Linux.com

"Free software does not mean "gratis"; "

What the hell was the LGPL created for then? Try telling the people around Gnome that proprietary development should not be free.

#

Yeah, I know, it's a bummer. I get the feeling that RMS kind of regrets the creation of LGPL.

#

Here is what <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html" TITLE="gnu.org">Richard Stallman says</a gnu.org> about the LGPL:

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

In other words, if the functions provided by your library are unique, then if you use the GPL for your library, any developers who want to use it will be forced to also GPL their software (which is what RMS wants).

But if there is a proprietary alternative that provides the same functions as your library, then using the GPL for your library will only cause developers to switch to the proprietary alternative. In that case, using the GPL will only encourage the success of the alternative proprietary library. Thus, when there is a proprietary alternative for your library, you are better off using the LGPL, to encourage developers to use your Open Source library.

An example of this would be the Qt library. Since it is available under both the GPL and a proprietary license, developers who do not want to use the GPL for their own software will simply use the proprietary version of Qt. That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt. But Linux and the Open Source community would be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

#

> But Linux and the Open Source community would
> be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

Proprietary software developers opposed to Free Software are better off if Qt was LGPL'd. The Free Software community would be worse off because TrollTech would no longer be able to fund the development of this fine piece of Free Software.

Your desire for popularity seems to have blurred your vision.

#

An example of this would be the Qt library. Since it is available under both the GPL and a proprietary license, developers who do not want to use the GPL for their own software will simply use the proprietary version of Qt. That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt. But Linux and the Open Source community would be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

Crap. The LGPL is certainly useful in that there are occasions when proprietary and free software need to work, link and communicate together. However, it has become a total and utter excuse for some individuals to claim that proprietary software development is free. There is your FUD. Proprietary software development is not free under any circumstances, and anyone who believes otherwise is a total idiot. There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.

That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt.

Locked-in developers. Yer. You don't understand Qt development licenses at all. Using Qt for proprietary development allows developers to publish under a proprietary license of their choice, or a more public license such as the QPL. Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.

The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all. Almost certainly not is the answer, and unfortunately it will be a means for Microsoft to do some FUD, if they feel the need. I hate to sound like RMS, but the GPL and proprietary software licenses absolutely need to be kept separate in a development sense, and we should use the LGPL on the occasions when we need proprietary licensed and free software to work together. There you have a case for developing genuine free software, and creating a proprietary software business model rolled into one. It's called Qt. How ironic is that? Must be quite a raw nerve for many people out there.

People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief. The fact that a company like Trolltech has been kind enough to accomodate and embrace free software licenses is astonishing enough, and a welcome step forward.

This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust). The fact that Ximian is now being shepherded by Novell won't cut any ice with Novell's accountants I'm afraid, and certainly not when they realise they can outsource most of their in-house Ximian development into the community. Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.

#

> There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.

What are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.

Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?

> Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.

You're right. Developers who have based their software on proprietary Qt can escape their lock-in by GPL'ing their software.

Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.

So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.

But you berate other people for preferring the LGPL for Qt because it would cause Trolltech to lose income.

Your argument is contradictory and hypocritical.

> The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all.

I see. So you're saying that we should just give up this whole Open Source thing, because it's a dead-end.

You would have us give up Linux, give up Apache, give up Mozilla, give up Gnome, give up GTK, give up PHP, give up Red Hat, give up Debian, and so on, because they're all pure Open Source and can't possibly survive "out in the real-world."

Well, thank you for being so honest about it.

I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source. They are only pretending to be in order to gain promotion. As you are saying, Trolltech makes their money by selling proprietary software, i.e. the proprietary version of Qt.

> People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief.

Nobody said Trolltech is expected to LGPL their software.

On the contrary, I expect Trolltech to carry on as they are, as a seller of proprietary software.

And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme, even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.

I can't help what Trolltech does, and I'm not talking to Trolltech at all.

Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers.

And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.

> This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust).

And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.

You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?

Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.

> Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.

On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product, then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.

Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).

So Trolltech can continue to follow their business model of giving away GPL'd Qt, and selling proprietary Qt.

But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.

#

It's not a conspiracy. Trolltech refuses to let you make profits from them unless you pay them or do the Right Thing(tm) and release your source code under the GPL.

Why do you have a problem with that?

#

What are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.

Linux is different. Linus licensed the Linux kernel via the GPL, not because of pseudo free software political reasons as some people might think, but because he wanted a cycle of comeback on kernel development so that it would snowball. BSD is a license that works for many people, but as Linus has pointed out it means that commercial entities can simply take it and give nothing back - nothing is free. Licensing under the GPL is the best thing Linus did with Linux. Linus is the guy that makes Linux work, and I shudder to think what things would be like without him. It is not a business model for selling software, but creating software that people really want and need to invest in. This uncategorically works, very well and is something you don't understand, despite it being explained many times.

Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?

Oh, the Microsoft FUD. Well I suppose it had to happen. You think this because you haven't understood what I have written, but I didn't expect anyone to really.

Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.

You open source something and make money from related support services etc. for software where it is just unreasonable to charge license fees, or where it opens up more business opportunities if you open the source, although you could argue you are licensing a service. That is up to the customer to decide. However, it is impossible thus far to make a critical mass of money from services and support alone (just ask Red Hat), particularly if you are involved in development. Is it a service or a product or both? This is where many free and open source peoples' business understanding falls by the way side completely. The UserLinux mailing list is a good place to start on this.

So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.

Why shouldn't they give up their income for proprietary software as Qt does, or their right to keep their source code secret as the Linux kernel does? Both are totally workable models and can be chosen depending on what works best for people. Nothing is free in either case, you just pay in the way that works best for you. Pretending that proprietary software can be developed on a widespread basis for free is just stupid, and completely breaks the two working business models. We will get to a point where proprietary software can be developed for free however, but when we do people will simply do their own development by telling their computers what they want to do. We will cease to need software development or even technical services and support companies and cease to need open source projects and initiatives like UserLinux - but there will still be communities of course. This is a long, long, long, long way off in the future.

And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme,

Qt is not a lock-in scheme at all. I have already explained the licensing of Qt. Qt would be a lock-in play if I could only get Qt to work with stuff written with Qt - as Microsoft does with Windows. This is simply not the case. Qt can use and work with software published under many different licenses, whether proprietary or open source or free. The LGPL facilitates this proprietary and free software linking and working together - which is what the LGPL should be used for.

even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.

Well I wish I did!! You can think that if you want.

I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source.

What, you mean licensing Qt under the GPL and forming the Free Qt foundation that completely ensures the integrity and future of Qt, whatever may happen, and putting in place legally binding contracts to ensure this is the case? Yer, you're right. Trolltech are terrible supporters of Open Source compared to Novell or Sun who think they're going to own the community. Have Sun done this with Java or Novell with any of their core software? Sun could take a leaf out of Trolltech's book regarding Java, but they won't.

Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers. And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.

Well, you need to start talking to people in the business world. Many of these tools are good enough for open source projects, but they are simply not good enough in the commercial world. The only one that really is is PHP, but that is web development.

And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.

Linux, Apache and Open Office are commercial and community backed projects. They are genuine successes in their own right, but in terms of all of the VBA-like office applications developed, Open Office has yet to prove itself. True, but I'm sure it will. Mozilla is a community backed project, but they had software based on what was a commercial product from Netscape. Nautilus had several million dollars of venture capital pumped into it with no return on investment at all, and depending on who you talk to it is either good or not good enough. Mono, GTK and The Gimp are good for what they are intended for, but commercially they pale into insignificance against Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt (and Qt is a heck of a lot more than a graphical toolkit), Borland, Rational, Adobe Photoshop etc. This is simply a business reality I'm afraid, and free software needs to fund itself better to make sure we can compete with all of the above. Mono will be a disaster simply because it will be seen by software development shops as a way of taking their Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compiled runtimes and running them on Linux. It will not be seen as an alternative. When it doesn't work they won't use it, and Microsoft is very adept at making sure alternatives technically don't work with their software.

You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?

Yes I do. But it must work.

Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.

I doubt whether AOL contributes to much these days. I think you should do some reading and find out that all of these projects are not equal, and in the successful ones, nothing is completely free.

On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product,

Contradiction here. Trolltech and the people who use Qt, like at KDE, do not pretend that proprietary software is free.

then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.

So Microsoft has open sourced its development tools, GPL'd them, and initiated a Free Win32 or Free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET foundation and put in legal contracts to ensure the integrity of Microsoft development tools as free software. All I can say is wow! There is a fundamental difference here. Microsoft gives software away to lock people in, or to get into markets they are not in. Novell and Ximian are pretending that prorietary software development is free, presumably to lock you into Novell services, software stack and support. Sun sees it as a way of trying desperately to beat Microsoft, get people to buy Sun software and servers, but with no clear vision.

Nice comparison<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).

Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).

As I have explained above, Qt does not lock you in. Go away and learn about what Qt is first. And you're going to have to pay a license for proprietary software you are going to develop, potentially sell and use as a business opportunity? Poor you!!

But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.

For open source development yes. For serious commercial development you're on a hiding to nothing. GTK+ and the Mozilla Toolkit are so far away from being as full-featured as development tools such as MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt, Borland tools, Rational tools etc. it is unbelievable.

Software development tools are an entirely different kettle of fish, simply because that is the fulcrum where software actually gets developed. Mixing free and proprietary software in the manner that many are doing with the LGPL is very silly. This is not what the LGPL was logically designed for, which is what my original point was about.

#

"Free software does not mean 'gratis';" can be read as "Free software does not HAVE to be 'gratis';" If you don't mind giving your source code away, you still have the LGPL option without giving up your intellectual property. Its very handy, but I think Stallman regrets the LGPL. He changed the acronym to mean "lesser" GPL rather than the original "library" GPL.

#

No, it means that free software does not mean gratis.

#

The LGPL (and other non-copylefts used by the FSF) are there for pragmatic reasons. Sometimes they are needed in order to compete for mindshare with an existing library, and sometimes the beefit by expected contributions to the library that come back from developers of proprietary software outweight the loss of initiative to create a free version of the program to solve the problems solved by the proprietary software.

