people to use a word it should be something that's pleasant to say, gnu is anything but that, and it's far too easy to drop; never mind 'gnu slash linux':shock:

the ideals of the fsf are wrong, there's nothing wrong with someone selling binaries if they want, just like there's nothing wrong with using the GPLv2 if you want.

[phrostbyte]

Correction: Everybody benefits from it up to and including blood sucking leeches

No, the actual developers and the project suffer when it is licensed as BSD.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The BSD license basically allows anyone to come along, take you code and put it in their proprietary software without paying you a shiny penny. The only people who benefit from the BSD/MIT license are blood sucking leeches. So it's really a terrible license. I only write BSD/MIT if I'm getting paid for it in advance.

Yeh, well thats because there is no 800 pages long of gobbledygook for the BSD license ;)

[howlingmadhowie]

i spent a couple of days with rms recently and i can confirm that he can be socially very demanding.

as to the issue of gnu/linux, as nrs correctly said, rms is troubled by the way a large amount of gnu/linux users are quite happy to beg for a port of photoshop and sacrifice the freedoms rms fought and worked for. in his mind, if you use non-free software on a gnu/linux system you might as well stick to windows or osx or whatever.

i also feel the urge to say that if stallman hadn't tirelessly fought for our freedoms the last 25 years, there wouldn't be any linux or ubuntu or (probably) bsd or opensolaris nowadays. we would all be living in a drm infested swamp of proprietary software and governmental spying.

more than anybody else, rms made all this here possible.

[nrs]

i saw a panel discussion at the UN with rms, lots of people were watching and the panel included m. shuttleworth, and that open source guy who talks slowly as well as some businessman and others.

when the businessman was talking, in this packed room in front of lots of people, rms was tapping the side of his head and spinning his finger around trying to make out the other guy was a little crazy lol. i don't think he realised he looked like some crazy drunk off the street who hadn't bathed and shaved for years and the only person who looked crazy was him lol. it is difficult to take him seriously in those circumstances.

the fsf certainly have some big problems! rms is the front guy for them, but they don't seem to see how awful he appears to people who don't know him. i honestly believe fsf followers think rms is the bee's knees.

gnu is the most awkward name i have ever heard, i think if you really want people to use a word it should be something that's pleasant to say, gnu is anything but that, and it's far too easy to drop; never mind 'gnu slash linux':shock:

the ideals of the fsf are wrong, there's nothing wrong with someone selling binaries if they want, just like there's nothing wrong with using the GPLv2 if you want.
They aren't in it for popularity. The FSF has never said that selling binaries is wrong.

[swoll1980]

No, the actual developers and the project suffer when it is licensed as BSD.

how is it suffering if they chose to license it that way. Thats not suffering thats choice. If I'm I end user I can take bsded software and change it for my purposes. Thats a benefit

[howlingmadhowie]

Yeh, well thats because there is no 800 pages long of gobbledygook for the BSD license ;)

legal english is hard. you need to write a lot of it to make sure that nobody can misuse your work by abiding by the letter of the law and not the spirit. as it is, the gpl3 contains 5229 words, so you'd have to write very large to need 800 pages

[howlingmadhowie]

how is it suffering if they chose to license it that way. Thats not suffering thats choice. If I'm I end user I can take bsded software and change it for my purposes. Thats a benefit

you can do the same with gpl'ed software

[swoll1980]

did you hear Stallmans E-mail song thats funny

[phrostbyte]

how is it suffering if they chose to license it that way. Thats not suffering thats choice. If I'm I end user I can take bsded software and change it for my purposes. Thats a benefit

You can do the same for GPL'ed software, as someone already said.

Are you familiar with the first amendment of the US Constitution?

[ice60]

They aren't in it for popularity. The FSF has never said that selling binaries is wrong.
the fsf might not care how popular they are, but they do want people to use a GPL licence and make all software Free.

you know what i mean - selling binaries and only binaries, with no source code.

[swoll1980]

you can do the same with gpl'ed software

I understand that. I'm not saying bsd is better. I don't believe that at all(gnu's license makes way more sense and cuts the leeches out of the loop)but bsd is not without benefits to normal people

[phrostbyte]

the fsf might not care how popular they are, but they do want people to use a GPL licence and make all software Free.

you know what i mean - selling binaries and only binaries, with no source code.

How does one properly enforce the terms of proprietary software? There is no other way but by fascist means, such as spying on computer's usage, DRM, and RIAA-style lawsuits. Plus it encourages anti-social behavior.

[SunnyRabbiera]

legal english is hard. you need to write a lot of it to make sure that nobody can misuse your work by abiding by the letter of the law and not the spirit. as it is, the gpl3 contains 5229 words, so you'd have to write very large to need 800 pages

thats still a great many words though

[howlingmadhowie]

I understand that. I'm not saying bsd is better. I don't believe that at all(gnu's license makes way more sense and cuts the leeches out of the loop)but bsd is not without benefits to normal people

sorry, i misunderstood you.

for some reason these licenses (commons/bsd, copyleft/gpl, proprietary/microsoft eula) remind me of the introduction to evolutionary stable strategies given by richard dawkins in 'the selfish gene'. he considers a population of animals which starts with two basic character types, either a/ always be nice, or b/ always be nasty. a bit of maths follows and it soon becomes obvious that which strategy will win depends upon the initial distribution of strategies. important is to note that no equilibrium can be built when both strategies are present.

he then introduces a third strategy which he calls 'tit-for-tat'. these animals are initially nice to all animals and then nice to animals which were nice to them and nasty to animals which were nasty to them. needless to say, in anything other than a 100% nasty pool, this strategy soon dominates and the nasty animals die out.

now an equilibrium is possible with tit-for-tat animals and nice animals together (the animals would actually be indistinguishable).

of course the analogy between software licenses and animal behavioural strategies soon breaks down: only where patents are involved is software a zero-sum game, for example (only one person can hold the patent for a technology).

[ice60]

How does one properly enforce the terms of proprietary software? There is no other way but by fascist means, such as spying on computer's usage, DRM, and RIAA-style lawsuits. Plus it encourages anti-social behavior.
which terms? do you mean stopping piracy? what does red hat do to stop piracy? maybe nothing, proprietary software can do nothing too.

that's not really my point, i think just because you don't like a licence that shouldn't mean you think no one should use it and only the licence you endorse should be used.

i don't have a problem with people using licences i don't agree with, i beleave in choice :) i don't think the fsf does and i think that's wrong :(

[howlingmadhowie]

which terms? do you mean stopping piracy? what does red hat do to stop piracy? maybe nothing, proprietary software can do nothing too.

that's not really my point, i think just because you don't like a licence that shouldn't mean you think no one should use it and only the licence you endorse should be used.

i don't have a problem with people using licences i don't agree with, i beleave in choice :) i don't think the fsf does and i think that's wrong :(

who is using the license in your way of looking at it? the fsf has no desire to inhibit the end-users right to sign whatever license they want. the fsf does however have a great problem with software companies using licenses to keep end-users helpless, divided and dependent.

[ice60]

who is using the license in your way of looking at it? the fsf has no desire to inhibit the end-users right to sign whatever license they want. the fsf does however have a great problem with software companies using licenses to keep end-users helpless, divided and dependent.
the fsf also thinks i should give away my source code too, i understand the 4 freedoms and they are great, i'm not against free software if someone wants to licence their software with it.

my point is very simple, if i, as a single programmer, not belonging to any company, don't want to give away my source code and just sell a binary then it's no one else's business but mine, and that is it.

giving away the code might help make the software better and let people make changes to it so they can use it the way the want, but how am i going to support my wife and daughter? we live in the middle of the countryside with no other jobs apart from farming and i don't want cows in the back garden!!!

i want the freedom to keep my code and sell the binary!!! why is that wrong?

[howlingmadhowie]

the fsf also thinks i should give away my source code too, i understand the 4 freedoms and they are great, i'm not against free software if someone wants to licence their software with it.

my point is very simple, if i, as a single programmer, not belonging to any company, don't want to give away my source code and just sell a binary then it's no one else's business but mine, and that is it.

giving away the code might help make the software better and let people make changes to it so they can use it the way the want, but how am i going to support my wife and daughter? we live in the middle of the countryside with no other jobs apart from farming and i don't want cows in the back garden!!!

i want the freedom to keep my code and sell the binary!!! why is that wrong?

it is wrong because you are making others dependent upon you.

