BBC Publish Stallman article on news website [Archive]

fatality_uk

July 3rd, 2008, 01:44 PM

Nice article!!
I have a love/hate thing with RMS. I read something by him and I grind my teeth thinking, WTH. I read other things and he makes me smile again.

Whatever my thoughts, he has been solid in his opinion for 20+ years and no one can fault him for that.

BigSilly

July 3rd, 2008, 01:56 PM

Thanks very much for posting this Xkutzy. A great read in this week of "isn't Bill wonderful?" Microsoft propaganda. The perfect antidote for me. Hats off to Mr Stallman.

fatality_uk

July 3rd, 2008, 02:14 PM

thanks Very Much For Posting This Xkutzy. A Great Read In This Week Of "isn't Bill Wonderful?" Microsoft Propaganda. The Perfect Antidote For Me. Hats Off To Mr Stallman.

+1 :d

swisscow

July 3rd, 2008, 03:32 PM

Good article, hope lots of people read it and think a little bit deeper

Anzan

July 3rd, 2008, 04:35 PM

Thanks. I hadn't seen this as yet.

purplepaint

July 3rd, 2008, 04:46 PM

Nice to see the BBC put this up. Usually, I feel that they're slightly biased towards proprietary software when I watch Click Online etc.

styven

July 3rd, 2008, 08:11 PM

I thought the article was a bit one sided, then I saw the author......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm

Palmyra

July 3rd, 2008, 09:06 PM

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2008, 09:09 PM

Stallman is an American. Why is "behavior" spelled "behaviour" when he wrote the article? I realize "behaviour" is proper in England, but an English person didn't write the article.

It's not that big of a deal, but it's somewhat weird.

Maybe he did. I often use such spellings. People imitate what they read, I read a lot and have adopted non-standard American spelling occasionally. I know other Americans who do this as well.

Also, it just shows that he didn't edit it. It could have been a voice recording as well.

Mazza558

July 3rd, 2008, 09:16 PM

non-standard American spelling

"Standard" is subjective - unless you mean "Standard" in America?

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2008, 09:18 PM

"Standard" is subjective - unless you mean "Standard" in America?

Yes, that is what I said ;)

"non-standard American spelling"

Mazza558

July 3rd, 2008, 09:23 PM

Yes, that is what I said ;)

"non-standard American spelling"

Whoops ;)

FyreBrand

July 3rd, 2008, 09:25 PM

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2008, 09:29 PM

Maybe it's because the grammar and spelling is edited for the target audience?

Because the UK people get horribly lost when they read American writings (apparently, see above :-))

phaed

July 3rd, 2008, 10:17 PM

Maybe it's because the grammar and spelling is edited for the target audience?

Nailed it. News media follow certain orthographic and grammatical standards, so they will format a submission to match those standards.

saulgoode

July 3rd, 2008, 10:26 PM

Stallman is an American. Why is "behavior" spelled "behaviour" when he wrote the article? I realize "behaviour" is proper in England, but an English person didn't write the article.

It's not that big of a deal, but it's somewhat weird.
It is likely that Mr Stallman dictated the essay to someone (perhaps an Englishman) as he suffers from repetitive stress (or strain, or such) and often has other people perform typing duties.

aysiu

July 3rd, 2008, 10:37 PM

I rather liked the article. Unfortunately, I'm barred in by proprietary software right now, but I like the ideals Stallman wants us to strive for.

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 10:45 PM

I have no time for Stallman and his idealistic but totally pointless rubbish.

aysiu

July 3rd, 2008, 10:50 PM

I have no time for Stallman and his idealistic but totally pointless rubbish.
It doesn't really take that long to read. It's a short page of text.

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 10:52 PM

It doesn't really take that long to read. It's a short page of text.

I've read it, but what stallman desires is not possible in todays world.

He has this unrivaled hate for non-free software, software that is protected from blatant copying. A programmer owns the software he creates, and he can choose a license however he sees fit.

eragon100

July 3rd, 2008, 10:56 PM

I've read it, but what stallman desires is not possible in todays world.