It is not clear that Sun would have switched from CDE to Gnome if it hadn't been for the LGPL, and Sun has contributed a lot to Gnome.

#

"It is not clear that Sun would have switched from CDE to Gnome if it hadn't been for the LGPL, and Sun has contributed a lot to Gnome."

The reasons for Sun using Gnome probably have more to do with the fact that the technical people at Sun are more comfortable with C and object-oriented C rather than C++ or anything else the rest of the world uses.

#

> The reasons for Sun using Gnome probably have more to do with the fact that the technical people at Sun are more comfortable with C and object-oriented C rather than C++ or anything else the rest of the world uses.

Nonsense. Sun also contributed to Mozilla, which is written in C++.

Sun had to choose Gnome because of Qt's GPL+proprietary licensing strategy.

If Sun had selected KDE, then Sun's desktop would be based on the Qt library, and the Qt Object Model.

And in that case, Sun would have had to tell developers that, in order to write proprietary retail applications for Sun's Java Desktop, for Linux or Solaris, they would have to pay over $1000 (per developer) to another company, namely, Trolltech.

And Sun would also have to say to those developers that Sun is not in control of their desktop's development APIs or Object Model. Again, those developers would have to talk to Trolltech in order to develop for the Solaris desktop.

Does that sound like a situation that would be acceptable to Sun?

#

Is it acceptable that Sun and other 3rd party developers can pollute GNU/Linux with their closed proprietary applications? I think that is an insult to the community. At least with KDE if someone wants to go the proprietary path they are forced to pay a toll as such. All software should be free.

#

Nonsense. Sun also contributed to Mozilla, which is written in C++.

Mozilla was perceived as the popular browser - so they supported it.

If Sun had selected KDE, then Sun's desktop would be based on the Qt library, and the Qt Object Model.

Yer. And?

And in that case, Sun would have had to tell developers that, in order to write proprietary retail applications for Sun's Java Desktop, for Linux or Solaris, they would have to pay over $1000 (per developer) to another company, namely, Trolltech.

Companies do deals, cross-license etc. all the time. This situation would be more acceptable to most corporations. This does not affect KDE because it is free software.

And Sun would also have to say to those developers that Sun is not in control of their desktop's development APIs or Object Model. Again, those developers would have to talk to Trolltech in order to develop for the Solaris desktop.

Qt is different from KDE - Qt is just the base toolkit used. Sun would contribute to KDE as with any other community project and KDE technology belongs to KDE, not Trolltech. KDE is up and running under Solaris - why would they need to talk to Trolltech?

Does that sound like a situation that would be acceptable to Sun?

The situation I have just described would be more acceptable to most corporates, but I suppose Microsoft's rivals continue to buy the FUD.

#

I'd be very surprised if such a strategic move as choice of desktop was done by engineers.

If I was a manager at Sun my requirements to a desktop would be 1) third party developers should be able to develop applications with no royality or license restrictions, 2) development should not be controled by a third party (Sun should at least be able to fork as a last resort), and 3) there should be a momentum behind the desktop.

KDE would be an option, but it would require that Sun negotiated a permanent license With Troll Tech that a) covered all their users (i.e. allowed royalty free development and distribution of proprietary KDE application for Sun machines) and b) allowed Sun to fork Qt under this license. Such a license could probably be negotiated, but it would be exepensive both in money and time.

For Gnome these strategic problems were non-existent, so it was chosen even though it might have been technically inferior at the time.

#

I was not paying attention in the early days, but I think I got the impression from reading, that the LGPL was a pragmatic decision to help jump start things.

A Nony Mouse

#

I am working with Open Source Software and Ms Windows Software as well and I think a Software engineer I should be aware in every technology and not just Support Open Source or non-Open source.

I think that first of all we should consider what “open source” is and if we don’t have a definition for this we should find one. What I am asking you here is to think what you imaging that most people think that Open Source is. Is it a Free software meaning that you don’t have to pay foe it? Is it just “Open” meaning you have access to the source code but you pay for it?

Let’s say that it is a just Open and you have to pay match less to have it that a non-open software. Then what about the copyrights. why something I give it to the open source community can someone use it to gain money with out pain? On the other hand why not be a Public Knowledge the way a “browser” works or the “drivers works”. Mathematics is under GPL meaning that everyone have the rights to use them free why not the source code of a “browser”?

The answer to all this has 3 step:
1. The problem of the “scaling of use”.
2. The problem of the Money.
3. The definition of what the software is.

1. Let’s think about books. The books is the best container of Knowledge humanity have created so far.
a. Should you pay to get a book and its content ?YES
b. Is the Knowledge that they contain under GPL? Yes you can write a book using other book(but you can re produce exactly the same book)

2. Let think about Hardware.
a. Should you pay to buy a VLSI Cheap?Yes
b. Are intel,Amd, Motorola obliged to show you How they great it? NO
c. Are under GPL? Lets see
i. The Technology is while the Cheap is not
ii. Cheap could be “open” some times to universities but if you are a Company you should pay for it. (Very Reasonable I think)
d. You don’t know if in the hardware has the ability to give to others your Privet data but you still buy it?YES(I don’t trust them but have no choice)

3. This is the hard one.
a. Is software a Machine? Yes it is (that’s the way we develop it like a VM)
b. Is software a spiritual product? Yes it is
c. Is it art? yes it is look at OpenGL
d. Is it maths ? yes it is -> so it is under GPL
e. …

What I am saying here is that Freedom is to give you Software Product however you want such as free, open, non-open, Shareware e.t.c. Secondly If a hole system is used form almost all the people then its source code MAST be under general Knowledge. We have the right to know how it works in every detail so it can be possible to check if it “respects” the human Privacy.

Finally, I think Open source is great because it proves that Human thought and creation there is no need to be under a Huge Companies Handling. Secondly it proves that there is need the Knowledge to be under Public License but NOT the PRODUCT of the knowledge too. Finally, It is important to consider the scaling. Telephone is a need and the Telephone service mast be “Open source” so it will be secure and accessible(low cost) to everyone. On the other hand you should pay to have the right to call your friend and talk to him/her for a hour . (Attention to this) You Have to DEMAND to have the right NOT PAY to call at police or a hospital.

So we have to pay to Pay a Electronic game(maybe with lower cast but we have too). We have to pay to have a Office Suite for your Job but not for your home. We Should DEMAND to have an Open Source OS. We should not demand The Os to be Totally free but you Have to Demand to be very Cheap meaning accessible to everyone. All the extras is up to the Producer it will supply to us open, free, or shareware. Don’t forget If something is a Academic Product We have to Demand to be Under GPL and free if it is the creation of a Company then we have to Demand to be under GPL only if it will be the “only solution”.

#

I support Richard Stallman. Who ever thinks that freedom is an easy thing to get is wrong. Drivers should be free. Libs should be free. Although I can envision that there are also specialised programes that are not GPL Free Software.

We need to be very carefull that the community wil not skwander the little bid of freedom that we got.

Richard Stallman can be a pain in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but he is correct. We need to go on and explain why the digital world should be formost free and not lock away behind big corps. who want you.

The freedom that software can give is truly democratic and is the dream we all have.

#

at Thinknerd.de:

http://www.thinknerd.de/?q=node/view/174

#

Mr Stallman asks the question, "What does it mean to run free software?". Each person or organization who chooses an open source OS, application or other tool over a proprietary one chooses to do so for a their own reasons. In this article Stallman discusses why he chose this path but he is arguing that each person or organization should make the choice for the same reasons he did, with the same motivation.

Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.

While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.

The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents.

Usability for the community at large must go beyond RPMs and a GUI that mimics Windows. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users.

Organizations like the FSF and SEUL need to consider how to partner include Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and change mangement experts into their projects. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance.

#

> general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code

It's not important that Joe has the source, the point is that *everyone* has the source. If a company inserted a back door into a Free Software program, someone in the community will spot it and remove it. And for this reason, Free Software is very unlikely to have back doors in the first place.

> he is arguing that each person or organization should
> make the choice for the same reasons he did

He doesn't make this arguement. He argues that we should encourage people to value freedom. You've simply changed his message into one that is easier to argue against.

#

It is very important that the code is available for developers to protect against the back doors. But Joe doesnt know the dangers of back doors and doesn't really care about licensing issues.

Joe wants an easy to use computer that is reliable. And when he has a problem he wants to know where to go to solve it.

While you are right that Stallman argues we should encourage people to value freedom, he does seem to me to assert that because he started this thing for that reason we should all fall inline.

I'm not arguing against Stallman, but I am asserting that there are other reasons to use open source tools. I started using open source tools because I believe that there are tools that should be free (operating systems and communication tools for example) and because I can't agree to MS licensing agreements but I dont believe every applicaiton should necessarily be free. And I do believe that each organization or individual has the right to choose free or non-free in the distribution of their tools. Even the tools written for a free OS.

Isn't the idea that everything must be free somewhat antisocial in that it alienates those who choose to protect their intellectual capital?

That being said, don't read into this that I hold the idea of intellectual capital too highly. While I'm still working to clarify some aspects of my philosophy here, I do believe that intellectual property litigation has hurt society.

What if the inventor of the wheel had tried to protect his intellectual capital?

However, I do believe that each individual or organization has the right to decide how to best distribute their work product. Stallman doesn't discount the right but he does suggest that the open source community should only support those who value freedom.

Users seek freedom for many reasons, all of those reasons shed light on the needs and philosophies of the community, contributing to the whole.

#

"Joe wants an easy to use computer that is reliable."

and for Joe, it has been seen that development and bug fixing can be more active and faster with open source software. Joe is better off.

"And when he has a problem he wants to know where to go to solve it."

While most opensource software doesn't have a glaring "Need Help ? Call 1-800-FIX-APACHE" or whatever...many support channels exist for opensource software, in most cases more so (and cheaper) than proprietary software.

#

First of all I think its important to realize that Stallman has just defined clearly the difference between the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. If you don't realize that there is a difference you miss the point of this article. For the OSM it may indeed be important to "keep the end user in mind" etc... But for the FSM if the code isn't free they will not accept it regardless of how polished it looks. I'm more inclined to line myself up with the OSM but I'm glad the FSM is there. And while I do fine RMS to be a pita often, I thank God he exists.