[ice60]

it is wrong because you are making others dependent upon you.
well, there you go, we are not going to agree on this, ever. unless you change your mind. we'll have to agree to disagree!

[cardinals_fan]

Just ignore it, BSD users love to troll anything GNU, go anywhere on the net and you'll see them expressing their "views" on the GPL ..

I wouldn't have minded trying out a BSD distro but their whole community is based on hatred of GNU and I'd rather be here talking about games or something then sit around talking about how much Stallman sucks, which is almost as bad as sitting around talking about how awesome Stallman is.
I would disagree with this - there are a few jerks in any community, but most BSD users really don't care about other OS's. You use what works for you, and that is that.

[jrusso2]

My personal feelings are that RMS and his FSF fanatics are what has kept Linux from becoming a popular desktop operating system for the masses.

[LaRoza]

What license to use is a choice you know everyone.

No one is forced to use the GPL unless they use GPL software in the code. That is in the license to use the software in the first place. Just like everywhere, if you don't agree with the license, don't use the product.

[swoll1980]

the problem with Stallman is he's an extremest theres no grey area he condemns anyone who chooses to sell binary, and says that programmers have no right to make money off selling there programs

Add: And this comes from someone who is talking about freedom all the time

[wilsonmuse]

...he condemns anyone who chooses to sell binary, and says that programmers have no right to make money off selling there programs....

Could you provide resources here? I haven't really followed RMS's ideas very closely, but I've never heard of this. I would really like to know whether this is a correct statement.

[RazorEdge]

Could you provide resources here? I haven't really followed RMS's ideas very closely, but I've never heard of this. I would really like to know whether this is a correct statement.
It's not.

From what I recall RMS mentioning in an interview, he doesn't have a problem with people selling software, as long as the source code is available for it. So long as the code is open, you charge whatever you like, since you've got the code freely available and that's all he's concerned about.

Even though I have a problem with his extremist views conflicting with my chosen profession, I gotta at least state he has SOME sense of reason.

[Sporkman]

It's not.

From what I recall RMS mentioning in an interview, he doesn't have a problem with people selling software, as long as the source code is available for it. So long as the code is open, you charge whatever you like, since you've got the code freely available and that's all he's concerned about.


...of course, after installing on his own computer, the buyer can turn around & resell it, undercutting the programmer...

[swoll1980]

teradane posted a link (http://http://tllts.org/dl.php?episode=165) earlier in this thread and stallman said in that interview that programmers should not be paid, and if programing is your job you should find another one I heard it come out of his mouth and you can to. Don't go around correcting people unless you know what your talking about

Add: this isn't the first time I heard him say this either just the most resent I don't know what interviews you were listening to

[Ozor Mox]

teradane posted a link earleir in this thread and stallman said in that interview thats programers should not be paid. I heard it come out of his mouth and you can to. Don't go around correct people unless you know what your talking about

If you're talking about the interview on TLLTS then that's not what he said at all. He answered it in a rather strange way, but what he actually said was that there are jobs available for proprietary software and for free software development, and he considers the former unethical and the latter good. He also said if there is no demand for someone writing free software, then they should find an alternative job. Why he didn't mention being paid for services I don't know, but he did talk about being paid for custom modifications of software, as long as it is redistributed as free software.

[swoll1980]

If you're talking about the interview on TLLTS then that's not what he said at all. He answered it in a rather strange way, but what he actually said was that there are jobs available for proprietary software and for free software development, and he considers the former unethical and the latter good. He also said if there is no demand for someone writing free software, then they should find an alternative job. Why he didn't mention being paid for services I don't know, but he did talk about being paid for custom modifications of software, as long as it is redistributed as free software.

I know what I heard. He said programmers shouldn't make money, and if it's the only way you make money then you should get another job. I'm not stupid or ignorant he said it it's recorded the link is posted for all to hear. you need to listen to the whole thing it's like an hour into it when he says it

[swoll1980]

even if he only said it was unethical thats still condemning which is what I said he did in the first place so what is your argument

[Ozor Mox]

even if he said it was unethical thats still condeming which is what I said he did in the first place so what is your argument

He said developing proprietary software is unethical. Developing free software and being paid for it is fine, as he said in that interview.

This (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) explains it nicely.

[nrs]

My personal feelings are that RMS and his FSF fanatics are what has kept Linux from becoming a popular desktop operating system for the masses.

Kind of funny seeing as how, you know .. they are the "Linux desktop". You know what the G in GNOME stands for right? ;) Let's pretend GNU/Linux was just another proprietary UNIX, what, if anything, makes it special?

[TeraDyne]

Kind of funny seeing as how, you know .. they are the "Linux desktop". You know what the G in GNOME stands for right? ;) Let's pretend GNU/Linux was just another proprietary UNIX, what, if anything, makes it special?

Heh. I use KDE, so I'm not using GNOME.

BTW, I'm relistening to that interview, and I still have a hard time following RMS' train of thought. He's all over the map, and trips over himself several time. Not to mention that he's extremely rude in the way he speaks over everyone else.

[vexorian]

My personal feelings are that RMS and his FSF fanatics are what has kept Linux from becoming a popular desktop operating system for the masses.
Yes, cause an application-less kernel surely would have been popular. BTW, aren't you that "Linux will never be ready for the desktop" troll? Sorry, but one year after your thread I am quite sure it is at least as ready for the desktop as Windows XP, been using it extensively for games, work, multimedia and homework, wouldn't trade it for anything out there.


Heh. I use KDE, so I'm not using GNOME.Then feel good and thankful, the GPL got your back.

..
As for BSD license vs. free software, BSD is ok for small things that are not indisposable, for an OS or core tools, sorry, but it is non-sense not to use the GPL. If those *BSD OSes got popular MS would just make a proprietary fork and kill them all, I don't want to be vulnerable to such lame things, sorry.

I used to think of the OpenBSD and FreeBSD crew as just the other side of free software and was looking forward to one day trying those OSes, unfortunately these guys smashed their own image to me, by first of all, making me notice they are all right with any greedy corporation making proprietary forks of their code but they will totally get on their panties if someone uses their code in GPLed software. Seriously, that one was ridiculous, and it shows that they were total hypocrites when they use such a liberal license as the BSD yet they don't like it when other people use the freedoms they state in such license.

Second strike was such things as the one in this thread, sorry. I don't want to trust the control of my PC over to some immature, corporation-loving, Linux-hating, strawman-abuser association. Will stick to the "extremist" GNU-Linux.

[RazorEdge]

teradane posted a link (http://http://tllts.org/dl.php?episode=165) earlier in this thread and stallman said in that interview that programmers should not be paid, and if programing is your job you should find another one I heard it come out of his mouth and you can to. Don't go around correcting people unless you know what your talking about
Ozor Mox confirmed what I said, basically.

My first post here and I get this crap. Yeah, thanks for making me feel welcome mate. :mad:

[vexorian]

My first post here and I get this crap. Yeah, thanks for making me feel welcome mateDon't worry, you are welcome, thanked.

[swoll1980]

Ozor Mox confirmed what I said, basically.

My first post here and I get this crap. Yeah, thanks for making me feel welcome mate. :mad:

ozor mox didn't confirm anything except that he can avoid the truth pretty well listen to the interview and see for your self

[RazorEdge]

It's a problem of extremes.

You have a totally proprietary system on one end, and a totally free system on another. There are benefits to both (convenience/software selection on one side, philosophy and whatever else on the other). Having a practical mating of the two sides in the form of, say, proprietary codecs and open-source software is a more pragmatic way of getting Linux to be accepted with people who don't actually care one way or the other, except that they want their computer to have the functionality they've come to expect.

For me, I can't go totally open source because I'm a hardware designer using high-end proprietary software. Much of it's available for Linux, but it certain isn't free in any form of the word. What would RMS think of me?