He has this unrivaled hate for non-free software, software that is protected from blatant copying. A programmer owns the software he creates, and he can choose a license however he sees fit.

I agree 100%

Not worth the time to read, I just wasted 5 minutes of my life :(

Catharina

July 3rd, 2008, 11:09 PM

I have no time for Stallman and his idealistic but totally pointless rubbish.

I am glad that Ubuntu has the time for Stallman and his so called pointless rubbish. In fact this is the first part of the philosophy of Ubuntu:

1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

This is exactly the same as Stallman says on the BBC. :lolflag:

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2008, 11:10 PM

I have no time for Stallman and his idealistic but totally pointless rubbish.

Do you have time for the GNU tools?

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 11:13 PM

I am glad that Ubuntu has the time for Stallman and his so called pointless rubbish. In fact this is the first part of the philosophy of Ubuntu:

1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

This is exactly the same as Stallman says on the BBC. :lolflag:

THis is all well and good, and it's good that some programmers are happy to have their code copied and modified. But for some people that isn't the case, and it is their right to release it how they see fit, as it is their own creation.

Some people depend on programming to make a living, and you cannot make a stable living if you allow people to simply copy your code as they see fit. You'd have hundreds of competitors spring up instantly.

I must say I like the idea of free software, but it just isn't possible with everything and this is something I feel Richard Stallman fails to grasp.

Catharina

July 3rd, 2008, 11:21 PM

THis is all well and good, and it's good that some programmers are happy to have their code copied and modified. But for some people that isn't the case, and it is their right to release it how they see fit, as it is their own creation.

Some people depend on programming to make a living, and you cannot make a stable living if you allow people to simply copy your code as they see fit. You'd have hundreds of competitors spring up instantly.

I must say I like the idea of free software, but it just isn't possible with everything and this is something I feel Richard Stallman fails to grasp.

Well no problem if they develop software for a business that needs special adjustments. There will still opportunities to earn money, that is not what RMS or Ubuntu is talking about.

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 11:24 PM

Well no problem if they develop software for a business that needs special adjustments. There will still opportunities to earn money, that is not what RMS or Ubuntu is talking about.

Stallman is so caught up with the rights of the user, he forgets the rights of the author.

If I create software, I release it how I see fit. If I don't want it copied, i.e. if it took me a lot of time and involved a bit of invention, then I won't release it opensource. That's my decision and Stallman will just have to deal with it. He has no right to dictate how anyone releases their own creations.

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 11:26 PM

May also note that most of the stuff he comes out with does nothing to help the Open Source idea. Quite the opposite usually.

Catharina

July 3rd, 2008, 11:28 PM

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 11:33 PM

Sure you can release your software under any license you please. He is not your boss. He just has his opinions and his opinions are in line with the philosophy of Ubuntu.

Yes, I admire him for having an opinion and for his consistency in promoting that opinion.

He's an intelligent guy, you don't graduate magna cum laude from Harvard for being an idiot, but his ideas are flawed.

Catharina

July 3rd, 2008, 11:37 PM

Yes, I admire him for having an opinion and for his consistency in promoting that opinion.

He's an intelligent guy, you don't graduate magna cum laude from Harvard for being an idiot, but his ideas are flawed.

His ideas are the same as the ideas behind Ubuntu, If you do not like it, you can pick another distro or just live with it and keep using this great operating system.

Ozor Mox

July 3rd, 2008, 11:39 PM

If I create software, I release it how I see fit. If I don't want it copied, i.e. if it took me a lot of time and involved a bit of invention, then I won't release it opensource. That's my decision and Stallman will just have to deal with it. He has no right to dictate how anyone releases their own creations.

I agree with you completely but then, RMS wouldn't be much of an idealist who has helped GNU and Linux and free software get to where it is today if he had the same view would he? An idealist says "this is wrong, it should be done like this", and not "well...I suppose there is room for both arguments". But you're right, you can release software under whatever licence you want, and no one can force you to do anything, so why be so animated about it? From what I see of him, he has very strong views and is extremely stubborn and resistant to other sides of the argument, but he's not forcing anyone to do anything.

ubuntu-freak

July 3rd, 2008, 11:45 PM

I must say I like the idea of free software, but it just isn't possible with everything and this is something I feel Richard Stallman fails to grasp.

Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

Of course it's not possible that all software will become free (as in speech), but that doesn't mean Stallman is pointless and talking crap.

There are people like Bill Gates and then there are people like Richard Stallman. They are sitting on either side of a metaphorical seesaw (teeter-totter) and without Stallman, Gates and Co would have their feet firmly on the ground, smiling and looking exceedingly smug.

Software, just like life itself, is a compromise. We need people like Stallman, because there are already plenty of people like Bill Gates.

wrtpeeps

July 3rd, 2008, 11:46 PM

His ideas are the same as the ideas behind Ubuntu, If you do not like it, you can pick another distro or just live with it and keep using this great operating system.

YOu're confusing my annoyance at Stallman with Ubuntu. I like using ubuntu, I like how the programs are open source. :) That was the authors choice.

However, I have no problem with Windows either. Or adobe products. Or any other product that I am not allowed to share or edit. They are the developers and it was their choice as to how their software was released. Things like this won't change and Stallman is a bit silly for thinking it will.

Catharina

July 3rd, 2008, 11:53 PM

YOu're confusing my annoyance at Stallman with Ubuntu. I like using ubuntu, I like how the programs are open source. :) That was the authors choice.

No I am not confusing your annoyance at Stallman with Ubuntu. I stated that they share the same vision and ideas. So if you are annoyed at Stallman, you should be at Ubuntu or at least at it´s philosophy.

atomkarinca

July 3rd, 2008, 11:54 PM

YOu're confusing my annoyance at Stallman with Ubuntu. I like using ubuntu, I like how the programs are open source. :) That was the authors choice.

However, I have no problem with Windows either. Or adobe products. Or any other product that I am not allowed to share or edit. They are the developers and it was their choice as to how their software was released. Things like this won't change and Stallman is a bit silly for thinking it will.

A few years back GNU/Linux was still a geeks' OS, now it's more user-friendly than any other OS's out there. We could only dream about applications that are as "professional" as their propreitary alternatives, but now we have most of the best software out there. Stallman was only an idealist, goofy back then, but now he's an innovative man, more than anyone out there (how can you say GNU or GPL is nothing?).

Still you're saying "things like this won't change"? I believe they will change and I'm very happy there are people thinking the way I do.

LaRoza

July 4th, 2008, 12:38 AM

Stallman is so caught up with the rights of the user, he forgets the rights of the author.

No. He knows the historical rights.

Look at the author of a book. You can read the book as much as you want. You can give it to other people. You can even copy parts of it if sited accordingly in the other document. A book is "open". It follows the format that is universal and widely known.

If the people RMS is against had their way, you'd have to pay each time you read the book. You'd be arrested for giving it to another or lending it. You'd be arrested for citing it. You'd be arrested for decoding it so you can read it at your leisure (because it would be encrypted and only readable with special licensed tools that you have to pay for)

wrtpeeps

July 4th, 2008, 12:44 AM

No. He knows the historical rights.

Look at the author of a book. You can read the book as much as you want. You can give it to other people. You can even copy parts of it if sited accordingly in the other document. A book is "open". It follows the format that is universal and widely known.

If the people RMS is against had their way, you'd have to pay each time you read the book. You'd be arrested for giving it to another or lending it. You'd be arrested for citing it. You'd be arrested for decoding it so you can read it at your leisure (because it would be encrypted and only readable with special licensed tools that you have to pay for)

But can you copy all of it and make minor changes to make it pass the GPL license?

LaRoza

July 4th, 2008, 12:49 AM

But can you copy all of it and make minor changes to make it pass the GPL license?

For some books, yes. For others, no.

There are other licenses other than the GPL, and the GPL doesn't suit everything (and is really intended for software)

The point is that the restrictions on digital media is way beyond what traditional media has, and the people accept it while their rights and freedoms are taken away for nothing.

wrtpeeps

July 4th, 2008, 12:54 AM

23meg

July 4th, 2008, 12:56 AM

Stallman is so caught up with the rights of the user, he forgets the rights of the author.