#

My comments above reflect my thoughts on both FS and OSS, they apply equally in my context.

#

Stallman started the free software community for reasons he thought were good, indeed compelling. part of what he's spent the years since on has been formulating arguments for his reasons and his doings, and he's arrived at arguments he feels are good and convincing. he's not trying to say we should all step in line with his reasons just because they're his; he's trying to present those arguments and explain his reasons, because he feels his explanations are good enough to be convincing. he may or may not be doing a good job of communication and evangelising in this attempt, but he's definitely not asking us to agree with him "just because".

oh, and he would indeed be most upset at your conflating free software with open source. *you* may think they're effectively equivalent, but *he* has an argument - which he feels is good and convincing - for just how and why the difference matters. he doesn't try to tell the open source community what to value and what not to; but he *does* try to argue for why the _free software_ community should put greater value on some things than on others, and for why we should join them in so doing.

#

I think you are confusing popularity with usefulness. I want Gnu/Linux to be useful, I could care less if its used. And, by useful, I mean useful to people like me, a developer, what does it matter if some end-user can figure it out, what are they going to contribute, except for a bunch of non-bug bug reports, or some crazy idea about how my software should have been written. I don't work for these users, they don't pay me to write OSS. So forgive me if I am not interested in making a training video for them.

Why should developers care about end users? If a developer's software works for this developer then, job done, in my opinion.

End users have no right to expect that the software be changed to make it easier for them. The developers are generally doing this work for free, on their own time. Users can suggest changes, but if the developers don't agree then too bad.

And besides, software isn't bad just because it can't be used by everyone, some times its better because its not saddled with all of the bloat associated with making it "easy to use".

Adding GUI's and other bloatware just takes the developer away from meaningful enhancements and introduces more bugs and greater maintenance overhead.

I, for one, am more than happy with the current state of the GNU/Linux OS, I find it far easier to use than other, GUI riddled, propritary OS's. I find it far easier to edit a single text file than to hunt through a stack of menus looking for an elusive check box.

Feel free to disagree with me, feel free to add GUI's to my code, just don't expect me to do it for you.

#

You probably need to distinguish between two kinds of end users, those who use the software at work, and those who use it at home.

The first group *does* (or should) care about access to the source, and are able to do something about making it more accessible. They pay developers to do so, either through their employer who want to increase productivity, or through trade organizations. And this is not hypotetical, it is a multi-billion dollar industry where companies like IBM are paid to adjust the software to the need of the individual companies. In the case of IBM, an increasing fraction of the software they support are free, even if it isn't yet on the desktop. Sun, on the other hand, is already doing a lot to make the free desktop more usable, through OpenOffice and HCI improvements to Gnome.

I don't see how free software does much for the non technical home users though, except that they can reuse the free office tools at home. For problems that are specific for home users, they will either have to be able to use nerd-software, or go for proprietary solutions.

#

Based on this response and other comments regarding Stallman's article, it would seem that the community of developers involved in free and/or open source software do not want to create a tool that competes with MS for the home market.

This brings up a few questions:

1 -- why the complaints about RH's supporting only enterprise RH now?

2 -- why the whining about FUD?

3 -- why all the words around trying to defeat MS?

4 -- if the developers in the free/os movement don't want to support end users in the home market, then how can defeating MS be good for society?

#

I doubt you will find many of the more serious developers talking about "defeating MS", especially in the home market. Defeating MS was never a primary motivation for us.

Most of the money is in the corporate market, which mean most of us will get free sofware jobs. For the same reason, Microsoft will definitely not be happy "owning" the home market. They probably wouldn't even own that for long, as people prefer using the same software at home as at work, and it would be cheap enough for someone to create end-user versions for the little non-game, non-office software that exists, based on similar nerd-user software. The motivation could be publicity.

Entertainment software is the only area where free software may be unable to provide adequate end-user solutions. I hear Microsoft has some pretty good games.

#

>Defeating MS was never a primary motivation for us.

Simply a pleasant side effect.

#

"I don't see how free software does much for the non technical home users though, except that they can reuse the free office tools at home."

the vast majority of opensource developers are people who develop on their personal workstations, not in corporate development environments. if anything, free software is produced more by individuals working on non-production machines running at home than at work.

#

I do think the vast majority of the free software people use are written by professionals, who are paid to do so. Some of this software is directed towards corporate non-technical end-users.

It is true that lots of people write free software intended for home use, but they are rarely pied to do so. Thus, they write for their peers, not for the non-technical end user.

#

I still disagree. Taking a look at the developer's mailing lists for apache, postgresql, linux, any of the BSDs....it would appear that most of them are working at organizations where their job's focus is not to support the project at hand. And in those cases, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that their respective companies are allowing any major development done on their own servers...thus, I'd still say that most of development occurs on workstations.

The lucky ones *do* get paid...like folks at IBM, HP, and SGI...to support and develop on F/OSS projects, but I don't think that they are in the majority at all.

#

The most active developers (measured in commits) in the projects you mention tend to be the ones who has it as their main job, not surprisingly.

However, lots of additional contributions come from people who has a lot of flexibility on how they achieve their main job, and use that flexibility to help develop on the tools they use in their main job.

All the projects you mentioned are tools that are mostly used profesionally. If you work for a web hotel, contributing to apache comes naturally. Even if your job description is keeping the hotel running smoothly rather than developing software.

It is not worth much (being self-selected and all), but the <A HREF="http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/" TITLE="infonomics.nl">FLOSS survey</a infonomics.nl> has approximately half the respondants being paid for their free software work.

#

You make some very good points. As a developer who prides himself on ability to communicate with "real people," l hope free/open sw can open up.

#

nope, I was with you there for a minute, but then you blew it with this:

>The general popluation doesn't care about the right >to see the source code, most of the users of >computers can't do any thing with the code any way. >Open source project managers and developers need to >better consider their end users. End users are not >always other programmers, some are teachers, >doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, >grandparents

back to the drawing board for you ! You don't get it !. If Freedom doesn't come before 'end users', the all is for naught. That's how we all got beholden to MS in the first place ! Nope, you don't get it at all yet...

#

The GNU General Public License encumbers Open Source Software with a schizoid and sociopathic personality disorder that renders it unable to work well with others, while blaming every other software producer for its failures. This is actually a side effect of a self-preservationist mentality that is a requirement for a business like Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors, but is unncessary baggage for a movement that should be aiming to provide users with a less hostile computing experience. The GPL was created to protect the software freedom of users by ensuring that the source code was always available and freely distributable, however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software. Instead, it actually hinders the freedom of those users by forcing them to endure less than usable software for the sake of adhering to Richard Stallman's constant redefinition of freedom, which is forced cooperation rather than true freedom defended by its beneficiaries. As a result of these personality flaws, most open source software remains less than usable, garnering only the support of companies seeking self-preservation, when it should be willing and able to cooperate with the companies that are actually able to benefit projects with user interface research, as well as software and hardware support that is not constantly having to be reverse-engineered.

Who would benefit from a less socially bankrupt license? You. If you're a developer, you can stop chasing after less than open, yet de facto standards and cooperatate with software vendors that may not agree with your development strategy to create software that makes your software usable, predictable, reliable and interoperable for the people who really matter --- your users, who are your customers. You may sacrifice getting credit for your work as it is used in proprietary software, but if your goal is an ego stroke, your customers will suffer. If' you're a user, you will be able know that just because you switch to an open source platform, doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice your usablity on the RMS altar. If you're a computer manufacturer, you will know that you can sell a package with your computer that includes a mixture of open source and proprietary software -- depending on what works best for your customers, instead of having to compromise their experience for the sake of an anti-social political movement. And, if you're a GPL zealot, you can still install just open source software at all cost -- even if it causes you to be less productive and unable to work with others who don't share your beliefs.

#

Here, here!

#

"Here, here!"

Where?

The verbose rant you seem to support (albeit with misspelt encouragement) attempts to sound pragmatic and masquerades as "good business sense", but in the hyperbole it blatantly misses Stallman's point, misrepresents the terms of various GNU licences, ignores valid and workable Free Software business practices, and panders to the various monopolising commercial interests that motivated Stallman in the first place.

In short: lots of big words for some pretty small-minded thoughts.

#

If people could take others' open source work without any restrictions, or modify others' work and not share the results then there would likely be less progress.

#

Except for leeches who like to take other peoples work and make money out of it without contributing back in any way. This way they see progress in their bankaccounts. They have a type of software available for them.. it's called proprietary and can mostly be bought from Microsoft. But since that negates the first point.....

#

OK. 'Fess up. Which of the McBrides posted this?

#

If you think carefully of what you wrote, you'll realise that you aren't complaining about GPL, but about restrictive licensing in general (which fits to basically all closed source).

Although I don't agree with Stallman on "nonfree" being immoral, the practical implications of GPL go far beyond this. It forcibly makes development less costly, for which you pay with having to give up "proprietarity". So it's a trade, just as any other license.

Why is such an extreme measure necessary you ask? Because current copyright law is fucked up with respect to software. Copyright means the author is granted a temporary monopoly. However, the profitable product cycle period of software (in a free market) is far less than what law foresees (75+ years), it is much closer to 3 years, which makes it in fact a permanent monopoly. This is a very bad thing (TM) from economic point of view, because monopoly is always bad. So GPL takes the opposite extreme -> never a monopoly.

If copyright law said that after 3 years of first distribution software including source becomes public domain, GPL would become obsolete (except perhaps for Stallman<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)), and both open source and closed source producers would be able to do whatever they want, including making money from licensing.

MfG shurdeek

#

Well said! I think you have cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Although RMS always says that it is good to make money from software too, the GPL does make that difficult to actually achieve. The best solution I was ever able to think of would be to introduce a time lag, giving the creators of the software a chance to profit, but I never had the insight to realise this was actually the fault of copyright itself.

#

Is it immoral to charge money for copies of something that costs you essentially nothing to produce? I think so.

If I could buy a hammer that was useful to me and it cost me essentially nothing to make copies of it, it would be immoral to not give away those copies.