[swoll1980]

My first post here and I get this crap. Yeah, thanks for making me feel welcome mate. :mad:

That post wasn't even directed toward you calm down there guy if I'm directing something to you I will quote something you said

[Th3Professor]

All I have to say is:

GO PUFFY!

:guitar:

...the new song is definitely going in my top-5 fav. OpenBSD songs.

Here's a copy of the credits on the song:
Music written and arranged by Jonathan Lewis. Lyrics by Ty Semaka and Nikkos Diochnos. Vocals and bouzouki by Nikkos Diochnos. Baglama, second bouzouki, violin, bass, and drum programming by Stelios Pulos, né Jonathan Lewis. Guitar by Methodios Valtiotis, né Allen Baekeland. Percussion by Pentelis Yiannikopulos, né Ben Johnson. Recorded, mixed, and mastered by Jonathan Lewis of Moxam Studios (1-403-617-2864).

[phrostbyte]

which terms? do you mean stopping piracy? what does red hat do to stop piracy? maybe nothing, proprietary software can do nothing too.

that's not really my point, i think just because you don't like a licence that shouldn't mean you think no one should use it and only the licence you endorse should be used.

i don't have a problem with people using licences i don't agree with, i beleave in choice :) i don't think the fsf does and i think that's wrong :(

Actually, you believe in "choice" when it fits your specific dogma only. Unless you support pedophilia, murder, etc. all of which are choices a person can take.

There are such a thing as bad choices.

[Ozor Mox]

ozor mox didn't confirm anything except that he can avoid the truth pretty well listen to the interview and see for your self

Maybe we have interpreted in different ways, but that's the most leeway I'm going to give you. The website of the organisation he founded states quite the contrary of what you seem to have heard.

[phrostbyte]

The thing that rape and murder have in common with proprietary licenses and strong copyright terms is they all take away your personal freedom. It's just a matter of to what level of freedom you are willing to give away in the end of the day.

[RazorEdge]

Actually, you believe in "choice" when it fits your specific dogma only. Unless you support pedophilia, murder, etc. all of which are choices a person can take.

There are such a thing as bad choices.
You aren't honestly putting software licenses and proprietary software in the same league as pedophilia and murder are you? They're way different in terms of scale.

[phrostbyte]

You aren't honestly putting software licenses and proprietary software in the same league as pedophilia and murder are you? They're way different in terms of scale.

Only in your mind.

As one often quoted person once said: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

[swoll1980]

Only in your mind.

As one often quoted person once said: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

William Wallace said it to only he used different words

[wilsonmuse]

swoll1980,

I thought that that statement sounded incorrect. In the reference that you are referencing RMS neither said that programmers shouldn't be paid to program or that programmers should not try to make a living making money. The interviewer that asked him those questions was purposely trying to be confusing and/or didn't try to understand RMS's responses.

The interviewer asked how should a programmer make a living coding free software. RMS then responded that the interviewer was making an incorrect supposition that coding free software and making a living are connected in such a direct way. He clearly stated that there was nothing wrong with making a living coding free software or that it is immoral to sell software. The interviewer continued to twist and misinterpret RMS's responses and caused confusion as to what RMS was actually saying.

I interpreted his responses to mean this: If a coder cannot make a living coding free software then he must find out how to make a living doing some other occupation. There is nothing that says a programmer who wants to code free software has to be able to make a living on it. Being unable to make a living coding free software does not leave a programmer with only the option of coding non-free software.

Many people, even in the free-software community, are unsure exactly what free software actually is. Many are also unsure of exactly what the GPL means and how it is used. Some of these people argue and flame about these issues while not understanding the background information. Please before making judgments and trying to convince others that these are true judgments make sure you fully understand what you are discussing.

References to look at include:
The Free Software Foundation's Website (http://www.fsf.org/)
The GPL itself and explanations of what it means by the people who actually designed it (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

[swoll1980]

The thing that rape and murder have in common with proprietary licenses and strong copyright terms is they all take away your personal freedom. It's just a matter of to what level of freedom you are willing to give away in the end of the day.

the only difference is force. Nobody is forcing you to use any software you don't want to

[drascus]

I think it is interesting that people say that Stallman isn't important. Free Software was his idea. He either wrote or had his hands in many of the Gnu tools. And of course without him there would be no GNU at all. Linux is a Kernal there are many of them. Most of the Software on our systems is derived from the GNU project. Linus doesn't care about Free Software neccisarily that is why he initially released his code under a restrictive license. I am not saying we have to call it Gnu/Linux even though I do. I am just saying it is not really fair to bash Stallman. He is an idealist that is trying to point Gnu/Linux in a direction that will lead to freedom. Maybe you disagree with his methods for getting there. That is fine but we shouldn't bash that goal which is the ultimate goal of GNU.

[swoll1980]

swoll1980,

I thought that that statement sounded incorrect. In the reference that you are referencing RMS neither said that programmers shouldn't be paid to program or that programmers should not try to make a living making money. The interviewer that asked him those questions was purposely trying to be confusing and/or didn't try to understand RMS's responses.

The interviewer asked how should a programmer make a living coding free software. RMS then responded that the interviewer was making an incorrect supposition that coding free software and making a living are connected in such a direct way. He clearly stated that there was nothing wrong with making a living coding free software or that it is immoral to sell software. The interviewer continued to twist and misinterpret RMS's responses and caused confusion as to what RMS was actually saying.

I interpreted his responses to mean this: If a coder cannot make a living coding free software then he must find out how to make a living doing some other occupation. There is nothing that says a programmer who wants to code free software has to be able to make a living on it. Being unable to make a living coding free software does not leave a programmer with only the option of coding non-free software.

Many people, even in the free-software community, are unsure exactly what free software actually is. Many are also unsure of exactly what the GPL means and how it is used. Some of these people argue and flame about these issues while not understanding the background information. Please before making judgments and trying to convince others that these are true judgments make sure you fully understand what you are discussing.

References to look at include:
The Free Software Foundation's Website (http://www.fsf.org/)
The GPL itself and explanations of what it means by the people who actually designed it (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

I can give you this much. My girlfriend kept talking to me during the interview so I missed bits and pieces here and there, but I know what I heard. Maybe something happened in the bits and pieces that could have lead me out of context, but I will add that Stallman is often quoted saying things that people supposedly misunderstood. This guy seems to always say something that is taken out of context. Maybe he should watch what he says and we wouldn't have these misunderstandings

[cardinals_fan]

As for BSD license vs. free software, BSD is ok for small things that are not indisposable, for an OS or core tools, sorry, but it is non-sense not to use the GPL. If those *BSD OSes got popular MS would just make a proprietary fork and kill them all, I don't want to be vulnerable to such lame things, sorry.

I used to think of the OpenBSD and FreeBSD crew as just the other side of free software and was looking forward to one day trying those OSes, unfortunately these guys smashed their own image to me, by first of all, making me notice they are all right with any greedy corporation making proprietary forks of their code but they will totally get on their panties if someone uses their code in GPLed software. Seriously, that one was ridiculous, and it shows that they were total hypocrites when they use such a liberal license as the BSD yet they don't like it when other people use the freedoms they state in such license.

Second strike was such things as the one in this thread, sorry. I don't want to trust the control of my PC over to some immature, corporation-loving, Linux-hating, strawman-abuser association. Will stick to the "extremist" GNU-Linux.
The OpenBSD crew has always been a bit extremist in their own way. Don't judge all BSD OS's the same way! With that said, I support any license that can sum things up cleanly. A user should know the licensing of their software without having to drag through page after page of legal vagaries. Considering a group 'corporation-loving' just because they don't place any real restrictions on their code is absurd and, to use your word, immature.

Since so much has been said about it, I decided to include the classic BSD license:

* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

[zmjjmz]

Does the Odyssey theme of the comic have anything to do with Sporkman's new avatar? (A scene from O Brother Where Art Thou)
Mind you people, Apple's Mac OSX was able to use OSS code and still be one of the most proprietary OS's in the world thanks to the BSD license. DarwinBSD got screwed because of it too.

[cardinals_fan]

Why is letting people do whatever they want with code wrong? If they wrote the code, I see it as really tacky to whine about its licensing. If you don't like it, don't use it.