If I create software, I release it how I see fit. If I don't want it copied, i.e. if it took me a lot of time and involved a bit of invention, then I won't release it opensource. That's my decision and Stallman will just have to deal with it. He has no right to dictate how anyone releases their own creations.

Can you quote him (yes, quote him exactly, not present your interpretation of what you think he is saying) speaking against the right of any author to publish software under any license they desire?

He does speak bluntly against proprietary software. He does not and cannot prevent anybody from releasing software under proprietary licenses. That's his position and you'll have to deal with it; and it's easy to deal with, because it's not imposing anything on you. It's simply the manifestation of his ideological position, which indeed is very firm and very well founded.

wrtpeeps

July 4th, 2008, 12:59 AM

I will say no more. These boards are certainly the wrong place to have this debate.

There is a conflict of interest on my part. :)

LaRoza

July 4th, 2008, 01:00 AM

Stallman is an extremist with his head in the clouds. That is my point. I am not arguing the advantages or disadvantages of opensource/free here.

Stallman has even publically criticised the opensource movement for not being as extreme as the free software movement. :(

He is an extremist...in that he doesn't compromise his values like everyone else these days.

Stallman has every right to publically criticise open source software; that is his vocation.

speedwell68

July 4th, 2008, 01:48 AM

I will say no more. These boards are certainly the wrong place to have this debate.

There is a conflict of interest on my part. :)

This forum is exactly the place to have this debate. There is no doubt that RMS is an exceedingly clever and innovative man. I personally find some of his opinions to be a little extreme for my taste, that is all. I also have the same opinion of a lot of the pioneers of the current information age we live in, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozinak and others.

Mr. Picklesworth

July 4th, 2008, 02:35 AM

Regarding the "Stallman has no right to dictate my rights" argument, I am quite fond of something I wrote a while ago...

I try not to force my opinion on people, but merely state what I think, even if it be that I think they should do something. If somebody feels an overwhelming urge after reading my garble that they must obey my every command, that's their problem, not mine. In other words, as my Slashdot signature states: anything that anyone ever thinks, says or does is a matter of their own personal opinions. We should not have to keep reminding each other.
Qualify my writing yourself if you really must. However, I say you should not; "in my opinion" is the meaningless catch-phrase of our over-sensitive, sugar-coated society.

JohnSearle

July 5th, 2008, 02:25 PM

It would appear that on July 3rd the BBC published an article written by Stallman denouncing Gates and Windows (big surprise ;) ), as well as proprietary software in general.

From the article:

To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers.

Article Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm

- John

billgoldberg

July 5th, 2008, 03:19 PM

It would appear that on July 3rd the BBC published an article written by Stallman denouncing Gates and Windows (big surprise ;) ), as well as proprietary software in general.

From the article:

Article Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm

- John

Thanks for the read.

Well, stallman is right, but he isn't the best pr man.

Foster Grant

July 5th, 2008, 06:15 PM

I'm somewhat disappointed in this. RMS' random attack on the Gates Foundation makes the whole piece, and its author, seem bitter and small of mind.

The only person being hurt by this particular screed is RMS himself.

ukripper

July 5th, 2008, 11:30 PM

Not sure if anyone has read this but it is so a good read!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm

My personal fav from that article:

In 1984, when I started the free software movement, I was hardly aware of Gates' letter. But I'd heard similar demands from others, and I had a response: "If your software would keep us divided and helpless, please don't write it. We are better off without it. We will find other ways to use our computers, and preserve our freedom."

In 1992, when the GNU operating system was completed by the kernel, Linux, you had to be a wizard to run it. Today GNU/Linux is user-friendly: in parts of Spain and India, it's standard in schools. Tens of millions use it, around the world. You can use it too.

Gates may be gone, but the walls and bars of proprietary software he helped create remain, for now.

Dismantling them is up to us.

Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. You can copy and redistribute this article under the Creative Commons Noderivs license.

atomkarinca

July 5th, 2008, 11:38 PM

If I remember correctly the first two paragraphs are from Revolution OS.

ukripper

July 5th, 2008, 11:45 PM

If I remember correctly the first two paragraphs are from Revolution OS.

Richard Stallman is Founder of Free Software Foundation. Not sure about Revolution OS. Is it a book?

atomkarinca

July 6th, 2008, 12:07 AM

Richard Stallman is Founder of Free Software Foundation. Not sure about Revolution OS. Is it a book?

No, I meant that it's something he said like 7 years ago. You can learn about Revolution OS here (http://www.revolution-os.com/) and the video should be on Google Videos.

Foster Grant

July 6th, 2008, 06:46 AM

Stallman is an American. Why is "behavior" spelled "behaviour" when he wrote the article? I realize "behaviour" is proper in England, but an English person didn't write the article.

It's not that big of a deal, but it's somewhat weird.

Because it was edited by British copy editors according to the BBC's style manual, which calls for "behaviour" and "colour" and things like that.

akiratheoni

July 6th, 2008, 07:02 AM

I don't particularly agree with Stallman's writing; I feel he's too radical and right now the world is so ingrained in proprietary software that it'll be tough to switch to free software without consequence.

I do, though, actually enjoy reading his essays and his writings. I do realize that to progress in this world, there needs to be radicals. They're the ones who eventually push the moderates towards their direction. Of course there's no way Stallman's dream will be reached soon, but he continues to push for it. His efforts are contributing to the progress and development of the free software movement.

LaRoza

July 6th, 2008, 07:35 AM

I don't particularly agree with Stallman's writing; I feel he's too radical and right now the world is so ingrained in proprietary software that it'll be tough to switch to free software without consequence.

I think it is the opposite. Many governments (usually in Europe and Asia) have found the danger of a locked in vendor and are actively promoting open source free software.

The USA has a possibility of lessening the restrictions of the DMCA soon.

OS X even is largely open source at the kernel level, and it is rising in popularity as is Linux.

I think Microsoft like business practices are dying.

techmarks

July 6th, 2008, 07:57 AM

What I don't agree with is Stallman's view of proprietary software as evil and immoral.

There are many valid reasons for certain software to remain proprietary.

LaRoza

July 6th, 2008, 08:23 AM

While I don't dislike Stallman, I just think he comes across too self righteous. In this sense how is he so different from Gates?

Because RMS lives his way to the fullest, even deleting aspects of his EeePC that were not free to the extent he wasn't able to use certain parts (wireless). Gates (MS) on the other hand has a philosophy that doesn't involve ethics or morals, but money.

On the one hand Bill Gates who seems to not be able to think beyond the American consumerism and the capitalistic controls on life and then Stallman who will not tolerate any software programme that he cannot examine and control its' souce code.

RMS doesn't use DVD's that are encrypted (meaning, almost all movies), he doesn't use non free software and he accepts what he misses.

Software authors are free to license their works in the way that best suits them, and their users, it's that simple.

He never said they didn't have the right. He respects the licenses of all software.

Richard Stallman and Bill Gates both strike me as self righteous control freaks and are convinced that their view of the world is the only valid one.
RMS lives his beliefs, which is more than most people can say they do.

akiratheoni

July 6th, 2008, 08:31 AM

I think it is the opposite. Many governments (usually in Europe and Asia) have found the danger of a locked in vendor and are actively promoting open source free software.

The USA has a possibility of lessening the restrictions of the DMCA soon.

OS X even is largely open source at the kernel level, and it is rising in popularity as is Linux.

I think Microsoft like business practices are dying.

Ha, I'm an idiot, I wrote an essay on free software so I should have remembered about Russia and even San Diego, I guess I wrote 'the world' when I really meant the US, but even that is changing now at least for consumers.

LaRoza

July 6th, 2008, 09:01 AM

Ha, I'm an idiot, I wrote an essay on free software so I should have remembered about Russia and even San Diego, I guess I wrote 'the world' when I really meant the US, but even that is changing now at least for consumers.

The USA will be slow to change, as it is at the heart of the lobby and production of such laws, but I think it will change.