Think about it! What kind of world would you rather live in? One where someone would give you the hammer that cost them nothing, or one where you'd have to pay for it? The former is substantially more free and promotes community and goodwill among people. That's the basis of Stallman's view. Copying bits costs essentially nothing, so not giving them away is a will to power and tyrrany. Giving them away is liberty, equality and fraternity (and just plain how people in the real world interact with each other when there's no BS of power between them).

Personally, I'm glad that people fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy today. In many places around the world and in our recent cultural past, people live under the heel of a tyrant who uses violence and the threat of violence to keep in place a system where people are not equal, and there's as little liberty and fraternity as he can possibly get away with.

Since it's so easy to have liberty, equality and fraternity in the digital world, why would we want to exchange that for one where we promote the emergence of lords and masters?

This viewpoint isn't anarchy, it's democracy. If you read something about the democratic revolutions in England, the U.S. and France, it's quite clearly so. It's why we are culturally suspicious of all concentrations of private power and have laws against things like monopoly.

Cheers!

#

The logic behind this is so mind-numbingly short-signted that I cannot contain myself any longer. The issue is not how much something costs to duplicate, but how much it costs in research & development.

Trying to follow the hammer analogy: let's fill in a little more detail. Suppose the hammer producer spent 6 months perfecting the design of this tool--getting the shape of the head and handle just right, balancing the weight so it swings and aims with ease, finding the right materials, etc., through various iterations of design and development. Then he sells his first model for $20. The buyer then "copies" the hammer and gives it away to everyone he knows, they give it to everyone they know, etc. Consequently, the seller is going to sell, oh, approximately ONE hammer--okay, maybe a ten--before everyone within the market he can easily reach already has a copy from their friend and no longer needs to buy one.

So our poor hammer developer gets an astounding $200 compensation for his 6 months of intensive, full-time R&D. Yeah, like that's gonna fly in large-scale economics.

In this world of free hammers, you'd have to charge at least $30,000 for the first hammer you sell, just to recoup your investment of time and effort (not to mention other expenses for materials, etc. incurred during R&D) so you can feed your family. After that, you might as well just start giving them away for free, since nobody else in their right mind will pay for one. Too bad for that one sucker that paid... everyone will just wait for somebody else to pay, and then leech a copy off him. This is not freedom, this is just plain selfishness. It also implies someone who is not accustomed to actually *working* (esp. in the software industry!) to support themselves and their family.

The logic essentially demands that somebody (a person with more money than brains) actually chips in all the money for the expensive development of a product, and then gets nothing in return because everybody else gets the product for free.

I do agree with a previous poster, that 75 year copyright terms are drastically too long when applied to software. 3 or 5 or 8 years might be a much more reasonable term for something that becomes obsolete so quickly. But to suggest that all software should be freely copyable, is to remove the funding that even allows software to development to continue.

If people stop paying proprietary software companies for their software, those companies cannot keep paying their programmers. So those programmers lose their jobs. Can they then just devote 100% of their time hacking on Free Software projects? Hardly. Most of us not living with Mom and Dad need to pay a mortgage or rent, eat, and occasionally clothe our bodies. So they get another job. If nobody's paying for software, that next job isn't going to be in software development--it'sll be in some other field. They are no longer paid to keep their programming skills sharp. Maybe they get paid a little less, and consequently need to work a few more hours to make ends meet for their families. Are these same guys still going to devote their spare time to hacking on Free Software projects, making them better? I doubt it. So if proprietary software tanks, so (eventually) does free software.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as sickened by the abuses of large software monopolies as the next guy. But the ultra-left-wing approach taken by RS is a pretty hard sell in reality, when you're dealing with regular people and not quasi-policitcal visionaries whose sources of income are less than clear.

#

*clap* *clap*

Nicely said.

#

however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software

The GPL isn't designed to protect that. And where is it stated that "usable" software is a right? if they (or you) want "usable" software, you can open up your checkbook and support your favorite hard-to-use application's development team. Who knows? you may get your wishes (and your name in lights, or at least the acknowledgements).

Oh, wait...you want things gratis? ah, you're failing to distinguish between that term and libre.

#

I'm willing to pay for free software but the developer who posted with the subject "Why?" says he not willing to develop with the end user in mind.

So why should a non-developer user donate to developers like him who refuse to create applications that they can be taken advantage of by more users?

#

Gratis kind of free software can be proprietary. It is the software M$ bundles with their OS to cut off the air supply of whoever first developed it. Being laid off from a programming job means having the time to develop open source stuff, so open-source developers will have avenged the victims of such dumping when all the Bangalore outsourcers working for M$ and $un start to squeal like stuck pigs at having the tables turned upon them.


Consider, though: you could say the United States is not a Free Country, because it costs money to live there, unlike those Socialist European countries.

#

It is obvious that you dislike the GPL but the points you are trying to make are all wet. The facts disprove your claims of a lacking in usability, reliability, stability and interoperability. While your opinion on the "freedom" that RMS espouses, and it's forced cooperation aspect, is valid, the rest of your comment is full of mistakes, misstatements and incorrect facts.

<TT>
--

If I cound spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place!
</TT>

#

I only know of Mr. Stallman through his own writings, and based on those I respect the man, although I don't agree with all he states.

I respect him for having a vision, the will to implement that vision, and for donating the results of that work to all. This is quite an achievment for a private indivual, as opposed to a rich corporation, or even a wealthy public figure.
(It is easy to be philanthropic when you own billions of $$'s. and the payoff in increased public image is great.)

When I read the comments about him though, I find such a lack of perspective, and very narrow thinking.

There are those that have jumped on the Stallman bandwagon, and seem to think that all proprietary software is evil. A question I have for you then is what about medicines, health care, and gasoline, and all other social neccessities of the 21 century. Should they not be free as well?
Shouldn't everything be "open sourced"?

All seems to be quiet on THAT front.

To continue along those lines, say that you are not a software developer/coder (whatever) but instead you fabricate bricks, you make cars, or even microprocessors (again whatever). Would you not want to be paid for doing that?

We live in a world that has not yet reached the
"star trek" age of everything is free. We live in a world that is driven by greed.

Having non-free things in this world is not evil,
it is greed, and the abuse of others that is evil.
The fact that microsoft products are 'closed' and
NOT free is not bad in itself, it is how microsoft
abuses its users that is.

The flip side of the coin though is that those that are opposed to Stallman's work, or at least those who criticise and insult him (and this includes both individuals and corporations) seem to have no problem using the results of his vision, and would charge $$'s if not for the GPL..

Which brings up another 'evil' that drives this world: "hypocracy".

To all those that continue to insult Stallman for saying what he does, make sure that you have the necessary qualifications to do that....just having an anonymous mouth or keyboard is not enough.

At least I don't find Stallman a hypocrite, in spite of a number of things I can't stand about him.

#

> We live in a world that is driven by greed.

Tell me then: was it different at any given time ?

Stallman says - human knowledge belongs to all

Greed will always be there.

"The world is a nice place worthy fighting for - I agree with the second part"
seven

#

"...would charge $$'s if not for the GPL."

You're confusing Free as in Gratis with Free as in Freedom. The GPL does not require that you give your product away, only the source code if you distribute it. Proprietary software favors only the interests of large corporate stakeholders of software companies. Free Software serves the interest of users, customers, developers and integrators, benefitting the community more than the few. 95% of software projects are internal projects, not the boxed retail software you see at the store. Most developers do not work directly for "software" companies. Most software serves a line of business purpose to help a company sell products or services. The better the quality of the software in the "creative commons", the better developers can glue together solutions customized to their clients'/employers' needs without having to reinvent the wheel or get locked into a single supplier. And by sharing useful software with the community, we gain back in the form of improvements from other companies that contribute back. That's what the GPL ensures: if I release a useful library or program that others can use, whether for a fee or for gratis, it gurantees that they will share their improvements if they are useful enough to distribute. So Free Software may not benefit the 5% of developers that benefit some from proprietary software sales (a drop in the bucket compared to their managers), but it benefits the 95% of developers who don't work for the proprietary software companies and their clients/employers. Think about it this way, as a business manager, would you rather pay a small fortune for a license to use someone else's customer relationship management software which designed for generic needs and locks you in to that vendor, or would your rather pay an in-house or outside developer who can build a customized solution for your needs derived from standard components?

#

You're making a very common mistake here.
You are confusing three issues that are similar, but in fact quite different.

1. Whether programmers are paid to do programming.
   
2. Whether people are paid to do software support.
   
3. Whether the company you work for owns the software you're working on.
   

You're assuming that if software is "Free" in the Stallman sense, that no-one gets paid to write it; in fact quite the opposite is true; most "Free" software is written and maintained by proffessional developers who are being paid to work on it.

The Big Examples are of course companies like SuSE and Red Hat; but those are eclipsed by folks who are:

• employed full time as administrators/programmers and who extend/modify a "Free" package to meet their needs, since it is less expensive than starting from scratch
  
• hired as contractors to modify or simply install and set up a "Free" package to meet someone's needs.
  

And of course, most of the items you mention are "Free" in the Stallman sense. Nobody sells you a car, or a brick, with a License that prevents you looking under the hood, or breaking the brick in half if you need a half-brick, or putting nicer wheels on the car, etc. And you can buy a Chiltons manual to do your own repairs to the car.

In fact, "Free Software" is simply an attempt to get the same sort of rights to software you buy that you do have if you buy a car or a brick. The fact that in order to do so you have to put a "you must publish the source" encumberment on it is an implementation detail.

#

There are those that have jumped on the Stallman bandwagon, and seem to think that all proprietary software is evil. A question I have for you then is what about medicines, health care, and gasoline, and all other social neccessities of the 21 century. Should they not be free as well?

if the marginal costs of duplicating and proliferating those things were asymptotically close to zero, as is the case with software, then possibly they should be.

Stallman makes his case specifically for software because he recognizes that software is in many ways different from other "products" in the real world. he argues against the term "intellectual property" not because he thinks it's wrong, but because he thinks it improperly conflates a wide variety of widely different forms of law - copyrights, patents, trademarks, etcetera; they're not all the same and shouldn't be all treated the same. nor should you necessarily treat medication as if it were software.

heck, you shouldn't necessarily even treat the documentation for a free software application the same as the application itself - that's why the GNU FDL is so very different from the GPL; technical writing is different from the technology it describes.