[Th3Professor]

OpenBSD uses the ISC License.

[cardinals_fan]

OpenBSD uses the ISC License.
Quoted:

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

[wilsonmuse]

I can give you this much. My girlfriend kept talking to me during the interview so I missed bits and pieces here and there, but I know what I heard. Maybe something happened in the bits and pieces that could have lead me out of context, but I will add that Stallman is often quoted saying things that people supposedly misunderstood. This guy seems to always say something that is taken out of context. Maybe he should watch what he says and we wouldn't have these misunderstandings

Not understanding what someone or something means gives you, nor anybody else, any right to make false accusations nor is it excusable to do so.

What RMS mostly talks about are abstract ideas and can be difficult to explain, therefore, people often don't fully understand what he is saying, like yourself. Again I suggest if you are confused about the subject do some research until you are more confident. Both of the links I posted earlier explain very well what free software and the GPL is.

[RazorEdge]

Only in your mind.

As one often quoted person once said: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Alright, let me ask you this: if my career is based on using proprietary software packages, what do you suggest I do?

Free alternatives aren't an option BTW, because compared with Xilinx, Synplicity, Modelsim and Altium Designer, there is nothing in the OSS world that exists or is even close to the required functionality of these tools. Of course, I don't have to pay for them (yay work!), but still, they're what I use.

So in my case, "Give me my career or give me death." There IS a place for proprietary if there are no alternatives. It's just software after all. Not going to end up like RMS - I LIKE making tons of money. :)

[Th3Professor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Th3Professor http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4858753#post4858753)
OpenBSD uses the ISC License.

Quoted:
Quote:
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.



ISC is pretty slick.

Relinquishing all rights occurs in Public Domain. That is absolutely free.

The next best thing is currently the ISC license.

[nrs]

I can give you this much. My girlfriend kept talking to me during the interview so I missed bits and pieces here and there, but I know what I heard. Maybe something happened in the bits and pieces that could have lead me out of context, but I will add that Stallman is often quoted saying things that people supposedly misunderstood. This guy seems to always say something that is taken out of context. Maybe he should watch what he says and we wouldn't have these misunderstandings

What he questions is the automatic assumption that code == $. That may or not be the case. His answer is directed at a hypothetical free-software developer, and what he's saying is this person shouldn't make money developing proprietary software, and there are other choices, like finding another job.

If you feel you've missed something, you can skip to 1:07:50 where he lays his thoughts out clearly:

It's wrong to develop non-free software, people should avoid that. That is what people shouldn't make a living off of.
It's good to develop free-software, so if you can make a living out of it, by all means.


These are discussions that can easily be taken out of context. He is frequently taken out of context (so is everyone), I think this adds towards his abrasiveness with interviewers.

[swoll1980]

Not understanding what someone or something means gives you, nor anybody else, any right to make false accusations nor is it excusable to do so.

What RMS mostly talks about are abstract ideas and can be difficult to explain, therefore, people often don't fully understand what he is saying, like yourself. Again I suggest if you are confused about the subject do some research until you are more confident. Both of the links I posted earlier explain very well what free software and the GPL is.

Maybe your misunderstanding me. I know what I heard. If it was "taken out of context" this is not my fault. I'm not acknowledging the fact that I even took it out of context. If he said it he should have meant what he said. Campaign pr people often use this taken out of context excuse to justify some bone headed statement made by there candidate. rms's ideas are not abstract. He is. His ideas are simple yet he does everything he can to make them more complicated than what they are. As far as the interviewer trying to confuse him. He was trying to get a strait answer. Stallman was talking backwards(another political technique) because he didn't want to respond to the question with a strait answer(alla Bill Clinton) and as far as you telling people what they have the right to say. You must have dilutions of grandeur, because where I'm from no one has the right to tell me what I have or don't have the right to say. This isn't Cuba. By the way I'm a pretty intelligent person so don't talk down to me. I was willing to compromise with you, but you used it as ammo to
insult my intelligence. Thats pretty disgraceful.

[nrs]

Alright, let me ask you this: if my career is based on using proprietary software packages, what do you suggest I do?

Free alternatives aren't an option BTW, because compared with Xilinx, Synplicity, Modelsim and Altium Designer, there is nothing in the OSS world that exists or is even close to the required functionality of these tools. Of course, I don't have to pay for them (yay work!), but still, they're what I use.

So in my case, "Give me my career or give me death." There IS a place for proprietary if there are no alternatives. It's just software after all. Not going to end up like RMS - I LIKE making tons of money. :)

First, you can do whatever you want to do, that is not being called into question. Secondly, I don't see using as merely using proprietary software as a function of your job an issue. I think he says it nicely here.

I don't feel I need to refuse to connect to a server that is running non-free software. For that matter, I won't refuse to type on a computer that's running non-free software. If I were visiting your house for a little and you had a Windows machine, I would use it if it were important for me to use it. I wouldn't be willing to have Windows on my computer, and you shouldn't have it on yours, but I can't change that by refusing to touch the machine.
And lastly, if it were an issue for you, you could switch careers. You don't want to, but you could. Huge difference.

[nrs]

Maybe your misunderstanding me. I know what I heard. If it was "taken out of context" this is not my fault. I'm not acknowledging the fact that I even took it out of context. If he said it he should have meant what he said. Campaign pr people often use this taken out of context excuse to justify some bone headed statement made by there candidate. rms's ideas are not abstract. He is. His ideas are simple yet he does everything he can to make them more complicated than what they are. As far as the interviewer trying to confuse him. He was trying to get a strait answer. Stallman was talking backwards(another political technique) because he didn't want to respond to the question with a strait answer(alla Bill Clinton) and as far as you telling people what they have the right to say. You must have dilutions of grandeur, because where I'm from no one has the right to tell me what I have or don't have the right to say. This isn't Cuba. By the way I'm a pretty intelligent person so don't talk down to me. I was willing to compromise with you, but you used it as ammo to
insult my intelligence. Thats pretty disgraceful.

Well hey, no one else seems to have heard it. I pointed out earlier when the topic at hand began, so maybe you could skip forward and point out exactly when he said what're you claiming he did? And in any case, even if you find it ambiguous, I also pointed out the time which he unambiguously stated his position, less then two minutes later.

[swoll1980]

What he questions is the automatic assumption that code == $. That may or not be the case. His answer is directed at a hypothetical free-software developer, and what he's saying is this person shouldn't make money developing proprietary software, and there are other choices, like finding another job.

OMG you just acknowledged that he said it. Thats what I said he said](*,)
This is insanity :mad: and he never said the word proprietary either

[RazorEdge]

First, you can do whatever you want to do, that is not being called into question. Secondly, I don't see using as merely using proprietary software as a function of your job an issue. I think he says it nicely here.
OK, I suppose. Is it bad if I happen to like a lot of the proprietary software I'm using though? Or is that like thinking dirty thoughts? :)


And lastly, if it were an issue for you, you could switch careers. You don't want to, but you could. Huge difference.
Of course I could. I could drop everything I've learnt and becomes a plumber. Then again... it would be somewhat of a downgrade, much like giving up that sweet sweet proprietary software would be. We all have to make compromises in life.

:popcorn:

[saulgoode]

my point is very simple, if i, as a single programmer, not belonging to any company, don't want to give away my source code and just sell a binary then it's no one else's business but mine, and that is it.

If all you wish to do is sell your binary, I would agree that no one else is affected. However, if you wish to stipulate that the person who received your binary is not permitted to make copies and distribute those (either for free or commercially), you need to rely upon some form of government support to enforce this stipulation, either through patent, copyright, or contract law.

The fact that my government spends billions of dollars to provide patent and copyright subsidies, as well as a court system to handle contract disputes, so that you can prevent others from distributing copies of a binary you sold is indeed of interest to me.

[cardinals_fan]

This thread is starting to frighten me. I'm leaving to do something productive.