#

if the marginal costs of duplicating and proliferating those things were asymptotically close to zero, as is the case with software, then possibly they should be.

You are neglecting the fact that "duplicating and proliferating" is only part of the calculation, and a small part for many consumer goods.

Medicine is sold at much higher prices than necessary to manufacture it, partly because other costs (development, testing, marketing, overhead) must be covered, and partly because of greed. Same holds for cars, beer, everything.

Would it be a reasonable demand to say that medicine and other goods should be sold at no more than the manufacturing+redistribution cost?

I am inclined to say yes (wrt AIDS medication many people seem to be), but it obviously conflicts strongly with the principles of our western society.

#

I agree with Richard. In fact, I used to work with him. However, being a marxist-leninist I'm going a step further. Soon the organization 'LeftCode' will be launched with integrates open source and marxism-leninism, completing projects which aid Cuban, Venezulean and North Korean citizens.

'LeftCode' will begin with an audit of Syllable and a thorough review of Red Flag Linux. Left Code will actively support the hacking of legitimate targets.

#

Please:
Do not feed the troll.
There is a chance that it may go back to Redmond.

#

This isn't a troll. I'm serious.

#

Please forward your details to the relevant law enforcement agency.

Thank you.

#

I think saying that all software should be free is like saying "every country should be based on democracy". Well, I think it's wrong. I support free software and I think communism doesn't fit my ideas well (democracy does), but I still think that others may disagree with me, and since I support democracy I should act democratically, and I will let them do what they want as long as they don't infringe my rights.

#

you seem to be confusing an economical system with a political system. if you where a bit more educated, maybe you would know that it is perfectly feasible to build a communist democracy (see Chile) at least until CIA comes and installs a capitalist dictatorship (see Pinochet). your "democracy" is being completely overrun by that wonderfull economical system called capitalism. and you're still calling that "freedom"...
in that context, full-free makes total sense.

#

Democracy is a buzzword my friend. It is a fallacy. Do you really think you or i live in a "democratic" country? I do not know in which country you live but there is no country in this world which i call democratic. They're all chosen dictatorships.

Futhermore, there are 2 forms of communism. State-communism and community-communism. One has a future, the other one has not.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq
apt-get install anarchism

#

...CopyLeft by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

Copyright -> 2004 Richard Stallman
Copyleft -> Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted world wide without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Copyright is the claiming of exclusive rights. Copyleft is the remission of the exclusivity for those rights.

Copyright says "don't touch it." Copyleft says "have fun." Copyright says "no redistribute." Copyleft says "spread the love."

Copyright says "no derivative work." Copyleft says "derivative work is the pattern of society and all progress."

Stallman's Copyright notice says Some Rights Reserved.

#

Actually, "Copyright" is a legal term, meaning I own the content, and that I can control who can or cannot make copies of a work. Remember that, with the GPL (or Copyleft), the creator of a work never relinquishes ownership. If I no longer "own" a work, then it goes into the public domain, and you can do whatever you want with it, including incorporating the work into a non-free work! I can only enforce the GLP if I still assert original ownership (Copyright) of the work.

Copyleft is a made-up term, which refers to the license which grants permission to use a work, under certain restrictions. This is an important distinction, and the reason why Stallman and others don't simply release their works "into the public domain." You can freely use a Copylefted work, but you can only distribute it if you follow the rules, and pass along all the same rights under which you first received the work (sharing source, etc.).

An example of why PD is not the same as the GPL is the story of The Beauty and the Beast. This story is in the public domain. Anyone can write a book or create a movie based on the characters and actions in the story. However, Disney made a movie called, "The Beauty and the Beast". The movie, and the particular representations of the original characters as they are in the movie are now copyrighted, and owned by Disney. You can still write a B&B book, but you can't use any of the artwork that Disney came up with, or repeat some of their particular plot details. It is no longer "free". Under the GPL, that can't happen.

#

I mean honest to goodness RSI inducing keyboard swimming?

I know about emacs but he's not active in that I believe. Hurd?

#

Have you checked the cvs commit logs for emacs?

#

not today, no.

#

He created gcc, the GNU C compiler, amongst others, and quite a lot of command line utilities are (partly) his work. You might notice his name on quite a few man pages.

Of course, nowadays, he seems to be working on the envangelisation side of things. And he does that very seriously, too.

#

GCC & GDB, among other tools... Eric Raymond, in his new book, hints that RMS may be one of the best programmers alive!

#

...Me, in my new post, hint that ESR may be one of the worst programmers alive!

#

then you haven't seen any of *my* code!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

And he is very active there. I believe he got over his RSI.

He also created GCC and GDB originally, but is no longer involved in those on a daily basis. He occasionally come with minor suggestions, and political stuff goes through him, i.e. the decision *not* to remove support from SCO was his.

#

What hacking does RMS do? It's sad that anyone would have to ask the question. I apologize for saying that, but it's true. The idea that Stallman is not a programmer comes from Linus Torvalds himself. Linus claims that he (Linus) is the engineer and Stallman is the philosopher. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I'm afraid history will accept Linus's misinterpretation of the facts. Sad, so sad.

#

If you're referring to Linus' comments in the movie
"Revolution OS", you're misinterpreting them. Watch the movie again; it's pretty clear that Linus is talking about his and Stallman's philosophies when it comes to free/open-source software, not their respective programming achievements or skills. Linus basically says his is the practical, get-the-job-done, attitude, while Stallman lies awake at nights worrying about non-free software.

FWIW, I think history has shown this to be very much the case.

And IMHO, history has also proved the invaluable contributions made to Free and Open Source software by both men. Contrary to the commonly voiced opinion, there's plenty of room at the top in the Free/Open Source world.

#

Volunteer movements have always been the source of the greatest of human works. To give some examples,

The Oxford English Dictionary, took 70 years to create, and much of the work was done by volunteers reading books and finding examples for senses of words.

Every great religon started with volunteers. Consider Christianity, the disiples were not paid to spread the word. They were volunteers who were supported by gifts. (Another form of volunteerism).

If you look through history, mankind's greatest and most lasting accomplishments, (ie things which actually moved the human race forward and not individual kings or sultans), were all volunteer based.

I count GPL and free software (there is a difference, GPL is encumbered, but acceptably so) among these accievements.

#

"Consider Christianity, the disiples were not paid to spread the word."

I think you should read your history. Early Christians were criminals who violated temples of other religions, had no respect for them, and went down hill from there (the Spanish Inquistion was based on a trumped-up excuse to murder their competitors).

The open source community may be all sweetness and light now, but i predict that should all be achieved that Richard Stallman thinks he wants, it won't be all that sweet.

#

Guess what, the disciples weren't alive during the Spanish Inquisition and had nothing to do with it.

The disciples is a reference to the 12 apostles who carried the message of Christ and established the church immediately following the resurrection.

#

lots of people have had to live with the unintended consequences of Christianity. It went places and did things that are and were in direct conflict with its seminal philosophy.

Which begs the question: where will the free software community be, twenty years from now?

#

Twenty years from now? The Free Software Community will be running the entire planet...

#

Stallman's view of freedom is a very radical and libertarian view of freedom. It borders on anarchy. And, all in all, it makes his views seem downright silly. It's ok for people to profit from their labor. And paying for that labor doesn't make you a slave. It may, however, make you more productive.

#

if you have read his essay carefully you would notice that he didn't say profiting from your work is bad and against the freedom of software. It's perfectly fine to make profit making free software. One has to agree that it is hard to make good profit doing it in a strongly capitalistic society like in the US and other countries. That's why he's trying to create the movement which in the end would create society where everyone would be making and using free software and actually profiting like any company today.

#

In the 90's Stallman sold Emacs tapes for about $150 for a living. He had costs for it too, ofcourse. FSF still sells Free software...

#

Stallmans is happy for people to profit from their labour. You get paid to write it. Why do you need to be paid for ever more for a work that is complete is the question?

A lot of this hinges around the outlook that it is morally wrong not to share something that can benefit many when it will cost you nothing (in the case of sharing software in a GNU free like manner almost without cost) to do so.

If AIDs drugs magically replicated themselves and could be downloaded to everyone who needed them for 5 pence a life time supply would you still agree that the creators of the drugs had the right to say "yes Bill you can have a life times supply but if you share them with others we will lock you and them up"?

#

I would never have expected RMS to use such a stupid word because he is usually very anal about using exactly the right word and avoiding buzzwords and ill-conceived terms.

The prefix "cyber" refers to physical creations that cross scientific fields including biology. A "cyborg" is a cross between a human and a machine. So wouldn't cyberspace be a place for human-machine hybrids to hang out?

#

Did you just make that up?

According to the OED, both the adjective cyber and the prefix cyber- mean "relating to (the culture of) computers". They provide quotations going back to 1966 ("cybernocracy" in New Scientist).

For the origin, "cybernetics", they give "The theory or study of communication and control in living organisms or machines."

Hello?

#

ever heard of cybernetics, punk?

That's what some people spend years studying and you just call it a buzzword.

#

I do immensely value the contribution of Richard Stallman is making to the defense of freedom in software development and use.
I do value them because they do especially make sense in the current legal and software development context, where freedom had been lost.
I do think that the quality of the perception of the message of Richard Stallman depends on your perception of how much liberty had been lost, and is now, step by step, being recovered.
Basically, freedom is about you doing whatever you want as long as it does not impact someone else's freedom.
So in principle you should be free to release software under a free or proprietary licence.
If the game had started on a fair basis, free software is just a better and nicer way to do things and would generally prevail, I think.
The problem is that over the last 20-30 years, under the shield of inappropriate laws and building on people's inertia and lack of understanding of the importance of information technology, some people and companies had locked for their benefit the basis for software development.
The free software development movement has not just been about developing software to freely use and share, it also had to re-create a new basis for this to happen, which for good or bad, had to be very distinct from what the existing software world had evolved into.
This has to stay, be defended and explained until the freedom of the development of information technology is safely restored.

#

Stallman is missing one important point:

The be-all and end-all that drives hardware and software advancement, and makes PCs more than just glorified word processors, is entertainment, and more specifically, PC games.

The best PC games always cost money, and always will. They are the most complex software in the world to make, both for the engine and for the incredible creative factor...like music, like movies, like artwork, they can never be free. Yet they are software, THE most important software in the industry.