[nrs]

OMG you just acknowledged that he said it. Thats what I said he said](*,)
This is insanity :mad: and he never said the word proprietary either

No. You said, he said
he condemns anyone who chooses to sell binary, and says that programmers have no right to make money off selling there programs He says nothing of the sort.He says they shouldn't choose to make a living developing proprietary (he used the word non-free) software. This is a far cry from saying they shouldn't make a living developing and selling software. As someone said, this isn't rocket science.

Is the only reason to design a car to make a profit? should designing one automagically == profit? It certainly can, and in most cases does, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't have to be the reason of its existence, and it doesn't have to be the result.

If I say you shouldn't make a living designing a defective car, am I saying you shouldn't design cars? If you can't find work at an ethical car manufacturer, is it right to work for an unethical one because it's the easiest route?

Nowhere is he saying you shouldn't develop or sell software. Nowhere. Saying "I heard, I heard!" means nothing. Tell me where he said this.

[Iandefor]

As for BSD license vs. free software, BSD is ok for small things that are not indisposable, for an OS or core tools, sorry, but it is non-sense not to use the GPL. If those *BSD OSes got popular MS would just make a proprietary fork and kill them all, I don't want to be vulnerable to such lame things, sorry.To the best of my knowledge, the closest thing to a proprietary fork of any BSD is OS X, and none of the BSD's seem too put off by OS X's success. And let us not forget that BSD and its licensing have been around in one form or another since the late 70's. I think if MS or anybody else was going to make a BSD-killer it would have taken them fewer than 30 years, don't you?

It's also not a matter of not being popular; MS has taken code from BSD's before, so they clearly know about the BSD's and think there's something there worth borrowing from- and it really wouldn't be that difficult to polish an already-written OS to something sellable. Couldn't be harder than writing your own OS.

[swoll1980]

No. You said, he said He says nothing of the sort.He says they shouldn't choose to make a living developing proprietary (he used the word non-free) software. This is a far cry from saying they shouldn't make a living developing and selling software. As someone said, this isn't rocket science.

Is the only reason to design a car to make a profit? should designing one automagically == profit? It certainly can, and in most cases does, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't have to be the reason of its existence, and it doesn't have to be the result.

If I say you shouldn't make a living designing a defective car, am I saying you shouldn't design cars? If you can't find work at an ethical car manufacturer, is it right to work for an unethical one because it's the easiest route?

Nowhere is he saying you shouldn't develop or sell software. Nowhere. Saying "I heard, I heard!" means nothing. Tell me where he said this.

are you seriously arguing over something so stupid the meaning is the same I'm sorry it's not word for word. I said He said he condemned selling binary. You guys are making all this fuss because I said programmers instead of proprietary programmers it was the the same sentence as selling binary. why would you assume I switched topics in the same sentence. Obviously I was talking about the same people that were selling the binary. you guys were acting like a was light years away from what he said. Making me think you were all ignoring the fact that he said that. either way he's an extremist nut job and all the people that warship him are extremist nut jobs to. Any one should be able to and can protect there work. According to your logic a song writer shouldn't make money off a song and a screen writer shouldn't make money of a movie thats a bunch of communist garbage

[howlingmadhowie]

are you seriously arguing over something so stupid the meaning is the same I'm sorry it's not word for word. I said He said he condemned selling binary. You guys are making all this fuss because I said programmers instead of proprietary programmers it was the the same sentence as selling binary. why would you assume I switched topics in the same sentence. Obviously I was talking about the same people that were selling the binary. you guys were acting like a was light years away from what he said. Making me think you were all ignoring the fact that he said that. either way he's an extremist nut job and all the people that warship him are extremist nut jobs to. Any one should be able to and can protect there work. According to your logic a song writer shouldn't make money off a song and a screen writer shouldn't make money of a movie thats a bunch of communist garbage
no one mentioned music or films here. that's what's known as a strawman. as it is, rms goes into the subject of copyright on creative works in much greater depth in a lecture he gives. generally he thinks it is a good idea but should be limited to 10 years.

he reached this view after having talked to many struggling artists who were losing the chance to make money off their work because copyright is too long. they had sold the copyright for their work to a publisher who then refused to market or print it.

rms has thought about the issue of proprietary software for a long time and has reached some very differentiated and unusual conclusions. it is unlikely you will understand him on one hearing.


oh btw, the vast majority of programmers write neither free software nor proprietary software. they mostly (to about 80%) write custom software.

[nrs]

Can't believe I missed this


As for BSD license vs. free software, BSD is ok for small things that are not indisposable, for an OS or core tools, sorry, but it is non-sense not to use the GPL. If those *BSD OSes got popular MS would just make a proprietary fork and kill them all, I don't want to be vulnerable to such lame things, sorry.


Saying BSD license vs free software is like saying Boeing 747 vs. Airplanes. The BSD license is a free software license -- granted software released under it may not always remain so -- but the license and any code released under it is free. Perhaps you might vs. copy-left?

[swoll1980]

no one mentioned music or films here. that's what's known as a strawman. as it is, rms goes into the subject of copyright on creative works in much greater depth in a lecture he gives. generally he thinks it is a good idea but should be limited to 10 years.

he reached this view after having talked to many struggling artists who were losing the chance to make money off their work because copyright is too long. they had sold the copyright for their work to a publisher who then refused to market or print it.

rms has thought about the issue of proprietary software for a long time and has reached some very differentiated and unusual conclusions. it is unlikely you will understand him on one hearing.


oh btw, the vast majority of programmers write neither free software nor proprietary software. they mostly (to about 80%) write custom software.

It is a strawman I should now I'm a sales man. It's not much of a stretch though how can you say all software should be open source without including other forms of writing it's all the same imo. That would be like making a law against driving red cars but all other colors are exempt (thats strawmaning the straw man)

[nrs]

It is a strawman I should now I'm a sales man. It's not much of a stretch though how can you say all software should be open source without including other forms of writing it's all the same imo. That would be like making a law against driving red cars but all other colors are exempt (thats strawmaning the straw man)

It's not really the same though, having a red car doesn't restrict your freedom and they're not proposing any new legislation, or laws that would make non free-software illegal. They simply present you with their case, and suggest you don't use it.

That's what makes the comparison to Communism unfair, imo. I don't see anything anti-Capitalist about it, it may render the current business model untenable, but that happens all the time, and it actually accounts for very little of the employed work force.

[swoll1980]

It's not really the same though, having a red car doesn't restrict your freedom and they're not proposing any new legislation, or laws that would make non free-software illegal. They simply present you with their case, and suggest you don't use it.

That's what makes the comparison to Communism unfair, imo. I don't see anything anti-Capitalist about it, it may render the current business model untenable, but that happens all the time, and it actually accounts for very little of the employed work force.

If it were up to Stallman non free software would be illegal. I think thats something that he has made very clear. As far as the red car goes non free software isn't taking freedom away if you don't like it you can make your own program that does the same thing, and gpl it. So is not allowing me to take a screen play, change a couple of words, and selling it to someone restricting my freedom? Isn't not allowing me to change a couple of words in a song and calling it my own restricting my freedom? What makes software so special that it should be excluded from these rules? As far as "they're not proposing any new legislation, or laws that would make non free-software illegal" thats because the idea is completely insane. This is a free world for the most part. Communism died along time ago.

[plun]

We need a fanatic to keep things together I think.


No, we doesn't need a fanatic for this :)

It just hurts Linux and splits important developer resources
for great open source software.

5 Firefox and clones, 10 webkits, 10 platforms... 10Gnash...

Gobuntu resources without any users.....:)

So this man is equal with Ballmer...The monkey dance (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4860483760049380308)

[swoll1980]

No, we doesn't need a fanatic for this :)

[/URL]

+1

[dougleduck]

I went to a lecture last night, and yes he does seem pretty bitter about the Linux GNU/Linux thing He spent 5 minutes explaining why he wanted the credit as he and GNU group did the work, which he deserves admittedly but he obviously needs to let it go. Then at the end of the rant he dropped in at that its important to let people know the GNU/Linux was meant to be about freedom foremost a point which should have been made first.

Whether you're aligned with the BSD licence or GNUGPL I think ubuntu would benefit from more FS. I'm not convinced how positive collaborations with people like Parallels are.

[swoll1980]

I went to a lecture last night, and yes he does seem pretty bitter about the Linux GNU/Linux thing He spent 5 minutes explaining why he wanted the credit as he and GNU group did the work, which he deserves admittedly but he obviously needs to let it go. Then at the end of the rant he dropped in at that its important to let people know the GNU/Linux was meant to be about freedom foremost a point which should have been made first.

Whether you're aligned with the BSD licence or GNUGPL I think ubuntu would benefit from more FS. I'm not convinced how positive collaborations with people like Parallels are.

I no nothing about the Parallels situation can you post a link please so I can get up to speed? Thanks

[nrs]

If it were up to Stallman non free software would be illegal.
I think thats something that he has made very clear.
If you could produce a quote to that effect it'd great, because as it stands I feel the opposite way.


As far as the red car goes non free software isn't taking freedom away if you don't like it you can make your own program that does the same thing, and gpl it.

Just because you choose something it doesn't mean you don't loose anything. Look at democracies that elect autocrats or thieves.

I'm not sure I understand your point though, of course you're free to not use non-free software, and no one is arguing that you're loosing freedom to non-free software when you're not using it.



So is not allowing me to take a screen play, change a couple of words, and selling it to someone restricting my freedom? Isn't not allowing me to change a couple of words in a song and calling it my own restricting my freedom? What makes software so special that it should be excluded from these rules? As far as "they're not proposing any new legislation, or laws that would make non free-software illegal" thats because the idea is completely insane. This is a free world for the most part. Communism died along time ago.
Apples & Oranges. A play can't control you, a song can't control you, etc. Again, no is arguing that it's controlling you when you're not using it. And no one is saying you aren't able to escape the control. It's a reason not to use non-free software, that's all.

[swoll1980]

Apples & Oranges. A play can't control you, a song can't control you, etc.

I don't know what programs your running, but none of mine control me. As far as Stallmans views on non free software I don't have a quote, but 2+2=4 at least on my planet it does

[howlingmadhowie]

If it were up to Stallman non free software would be illegal. I think thats something that he has made very clear. As far as the red car goes non free software isn't taking freedom away if you don't like it you can make your own program that does the same thing, and gpl it. So is not allowing me to take a screen play, change a couple of words, and selling it to someone restricting my freedom? Isn't not allowing me to change a couple of words in a song and calling it my own restricting my freedom? What makes software so special that it should be excluded from these rules? As far as "they're not proposing any new legislation, or laws that would make non free-software illegal" thats because the idea is completely insane. This is a free world for the most part. Communism died along time ago.

you seem to be attributing a number of things to stallman which he hasn't actually said and most certainly does not believe.

and btw, patents and copyright are also used to restrict freedom, some would argue much more than communism.

[nrs]

I don't know what programs your running, but none of mine control me

I don't actually run any non-free software, at least anymore. While not all non-free applications outright control you, but the possibility exists. Look at media applications that're heavy on DRM for example, look at most games, sometimes it's just accomplished by locking you into proprietary formats.

[nrs]

I don't know what programs your running, but none of mine control me. As far as Stallmans views on non free software I don't have a quote, but 2+2=4 at least on my planet it does
If what you're saying is true you should at least be able to provide some evidence. Not liking something does not automatically equate to thinking it should be illegal. I don't care much for racist or religious literature. I don't think it should be illegal.

[dougleduck]

http://www.ubuntu.com/news/parallels-for-ubuntu

[swoll1980]

you seem to be attributing a number of things to stallman which he hasn't actually said and most certainly does not believe.

and btw, patents and copyright are also used to restrict freedom, some would argue much more than communism.

What have I said he believes that I'm wrong about. I've listened to at least a dozen interviews of his. I'm not the only person that formed this opinion of him most people seem to agree with me are we all nuts? maybe your
faith in this guy has blinded you.

[nrs]

What have I said he believes that I'm wrong about. I've listened to at least a dozen interviews of his. I'm not the only person that formed this opinion of him most people seem to agree with me are we all nuts? maybe your
faith in this guy has blinded you.

they're just that, opinions, poor ones at that, if they were anything more you'd be able to cough up some evidence that he supports what you're saying he supports.

[swoll1980]

If what you're saying is true you should at least be able to provide some evidence. Not liking something does not automatically equate to thinking it should be illegal. I don't care much for racist or religious literature. I don't think it should be illegal.

My evidence is every speech he's ever given I not going to post links to them all. In countries that don't have software protection laws he does everything he can to keep it that way. So if he was in charge why wouldn't ban non free. If he doesn't have problem with it why is he fighting to keep the laws out of countries that don't have them. I don't even know what your argument is. He is obviously trying to ban software protection laws

[dougleduck]

A lot of this argument comes down to how important you think software freedom is. I don't know whether RMS thinks its as important as freedom of speech but I do not.

To say proprietary software has only does damage is an oversimplification. Without large software companies, with the large amounts of investment that have not been as forthcoming as with free software, the internet would not have the ubiquity it has today. And in some places the internet has provided people with freedom of speech and a voice (or at the least the beginnings of).

While I doubt such grand achievements were the aim of companies such as Microsoft, and I don't belittle the damage that has been done, you can't ignore them.

[swoll1980]

I went to a lecture last night, and yes he does seem pretty bitter about the Linux GNU/Linux thing He spent 5 minutes explaining why he wanted the credit as he and GNU group did the work, which he deserves admittedly but he obviously needs to let it go. Then at the end of the rant he dropped in at that its important to let people know the GNU/Linux was meant to be about freedom foremost a point which should have been made first.

Whether you're aligned with the BSD licence or GNUGPL I think ubuntu would benefit from more FS. I'm not convinced how positive collaborations with people like Parallels are.

I don't know why anyone would use it. Innotek has a great program and it's open source. Sometimes people just don't make sense

[swoll1980]

A lot of this argument comes down to how important you think software freedom is. I don't know whether RMS thinks its as important as freedom of speech but I do not.

To say proprietary software has only does damage is an oversimplification. Without large software companies, with the large amounts of investment that have not been as forthcoming as with free software, the internet would not have the ubiquity it has today. And in some places the internet has provided people with freedom of speech and a voice (or at the least the beginnings of).

While I doubt such grand achievements were the aim of companies such as Microsoft, and I don't belittle the damage that has been done, you can't ignore them.

Well Stallman and his groupies are extremest they only see black and white there are no grey areas. I'm all for open source but non free is ok to whatever works and does what I need it to if theres a good open source alternative to a non free I will use it
because it is usually more secure and better maintained

[RazorEdge]

Well Stallman and his groupies are extremest they only see black and white there are no grey areas
"If you're not with us, you're against us."

You're not a terrorist lover are you boy? :)

EDIT: Ah hell, I brought politics in the conversation. Guess I'm gonna get banned for that. Well... was nice know ya! :D

[nrs]

My evidence is every speech he's ever given I not going to post links to them all.

Then just post a link to one where he advocates making non-free software illegal.


In countries that don't have software protection laws he does everything he can to keep it that way. So if he was in charge why wouldn't ban non free. If he doesn't have problem with it why is he fighting to keep the laws out of countries that don't have them. I don't even know what your argument is.
How can you even debate when you don't know what the issues with these laws are? They're opposed because in most cases they actively harm free software. For all your talk about freedom, and how he wants to take it away, your side is the only that has taken steps to make the other illegal to use in circumstances.

[swoll1980]

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

You're not a terrorist lover are you boy? :)

EDIT: Ah hell, I brought politics in the conversation. Guess I'm gonna get banned for that. Well... was nice know ya! :D

I hope not. We need free software extremist here. Or else I'll have no one to debate with

[nrs]

I can think of one specific example off the top of my head: FFmpeg, and every application that uses it.

[dougleduck]

While I'm sure Stallman would love a world where non-free software didnt exist I think he lives in the real world enough to realise that legally it would be difficult to do such a thing.

I think he knows he CANT make it illegal so he wont try.