Open source is nice...even game companies realize this, providing mod tools with the games they sell to allow the community to contribute their own ideas, but this is one area of computing, and the most centrally important area of them all, where a GPL will never suffice.

#

The be-all and end-all that drives hardware and software advancement, and makes PCs more than just glorified word processors, is entertainment, and more specifically, PC games.

you might be right, but i won't take your word for it - you'll have to back that statement up with something.

i remember dedicated word processors. used one of them for a while. PCs back then weren't advanced enough to play games on - people who liked playing games gave PC owners weird looks; PCs cost much more money than good games computers, and could not play nearly as interesting or nice-looking games. what drove PC development back then was business needs, and that's the way things stayed until business needs had driven PC prices down to where they became affordable home computers.

since then, the home computer using games players have helped drive some aspects of hardware development. good sound cards would not have occurred nearly so soon without them, nor would consumer-price-range 3D-capable graphics cards. but such hardware is really only useful for playing games - word processors didn't have those because word processors never needed those. and PCs were still superior to word processors, because PCs had a capacity for generality that word processors lacked.

today, games consoles can play much nicer looking, fancier games than PCs - most of the games business gets its money from them - but PCs are still considered superior to games consoles because PCs are more generally useful. PCs have to be, because they have very general business needs to fill. that's why people still think PCs are worth paying more money for than games consoles.

to this day, i could do without those fancy pieces of hardware that games helped build. the real business needs i have for my computer can easily be filled by hardware that was considered low-end in 1999 - i know, because that's exactly the hardware i use to fill them with. in fact, i regret paying extra money for a 3D, gaming-capable graphics card which has turned out to be a complete dud... should have gone with a Matrox, like business users tend to do...

#

>today, games consoles can play much nicer looking, >fancier games than PCs

This is not correct (and I'm not gonna back up my argument).

#

Now i would agree that free everything won't work. I wouldn't want it that way. I like the choice.

Games the most important software in the industry?? I think not. What on earth do you play your games on (even in a games console or mobile phone et al)? An operating system. I think you'll find that these peices of software are much more needed and widespread than any collection of games. Ok, I know, I'm being pedantic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

I guess you're calling windows lock-in a choice?

#

Ah yes its all about games...IBM, Oracle, MySQL, Sun, Novell, SGI, etc. are all fantastic game development houses, no? Your view is narrow.

#

Games have two components, the software and the artwork. There's no reason they can't sell the artwork, and throw in the software for free, with source code.


  e.g. quake is GPLed, but to play the game you still need the data files, either from the CD or from the shareware version. They're not Free, either libre or gratis.


  This doesn't happen right now because apparently game distributors act somewhat like record companies. You have to sell them the rights to everything, including the software, and they're not going to release the source code.


  BTW, don't think that it would be easy to recreate the necessary levels and stuff, since I'm not just talking about levels, I'm talking about every texture, every font, every model for every object. If you've seen the Free but ugly warcraft 2 clone, you have some idea of why people might want to buy the original game to get the art, even if the code was Free.

--
Peter Cordes
peter@cordes.ca

#

I believe the gaming industry would be much more interesting if they embraced Free Software, even if only for the derivative works.

There are many ways to make money around any piece of software other than the sale of a copy.

#

"...The best PC games always cost money, and always will. They are the most complex software in the world to make... "

I agree that games development can be sophisticated but it does not have the burdon of suffering dire consequences if the code is buggy or has logic failures. That is, no ones life depends on it working correctly and there is no liability if it crahes. Remove these elements in your software design objectives and suddenly life just got a lot easier.

#

I hear this all the time. Games do not drive anything but GPU development. The faster processors and better software are in place to benefit businesses (time is money).

Look at the XBox - what does it have, a 733 mHz Pentium 3? Not exactly pushing the envelope.

#

I think what Mr. Stallman write is interesting but I also think that evolution of free software is tied to a viable "way" to profit from it.

#

...as all things eventually are in The Real World.

#

yeah, if your Real World is the United States and Canada, than you're quite narrowminded. Open your eyes, there are places in the world where you don't have to survive by profitting only.

#

It's the eternal debate, pragmatism vs. idealism.

The pragmatic argument in this context is well understood, I think: whatever advances open/free software is generally a good thing, and if that means (for example) we need to make sure the closed-source Flash player plays well with our stuff in order to help people migrate, no problem. In other words, a world where the average desktop is 90% open/free is a much better option than the current 0% open/free.

Stallman's idealism says: no way. 100% is not just the ideal but the only way to go; any compromise along that path is a mistake.

But Stallman's idealism isn't the only idealism in this community. There are at least three levels of "idealism" that are really out there:

1) Open/free software must be allowed to compete, freely and fairly.

2) Above, -and- open/free software should be
preferred over alternatives whenever possible, for various reasons such as a preference for the open/free development model and licenses.

3) Above, -and- closed source software should never be chosen because it has moral strings attached that we find unacceptable.

I think most members of our community fall comfortably into ideal molds #1 or #2, neither of which have much conflict with the pragmatic argument.

#3, the RMS / GNU / FSF ideal, does conflict with the pragmatic approach. I also don't think it matches very well with the ideals of many people who consider themselves part of the "Free Software" movement. I don't think the majority of the community sees closed source software as a MORAL problem. And I doubt they ever will.

#

Quote: I don't think the majority of the community sees closed source software as a MORAL problem. And I doubt they ever will.

So true. It's a lot easer to see it as a moral problem when you live off of academic/research grants and foundation money and don't have mouths to feed. When you the above conditions are reversed, you start caring about what gets the next paycheck in your pocket.

The implication regarding RMS' position in life is, of course, an asumption, but is based on the fact that while everyone knows he quite his job at MIT in 84, there seems to be nothing on his personal site or www.gnu.org indicating his current source of income. There seems to be at least a justifiable cloud of suspiscion over his credibility as someone in touch with the realities of life for ordinary people (read: most programmers and other software consumers).

#

I respect Mr. Stallman, and consider his work in the Open Source arena to be one of the factors that have made GNU/Linux what it is today: a major OS contender. However, I must disagree with him on the whole proprietary software issue. It isn't evil, and has a legitimate place in computing, just as Open Source does. Each has its own strengths, and each of them serves as a competitor to the other. Competition is good.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think the vast majority of computer users out there gives a turkey whether their machine is 100 percent Open Source or not. In the final analysis, at the end of the day, it just has to work. It's unacceptable to tell someone that they cannot use a particular piece of hardware just because the manufacturer isn't willing to give away their secrets and release an open-source driver. Unlike many in the Linux community, I don't care if my video driver is a propritary piece that plugs into my Open Source OS. I just want it to work, period. I'm not about to spend hard-earned money chasing someone else's dream by buying new hardware, not when my current hardware works just fine, thank you. If that sounds antisocial, so be it.

"To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them."

No, to be free, the citizens of cyberspace must be able to choose what they want. The alternitive is to replace one set of chains with another.

If, in my opinion, a database such as Oracle meets my company's needs better than an Open Source alternitive, even at the (much) higher cost, then I must be free to choose it.

One complaint people raise against Microsoft is that it doesn't play well with the other children. The Linux of the future will play with everybody, leaving Windows in the dust. A balance will be achieved between Free and Proprietary, and life will go on. It won't meet Mr. Stallman's litmus test for Freedom, but that's life.

Despite my disagreements with him, I urge Mr. Stallman to continue his campaign. The continued competition between Free and Proprietary will make Gnu/Linux better in the end.

#

I'd add additional point to that, namely, 'and that which works best should be preferred over lesser solutions'. This is where OS/X might be a better choice than Linux for some people depending on what they need. It's also where the Microsoft strategy of leveraging their virtual monopoly on the desktop to promote poorer solutions is really contemptible.

For myself the best choice is Linux, since I can't afford equivelent hardware on the Apple side, nor to pay and pay and pay for numerous applications, and pay again to upgrade. I can have an excellent system that fits my budget.

I suppose I fall into the pragmatist camp, tipping somewhat in the direction of idealism, since from the perspective of socioeconomic equality, GNU/Linux is a blessing to the whole frigging world. There's a slew of good reasons for using free software, but it's extremely cool that it's not only good for my budget, it's also good for China, South America, etc in exactly the same way. I don't see how Microsoft can compete with that long term. It may have some decades left to run in the wealthy US of A, but it's going to be a hard sell elsewhere UNLESS it really becomes the OS which provides the greatest value regardless of cost. Blanket advertising featuring fat men in butterly suits just isn't going to do it.

#

Freedom is more important than Linux, or than things that "just work". You have to think about the long term.

In the long term, free software es more likely to work: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

#

It maybe true that 'free software' is more likely to work in the long term - so fine, you get on with it - but don't go trying to restrict my personal freedom to use closed source alternatives if I wish.

Who put Stallman in charge of my personal freedom?

#

>It maybe true that 'free software' is more likely
>to work in the long term - so fine, you get on
>with it - but don't go trying to restrict my
>personal freedom to use closed source
>alternatives if I wish.
>Who put Stallman in charge of my personal
>freedom?

I disagree with Stallman's view that closed source ("proprietary") software is immoral, and some of his other views. But I don't see where he's trying to restrict your personal freedom: he's just philosophizing and advocating his views.

How is that threatening? Is he pushing for new laws to restrict your options? Not that I can see. He's just trying to convince you to see things his way. How, or how well, he does that is another matter.

#

The point you're missing is that every piece of software could do better for individual users after some customization. Heck, in some cases software even fails to serve an advertised purpose because of some sort of incompatibility with the user's environment (not only computing environment, but business processes, whatever)

Not being able to customize the software to their needs, be it by doing it yourself or hiring someone else to do it for you, is one of the major shortcomings of non-free software.

Of course, even in the non-free software world, you could hire some third party to adapt the software to your needs, but at that point, you're tied to a monopoly, assuming the software manufacturer hasn't gone out of business yet!

-- aoliva

#

I look at the Mandrake Linux type distribution with some proprietary drivers / software and some free software as a useful intermediate step. But in no way would I regard this as the ultimate goal. If Debian gets to be as easy as Mandrake to install and use with hardware, whilst being totally free this would be much better. Perhaps the two stages will always exist, and the free zone will get to be the majority, while those wanting a little bit more pay for people to develop it earlier. (a bit like once air con was only on top models, now ubiquitous).
There was a similar schism in Buddhism (Theravada=purist, Zen=pragmatist) and Christianity (Catholic=pragmatist, Purist=Protestant).

#

whatever your position..

I'm observing; he is one of few being able getting the 'peeps' to talk about the politics behind it all (some are actually thinking about it, and that's a good thing in itself)

And I agree with him that it's okay to make a moral choice about what software to use.

ps, not only software deserves our moral judgement (like: illegal wars-lies about WMD-andsoon).

#

This text was translated into portuguese (pt_BR) at <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/9" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>.

Este texto foi traduzido para o português (pt_BR) em <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/9" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>.

#

I began to use Linux from 1st year in College coz it was easy to use & more user friendly & stable than win 95/98 (the M$ OS at that time)

Soon I learn the value of freedom now it do not matter for me if a FSF/OSS is better or worse than the non free counter part , I alway choose to use free software coz I value my freedom , I do not like some crop , monopolists control my life or my computer or call me pirate.

But one big problem I face is I work for a US company (Cognizant Technology Solutions) & I have to use NT & other non free software there & it causes a lots of pain.

But here the great guru RMS inspire me , if he can leave MIT just to use & develop free software so I also can & so I am currently searching for free software based jobs or may be I shall start my own business in future.

In future the source will be with all of us.

Coz you can not keep people aways from freedom for long sooner or later they will find it. Like most of the people of the world find it & so currently you will find very few country which do not have freedom. The age of Colonization is over

& soon same will happen to Cyber World.

Long live to the freedom

#

I fully and completely agree with RMS.

krp

#

It takes time to get to where software developed generally is Free. There will, I suspect, always be closed, i. e. non-Free, software out there. Fine--as Linus says, "he who writes the code gets to choose the license." However, I agree that it should be the preferred choice, just because it makes sense, to go Free, specifically, GPL.

As for the folks who say, "I want it to 'just work'", I say this. OpenOffice.org wasn't yet fully complete for some time (it is now, in my experience), but even when it was in beta, I was using it and reporting back. Same with Mozilla. I chose to do this because I believe that Free Software (yes, as in Freedom, not price--I bought Red Hat, Slackware, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD) is indeed the better way to go in the long run. Here's why.

"Just working" is is an issue for *all* tools, including software, be it closed or Free/Open. For those of you who use your Windows PCs today, remember that it took Microsoft several iterations *beyond* Windows 3.0 to "just work", and even today's Windows XP has problems that should've (and could've) been solved years ago with a bit more attention to testing/development detail. I know what I'm talking about here because I am a former Microsoftie. But, nonetheless, as users reported problems, Windows and Office did indeed get better and more capable. It's the same thing with GNU/Linux and other Free Software today. Today, GNU/Linux and OpenOffice.org are very capable, in my opinion every bit as capable as Windows 2000 and Office 2000/2003, with fewer problems, much more stability, and a far faster "fix" time than anything from Microsoft or Apple.

So, no, Rome wasn't built in a day, and not everybody will be using Free Software by tomorrow (or even a year), but I agree that, totally stable yet or not, we should use Free programs whenever possible and report back bugs. That's how it will improve, just as OpenOffice.org, GnuCash, Mozilla, Samba, etc. have. John Tepestra went into this in a talk he gave recently about Samba and how fast bugs get fixed due to its Free nature.

And yes, I believe it is the ethical thing to do.

#

I don't mean to belittle the role of the free software movement, but sooner or later someone else would have come up with essentially the same idea. Why? Because software is just bottled-up knowledge. Eventually enough people with enough of the bits and pieces of the necessary know-how would emerge and pool their efforts for their own mutual self-interest. I know that a complete operating system is hideously complicated, and that the contributions of certain individuals to GNU/Linux, etc are truly awe-inspiring. If not for their efforts, this would have all taken much longer to develop. Nevertheless, I believe that the development of this public body of knowledge is an inevitable consequence of the increasing importance of computers and the internet in our society. The proprietary software companies are just cashing in on a one-time opportunity. After that, buying an operating system with a grotesque license will seem as ridiculous as hiring a scribe to read and write letters. So when I say I am deeply grateful to Stallman et al, it is mainly for the fact that they were the pioneers.

#

We need applications that work well, and are well tested on a large user base,
with good programming support, that works as well as MS'es usability testing.

If an applcation misbehaves, does not do something it should do, messes up your work,
or looses something then it is out the window and back over to Windows.

We need more formalized usability testing.

In short we need to create more small cathederals in the bazaar,
that serve their respective user communities well.

We need middle men who are able to reproduce bugs and produce reports for
the hackers/programmers/software enginneers.

There is a difference between hackering, programmering and software engineering;
I do all three at different times for different problems.

These differences are crucial to the success of a software product.

Programming a solution getting it out there for the bazaar, getting the response and "many eye balls".

One mans army. The Linux kernel is an example of the hacking/programming/software-engineering evolution and continuum.

A good hack may pass the tests of time and may even form the basis of thurther software engineering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

A word about GNU/Linux... I think we need a new official GNU/Linux Linux distribution for the 2.6 kernel, really we do, and I think it should be released by GNU and called 'GNU/Linux 2.6'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

For the big boys we need more formalized usability testing. We need usability Labs for GNU software on par with OSDL's labs and with the funding.

Todays example OpenOffice does well even having equation editting, and PDF output. But there is a bug, or a feature (:)
If you have a directory with the same name (minus extension) as the file you are saving then it will put the file
under that directory not where you directed it to put it in the parent directory.

Also there are missing features like output/export to graphic for the equations or documents, like a png or now "freed" gif...

All the best,

Aaron Gray

#

The focus of the free software foundation should be educating end users, not programmers. The free software revolution will be over when most end users (individuals as well as institutions) refuse to pay for software that is not free.

Programmers will not write proprietary software if they cannot get paid for that task.

The project is enormous, I would start with educational institutions.

#

I've translated this text to Spanish and posted it at <A HREF="http://sindominio.net/quique/Traducciones/20_years_gnu.html" TITLE="sindominio.net">my web site</a sindominio.net>.

He traducido el texto al castellano (español) y lo he publicado en <A HREF="http://sindominio.net/quique/Traducciones/20_years_gnu.html" TITLE="sindominio.net">mi espacio web</a sindominio.net>.

#

How do you defined freedom? Whether or not I am able to see the source code for a program I use, or whether I can use said program free of loyalties without fear of prosecution has little to do with freedom in the greater sense of the word. Freedom to me is being able to pick a piece of land and settle on it without some overbering government snatching it away from me. If the wording in some EULA leads me to a homestead then and only then will the use of the word 'freedom' be warranted.

So... my real question, then, is:
How does (L)GPL licensing contribute to the greater good of society when the person or people who publish licensing under such terms still has to live in the confinces of an oppressive and greed-based society?

-K
p.s. don't post while intoxicated! bad idea!

#

Mr. Stallman, I agree 100% with you.
Propietary software is the end of the society.
Propietary software MUST END NOW!

When you buy a propietary software, you dont buy the complete software, you buy just the exevutable files, and it is RIDICULOUS!

I use a GNU/Linux and i am very hapy cuz i can see the sources!!!!
it is the best part<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p

Sucess and peace for you!

#

I find RMS's views too narrow, or at least the way he expresses them. The issue is not "freedom" it is control. Yes, freedom can imply absence of control, but that is not what RMS said, he only focusses on the individual discomfort of being hemmed in by proprietary code. But this is very important and needs to be spelled out.

People who live in a democracy consider themselves to live "freely", yet the amount of control that is exerted on their lives is astonishing: you cannot park here, you must have a particular profile to travel without being harassed, you can only bank on weekdays, you get constantly bombarded with junk mail (an invasion of privacy if every there was one), etc. The list is endless.

Of course, the usual counter is: that is the price of freedom, we need to give some privacy away to be free. Hang on... isn't there something wrong with that concept?

The issue in the software industry, is not just can I mess with the code if I want (which I agree with RMS is very valuable), but more to the point, will Comerical Company X (whose software I use) prevent me/us from taking the best direction for me or the company I work for? They control your and my future because if they chose not to upgrade, support or improve a product we rely on, we have a huge risk, or cost in transferring to something else. This little game is what has kept the wheels of IT greased with customer's blood for decades.

I have spent 22 years in the IT industry, so I've been around as long as the IBM PC. The Open Source movement is getting back to the roots of what IT is really about: using technology appropriately to improve our lot. Someone else posted how man's greatest creations are voluntary acts. I agree completely. By handing over control of our IT infrastructure to a company or companies whose ONLY goal is to shine on the stock market, whilst doing an ENRON with the books, we hand away our true freedom: ability to chart our own course as dictated by our needs. Open Source gives us that real freedom: absence of control.

As an aside, for those you saying: yeah, but I still have to make a living. Well, I've successfully and ethically worked with Open Source exclusively for over 5 years now and my (small) company and more importantly, my clients have benefited. Yes, you can make a good living with Open Source. The secret's in the service.

#

there is a subtle difference between the usage of the word 'whilst' and the world 'while', but i have forgotten it at this moment. i think that it is the difference in the connexion between the two words, but i'm not sure. i'm searching around trying to find a rational definition for the distinction. the problem with your analysis is thus.

'further' means one thing, whilst 'farther' means another. 'further' implies a difference in degree. it is a superlative used to demonstrate the disparity between one article's status and another. i.e. 'a further degree of responsibility.' meanwhile, 'farther' measures distances, as in 'that car is farther away than you'd think.'

#

he's frothing at the mouth in public

#

Rob,

I have no idea what R.S. would or will say in reply to your concerns, but I would like to give you my perspective as a professional economist. As such, I am perhaps somewhat less interested than R.S. is in arguing what SHOULD be, and perhaps somewhat more interested in explaining what exists.

What indisputably exists is a rapidly expanding set of free software which more and more perfectly substitutes for commercial software, and in many cases excels it. Particularly considering its low cost, there is no need to explain the demand for this software. The challenge is, to explain the supply.