[howlingmadhowie]

My evidence is every speech he's ever given I not going to post links to them all. In countries that don't have software protection laws he does everything he can to keep it that way. So if he was in charge why wouldn't ban non free. If he doesn't have problem with it why is he fighting to keep the laws out of countries that don't have them. I don't even know what your argument is. He is obviously trying to ban software protection laws

"software protection laws" is a funny word. what it basically means is "i, as a writer of software, should be made into a state-funded monopoly". how do software patents for example protect software? what they do is grant monopolies on certain areas of knowledge.

where does stallman say that he would ban non-free software if he were in charge? i've never heard him say it. you appear to just be making this up.

as stallman says: free software is software that respects the users' freedom. everything he stands for and everything he fights for follows from this one tenet.

[swoll1980]

Then just post a link to one where he advocates making non-free software illegal.

How can you even debate when you don't know what the issues with these laws are? They're opposed because in most cases they actively harm free software. For all your talk about freedom, and how he wants to take it away, your side is the only that has taken steps to make the other illegal to use in circumstances.

I know what the issues are I just don't agree with them. Your assumption that people that don't share your views are ignorant of the issues is extremely arrogant. I guess all us grey seein' folk is just some dumb hill jacks

[nrs]

I know what the issues are I just don't agree with them. Your assumption that people that don't share your views are ignorant of the issues at is arrogant. I guess all us grey seein' folk is just some dumb hill jacks
So you understand and support these laws, you think it's acceptable for laws to make certain free software illegal? Isn't this the sort of thing you're rallying against?

[howlingmadhowie]

I know what the issues are I just don't agree with them. Your assumption that people that don't share your views are ignorant of the issues at is arrogant. I guess all us grey seein' folk is just some dumb hill jacks

you have not yet shown that you know about the issues. indeed your posts have been a mixture of misinformation and strawmen.

nor has anybody said that you are dumb. it is perfectly okay to be ignorant about things--there are enough things in the world i know nothing about. but what is a hindrance to a discussion is claiming knowledge you don't have.

[swoll1980]

"software protection laws" is a funny word. what it basically means is "i, as a writer of software, should be made into a state-funded monopoly". how do software patents for example protect software? what they do is grant monopolies on certain areas of knowledge.

where does stallman say that he would ban non-free software if he were in charge? i've never heard him say it. you appear to just be making this up.

as stallman says: free software is software that respects the users' freedom. everything he stands for and everything he fights for follows from this one tenet.

The statement if it were up to Stallman it would be illegal is a rhetorical. actions speak louder than words. If I say I love ponies then go home and kill a bunch of ponies then the statement doesn't mean anything. Everything Stallman does leads me to the aforementioned conclusion. The copyright laws protect the authors from the stealing of there ideas same as any other patent or copyright

[nrs]

The statement if it were up to Stallman it would be illegal is a rhetorical. actions speak louder than words. If I say I love ponies then go home and kill a bunch of ponies then the statement doesn't mean anything. Everything Stallman does leads me to the aforementioned conclusion. The copyright laws protect the authors from the stealing of there ideas same as any other patent or copyright

They're already protected under existing laws, the new ones go much further. I just think it's a tad hilarious how you accuse him of being an extremist who wants to banish non-free software without any conclusive evidence, meanwhile you openly admit you support laws which would banish free-software.

You seem to be under the impression that you can't oppose something without wanting it forbidden. Should I fear you as a free speech advocate or as a black man? Because using you're logic, if you're against racist literature it means you want it banned, which is completely opposed to the concept of free speech, or you're a racist.

[swoll1980]

meanwhile you openly admit you support laws which would banish free-software.

what laws would those be? the only laws I support are the ones that protect an original idea.

[howlingmadhowie]

The statement if it were up to Stallman it would be illegal is a rhetorical. actions speak louder than words. If I say I love ponies then go home and kill a bunch of ponies then the statement doesn't mean anything. Everything Stallman does leads me to the aforementioned conclusion. The copyright laws protect the authors from the stealing of there ideas same as any other patent or copyright

stallman approves of and supports copyright. infact he's been spending the last 20 years doing nothing but approving and supporting copyright.

[swoll1980]

stallman approves of and supports copyright. infact he's been spending the last 20 years doing nothing but approving and supporting copyright.

#-o I'm out of ideas you've worn me out =D>

[dougleduck]

Do you all think Ubuntu's philosophy needs to be changed, and what changes do you think need to be changed?

[howlingmadhowie]

#-o I'm out of ideas you've worn me out =D>

on the other hand he is very much against patents.

this has a number of reasons:
1/ there are more than a million software patents. most patents are written in dense legal language and last more than 20 pages.
2/ patents cover things which are necessary to complete a task.
3/ patents cover ideas. this basically makes it illegal to have the same idea as another person.
4/ at any one moment of time there are nine or more months worth of software patent applications being processed. when you are writing software you have no way of knowing what these are.

i'm sure you can think of more problems with the current patent system. ridiculous patents, submarine patents and patents on natural laws could also be added to the list of problems.

[nrs]

what laws would those be? the only laws I support are the ones that protect an original idea.

The patent laws you mentioned earlier, which you presumably support, otherwise you would not have denounced him for opposing them (apparently proof of his secret goal to make non-free software forbidden), would've actually made a wide variety of free-software illegal. Seems like a perfect case of the militant calling the alleged revolutionary a radical.

I'm confused though, I thought you understood the issues?

[saulgoode]

My evidence is every speech he's ever given I not going to post links to them all. In countries that don't have software protection laws he does everything he can to keep it that way. So if he was in charge why wouldn't ban non free. If he doesn't have problem with it why is he fighting to keep the laws out of countries that don't have them. I don't even know what your argument is. He is obviously trying to ban software protection laws

Being opposed to a government providing protection for something is not the same thing as being opposed to that something. I happen to like drive-in movie theaters but that does not mean that I would support tax dollars being used to subsidize keeping them around. On the other hand, I happen to think that keeping food prices down is very beneficial to our society and feel that government subsidies of agriculture are, in principle, a worthwhile investment of public funds.

Regardless of whether you are for or against a certain field of commerce, a government subsidy needs to be evaluated from the standpoint of its ultimate benefit to society. You may very well disagree with my support of farm subsidies but I shouldn't construe that as indicating you wish to make farming illegal, or even that you are opposed to farming in the least.


The statement if it were up to Stallman it would be illegal is a rhetorical. actions speak louder than words. If I say I love ponies then go home and kill a bunch of ponies then the statement doesn't mean anything. Everything Stallman does leads me to the aforementioned conclusion. The copyright laws protect the authors from the stealing of there ideas same as any other patent or copyright

Your rhetorical statement presupposes that non-free software is "legal" to begin with. But what is meant by "legal" here is that the author "owns" the software, and has exclusive, monopolistic property rights controlling how that software is used. This is inherently not the case. It is only by virtue of the government enacting copyright and patent laws that such ownership rights are granted.

Allow me to digress briefly to emphasize this point with some examples. Assume for a minute that copyright and patent laws did not exist.

Let's say I come up with an idea for a new rake design which makes it easier to get rid of the leaves on my lawn. My neighbor sees me out on my lawn with my invention and decides to make one for himself. There is no premise inherent to the concept of "property" by which I can prevent him from doing this. My own rake is in no way diminished because his exists.

Let's imagine that I have a little bit of musical talent and that I come up with neat little ditty which I am humming as I stroll down the sidewalk. You hear this and start whistling the same tune. There is nothing which makes this sequence of notes inherently my property and would permit me to tell you that you can't whistle "my tune". I lose nothing with regards to humming my tune just because you choose to whistle it as well.

Whether musical notes, a joke, a story, or an invention of a better why to do something, there is nothing in the laws of natural which supports the concept that the ideas behind those things "belong" to the originator. Making use of those ideas does not diminish their "possession" by the author.

However, it has been deemed by society that things such as music, literature, and inventions are quite beneficial overall, and statutes have been enacted with the intent of promoting their creation and encouraging the sharing of them with others. The government, through its office of patents, has empowered me to register my rake improvement and to prevent my neighbor from implementing without my permission. It has, through its copyright laws, enabled me to prevent you from whistling my tune.

This government funding -- the agencies and courts are administrated with taxpayer dollars -- is not being done to protect inherent rights of those engaged in the field of art and science; it is done in order to benefit society. Society (through its government) is subsidizing the arts & sciences and this can only be justified if those subsidies provide a benefit to society.

The argument, therefore, is not about whether "non-Free Software should be illegal". It is whether the current government subsidy of those engaged in the field of software is providing enough benefit back to society to justify its cost. Beyond the direct expense of administering the offices of patents & copyrights (and adjudication in the courts), there is the additional cost of preventing competition in the marketplace, preventing more efficient implementations, and preventing more rapid improvements in the end product.

Whether one feels that subsidies of the software industry are worthwhile, the debate should not presuppose that exclusive, monopolistic rights (associated with real property) are inherent to the very nature of ideas and creation.

[swoll1980]

The patent laws you mentioned earlier, which you presumably support, otherwise you would not have denounced him for opposing them (apparently proof of his secret goal to make non-free software forbidden), would've actually made a wide variety of free-software illegal. Seems like a perfect case of the militant calling the alleged revolutionary a radical.

I'm confused though, I thought you understood the issues?

the issue is understood as I said I don't agree that patent laws kill free software there are plenty of patent laws in the US yet free software is not dead go figure

[howlingmadhowie]

in many areas free software is dead, and i'm quite sure microsoft would like to use its patents to destroy gnu/linux. fortunately, ibm and sun have said that if microsoft uses its patents to attack free software, they will use their patents to attack microsoft. the result would be mutually assured destruction.

[Ozor Mox]

in many areas free software is dead

What makes you think this, out of curiosity?

[swoll1980]

in many areas free software is dead, and i'm quite sure microsoft would like to use its patents to destroy gnu/linux. fortunately, ibm and sun have said that if microsoft uses its patents to attack free software, they will use their patents to attack microsoft. the result would be mutually assured destruction.

The only free software that is hurt by microsoft are the ones that fall for microsoft's bluff

[swoll1980]

i'm quite sure microsoft would like to use its patents to destroy gnu/linux.

I'm sure Bill Gates and Balmer would love that, but he has been trying to unsuccessfully kill free software since the 70s to no av ale so I'm not worried about it

[kvk]

Someone mentioned music earlier as it applied to patents and distribution rights, so I'm going to jump in and offer a multitentacular post that hopefully isn't too all over the place.

1. I like the ethics and ideas behind free and open-source software, and I also apply them to music.

2. I don't know how best to combine #1 above with the ability to make a living doing something I feel to be ethically correct and a move that benefits the planet without entering the "proprietary" world, and I don't understand the ramifications of that. I don't charge money for my music; I only get paid when I play a concert. But most musicians make much more money from CD sales than performances. I know I'm not making as much as I could, which has practical, every-day consequences, but I'm unclear how to address that.

3. RMS emerged at a time when software was transitioning from being written by engineers to being written by programmers, and the sudden influx of money and the ability to make a lot of it was just around the corner. As I see it, that meant that suddenly people were programming to make a living (no problem with that), as opposed to it being the domain of hyper-intelligent, socially-inept geeks. (I'll lay claim to being a socially-inept geek, but NOT hyper-intelligent). I think RMS felt invaded by that, which might explain what people see as excessive defensiveness on his part regarding the contribution of the GNU/GPL and the role of the FSF. (Note: I plead utter tranference in this analysis. :) )

[swoll1980]

Someone mentioned music earlier as it applied to patents and distribution rights, so I'm going to jump in and offer a multitentacular post that hopefully isn't too all over the place.

1. I like the ethics and ideas behind free and open-source software, and I also apply them to music.

2. I don't know how best to combine #1 above with the ability to make a living doing something I feel to be ethically correct and a move that benefits the planet without entering the "proprietary" world, and I don't understand the ramifications of that. I don't charge money for my music; I only get paid when I play a concert. But most musicians make much more money from CD sales than performances. I know I'm not making as much as I could,

Not free cost. Free to use the source. ie. Would it be ok with you if someone took a song that you wrote and went on the road with it, making millions of dollars and didn't give you any of the money, without you having any say in it?

[kvk]

No, no- you're quite right. My songs are covered such that any non-commercial use is allowed, including recording of them on someone else's CD, as long as money is not charged. If someone wants to make commercial use (i.e. record one on a CD for which they charge money), then they have to talk with me and get a specific license for that, for which I would most likely charge the standard royalty fee.

A lot of this is very confusing in terms of making a living while adhering to something that feels both ethically correct yet rather amorphically abstract. Footsteps in the dark, I guess. :-p

[howlingmadhowie]

I'm sure Bill Gates and Balmer would love that, but he has been trying to unsuccessfully kill free software since the 70s to no av ale so I'm not worried about it

oh please. free software was born in the mid 80s. it managed to stay under microsoft's radar until the apache webserver came out in the late 90s, at which moment microsoft started gathering patents. fortunately the fsf foresaw this eventuality and had done a remarkable job of protecting free software against attacks by patent trolls. now free software has some very powerful friends to protect it (ibm, sun and google spring to mind).

there are a number of areas where free software is not allowed to compete. basically anything that is patented by a hostile company cannot be legally implemented by free software. i'm sure you can think of examples.

we have also seen in the last year that free software in the soho area is not quite under microsoft's radar any longer. microsoft's purchase of an iso standard and forcing manufacturers of mini laptops to offer xp tell us that redmond is beginning to have to take action.

[Foster Grant]

oh please. free software was born in the mid 80s. it managed to stay under microsoft's radar until the apache webserver came out in the late 90s, at which moment microsoft started gathering patents. fortunately the fsf foresaw this eventuality and had done a remarkable job of protecting free software against attacks by patent trolls.

And this is where I come in and kick the table over. :D Howie, I'm guessing you don't remember the 1970s (possibly not even a gleam in dad's eye yet), but that was when the free software movement started. Possibly even earlier; RMS has stated that the software sharing community at MIT existed for many years before he got involved in 1971. So, you have to figure early to mid-1960s at the latest; Wikipedia puts it back into the 1950s.

One of the earliest examples of proprietary software didn't come around until the mid-1970s; it was called Altair Basic (for the Altair computer) and was produced by a new company from Albuquerque called Micro-Soft.

[swoll1980]

And this is where I come in and kick the table over. :D Howie, I'm guessing you don't remember the 1970s (possibly not even a gleam in dad's eye yet), but that was when the free software movement started. Possibly even earlier; RMS has stated that the software sharing community at MIT existed for many years before he got involved in 1971. So, you have to figure early to mid-1960s at the latest; Wikipedia puts it back into the 1950s.

One of the earliest examples of proprietary software didn't come around until the mid-1970s; it was called Altair Basic (for the Altair computer) and was produced by a new company from Albuquerque called Micro-Soft.

you beat me to it

[howlingmadhowie]

And this is where I come in and kick the table over. :D Howie, I'm guessing you don't remember the 1970s (possibly not even a gleam in dad's eye yet), but that was when the free software movement started. Possibly even earlier; RMS has stated that the software sharing community at MIT existed for many years before he got involved in 1971. So, you have to figure early to mid-1960s at the latest; Wikipedia puts it back into the 1950s.

One of the earliest examples of proprietary software didn't come around until the mid-1970s; it was called Altair Basic (for the Altair computer) and was produced by a new company from Albuquerque called Micro-Soft.

free software was founded as a revolution against proprietary software by stallman. before proprietary software there was no market for software and it was not explicitly free. the software of the 70s (which was often not even under an explicit license) cannot be put in the same boat as the conscious attempt by stallman to do something about proprietary software.

when stallman started writing gnu there was almost no free software out there. microsoft (and others) had won that war. that's why stallman had to start from scratch and program everything new.

btw, i was programming in the 70s :)

[fktt]

GPLv2 & dual licensing the way OGRE does it FTW. :neutral:

[J05HYYY]

Hmm,

So in summary

If I want to distribute my software freely, to everybody, for whatever reason: I will use a BSD licence.

If I want to distribute my software freely, to only the people who aren't going to try and sell it w/o the source code: I will choose the GPL licence.

If I want to distribute some libraries, to everybody, I will use the LGPL and let them link dynamically.

... I guess some licences are more 'free' than others. Hope I got this correct.