It seems to me that among the key sources of supply of "free" software are (1) that rewards not directly compensatory can nevertheless have significant value (e.g. recognition as a good designer, inventor of algorithms, or project coordinator is valuable human capital); (2) that marketing a new piece of code is significantly more difficult and costly than simply handing it out; (3) that normal IT puruits inevitably yield as by-products sections of code that are useful to others but neverthess may be too small or too insignificant to be packaged and marketed as stand-alone software products (see 2); (4) that very many minds working on any given software development problem will generally produce a much better solution than a few minds (this effect is an 'economy of scale'); and (5) the existence of the internet as an inexpensive but effective mechanism by which production may be coordinated and promotion and distribution may be facilitated.

I personally believe that the cost advantages enjoyed by free software producers are such that free software will eventually drive out proprietary software for all tasks that are routine and widespread. I believe there will remain scope for the development of proprietary software only in applications that are highly specialized or require confidentiality. I believe that this will occur as a market outcome of the self-interested actions of economic agents. So I differ from what seems to be R.S.'s belief that this will require anyone's altruistic conduct.

I also disagree with his proposal that we should shun proprietary software for the sake of encouraging the development of free software. Any business should do what best, subject to the law, makes money for its owners. The profit motive, which is responsible for the great efficiency of our economy, leaves scant room for altruistic software preferences. As for individuals, R.S. may do as he likes, but I personally feel no obligation to give special preference to free software. Instead, I take into account the costs and benefits of each and use whatever I decide is best for my particular circumstances.

That's why I use free software like GNU Linux, GNU Emacs, the Ion window manager, Open Office, Cdrecord, Gphoto2 and so forth, but also why I use proprietary software like Windows 98, Win4lin, ChessBase, Hiarcs and Bookup (the latter three being chess applications that really have no equal in the free software domain and which, unfortunately, exist in Windows versions only). Oh, and I paid $39 for Opera for Linux, which I think is a very good browser. Detesting Windows as I do, I do not browse, word process or do anything but chess on my Win4lin setup.

Someday, perhaps after I retire, I may devote some time to improving the free software that exists for chess. If I do, I will do it for my own entertainment and not for the altruistic reasons proposed by R.S. I admit, however, that I would take keen satisfaction in stealing business from developers who designed software for Windows only.

#

Dear "Cornstalk", I enjoyed reading your reply, and I´ll pass on your chess program recommendations to my brother, who´s looking for a good chess game!
I agree with your comments entirely, which you outline so well, I think from an economics standpoint, what has and is happening with Linux is unique and fascinating, not just commercially, but also from a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can I say psychological perspective. We have a global community of engineers and users helping to develop a sophisticated product largely out of enthusiasm (and frustration with certain monopolists!), and that really is a fantastic thing! If I had shares in Microsoft, I think I would look to sell soon, but maybe more than the 10% Steve Balmer recently sold, although he can´t risk offloading too fast!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Perhaps the Linux "revolution" is a sign of things to come!? As the human race (all of us) develops the technology and tools to enable us to share higher standards of living, perhaps the emphasis will shift from predatory capitalism to more altrusitic pursuits!
Best regards, Rob

#

It will be interesting to see if the human animal evolves to a point in which the pursuit of knowledge trumps the pursuit of money. Many people just want to learn how things work, and to do what they want.... as for altruistic pursuits.... what if your altruistic pursuit is the pursuit of money via cut-throat capitalism.

#

Linux represents the best of capitalism... perfect competition just like wheat farmers.

#

Whilst you're welcome to act according to motives of your choice: such is freedom, I'd like to correct a fallacy that I believe is particularly prevalent in the states, but is also common elsewhere. Notably (sp?) this: to act rationally, one must in some way act selfishly.

However, is takes a moment to notice that there is no such assumption in rationality, as soon becomes clear when people talk of living in a rational (meaning peaceful) world, or of rational policy on the part of one's government (often meaning in the nation's collective self-interest). Rationality clearly means efficient behaviour in achieving a pre-defined goal.

We assume businesses will be rationally maximising profits, but law (at least in Britain) recognises the wider definition of rational. A company should aim to fulfill the goals defined in its article of association.

There's no problem in economics resulting from this, as the marketplace moves its participants toward Pareto efficiency regardless of their criteria, thus one's criteria for what one wishes to optimise is not fixed by this mode of analysis, and maximising something other than profit does not bring down the system.

As for free software, the end user gets the full benefit of the software: the value is retained, but the programmer gets a smaller chunk of that value. Thus the economy is no worse off, and given that more people get to make use of the software, further value is created than would have been by proprietry solutions. It is entirely conceivable, in fact, if the software is being used by others programmers, it is in fact creating wealth for programmers, as well as the community at large, and is keeping them in work instead of squeezing them out!

#

Thanks for your interesting comment.

We're getting into questions that lie outside the scope of this forum, but I don't think we abuse our writ here if we stick to the implications these questions have for free software.

The question that has to be answered is why there is a ready supply of free software and not of free steel. Substitute "steel" for "software" and "producers of steel" for "programmers" in your last paragraph, for example, and your reasoning is equally valid or, as I would argue, invalid.

I don't think that free software exists in its present quantity and variety on account of communitarian or otherwise altruistic values held by people who produce it. What then would explain the absence of similarly communitarian producers of steel?

It is, of course, merely a hypothesis that people will act as if they were trying to maximize their personal benefit, but it turns out to be a rather powerful one for the explaining the things that happen in this world. I don't think that there is any systematic difference between America and other places in that regard. I doubt that it is any easier in Biel than it is in Buffalo to get venture capital to start a, say, software business without demonstrating a very good prospect of making money. And I doubt that European credit flows to businesses with weak balance sheets on the quite the same terms that it flows to businesses with strong ones.

You are right that rationality in the ordinary sense does not presuppose acting according to self-interest ("selfish" is value-laden and would seem to suggest an unnecessarily narrow notion of self-interest). One can behave rationally toward any goal whaterver. But within a capitalist political economy, it is not a viable business model always to sell one's product at prices below market or always to produce equivalent products in a more costly manner than one's competitors. If you do that, you will soon enough be out of business, which you will come to see when nobody is willing to risk any more of their money with you. The term "rationality" as used by economists has a narrower definition than the "rationality" of plain speech, not for lack of clear thinking but rather on account of the usefulness of the self-interest hypothesis and the need for a simple term by which to refer to it.

But equally, it is a mistake to suppose that free software is being produced on the basis of the naive business model to which I just referred. And it is wearisome always to read here so much, both pro and contra free software (not including what you have written), that assumes that that is the case, or that argues on the basis of what SHOULD be instead of trying to understand what IS.

Nice talking to you.

P. S. I really should have included low capital requirements in my list of factors favoring the production of free software. That is partly covered in my point about the internet, but there is also that powerful computers, necessary to build and test software, are extremely inexpensive.

P. P.S. Why, oh why, do British writers never use "while," but always that mincing "whilst?" Is there never an occasion for plain-spokenness?

#

I largely agree with you. I simply occasionally feel the need to point out what I perceive to be a fallacy. Naturally, we are bound to activities that we can sustain, and that means that we need an income from somewhere amoungst other things. Also, when maximising any quantity, we're likely to be acting in a manner very similar to that of profit-maximisation (consider getting money for your family rather than your own immediate satifation; does it mean that you shouldn't drive the same hard bargain when seeking wealth in the first place?), so profit-maximising entities is certainly an excellent first approximation.

I think that steel is different from software, in that software also creates an environment for software, whereas steel production exhausts the demand for steel. I don't know whether the market for software will be such that it will approach exhaustion. Certainly the availability of cheaper programmers oversees mean that for now, it will be harder to find work or earn a lot, but the rare invention discovered anywhere still has potential.

The IS or OUGHT dichotomy is an old one, and is sometimes less black and white than it seems; there are plenty of self-fulfilling prophesies! All the same, I think that there are plenty of programmers who are at least partly motivated by a transitive conception of freedom, and the great thing about free software is that such people can produce alongside those who aren't. In most fields, the altruist doesn't get very far, but programmers who make money elsewhere, might be supported by the state, or an institution such as a university, or else are writing software for a hardware-producing company can produce free software, and they are such to do it partly because they enjoy doing so.

This factor of enjoyment is the big one that blurs the distinction between "selfish" and "selfless"; if you're not motivated, it's nigh-impossible to act. Does this make action selfish? It's difficult to say, and ultimately doesn't really matter: the system approaches Pareto optimality in any case.

Low capital costs help a lot. The even semi-altruistic steel manufactorer could not sustain his business!

Nice talking to you to.

Sorry about any mincing of the language; "while" in place of "whilst" would lack the edge, somehow, to my mind. While's meaning is broader, more diffuse; it also lacks the either|or connotation. The meaning is slightly different.

#

"This factor of enjoyment is the big one that blurs the distinction between "selfish" and "selfless"; if you're not motivated, it's nigh-impossible to act. Does this make action selfish? It's difficult to say, and ultimately doesn't really matter..."

Quite true, particularly in context of low capital costs. I imagine that quite a bit of free software production does originate in hobbyism.

"Whilst" simply does not exist in American usage; it is always "while." I don't recall having come across "while" in British usage, though I gather that it exists. I imagine that there, while/whilst is a bit like farther/further? But to this American I think to others, "whilst" looks and sounds silly. I said the same to some English people I met near Cirencester last summer, and they simply could not see what I meant. Didn't someone, Churchill I think, say that America and England were two nations separated by a common language?

When I went last summer into Durham Cathedral, the people working there made to give me a brochure, saying, "What language?" I said, "Do you have one in American?" They said no.

#

Richard,

I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?

Why shouldn´t someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isn´t a little commerical competition good? If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession?

Like you, I don´t agree with monopolies and those that abuse them, but that´s another issue.

If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable", then isn´t that a bit unfair on good, honest and reliable developers?

We don´t live in a 23rd century moneyless community, and communism didn´t really take off in its various guises, so what are you promoting, a utopian future in every sense, a turn away from capitalism? But how can this just apply to software?

Regards, Rob

#

Rob, if you read the article properly Richard explains what is meant by Free Software in the first paragraph.

"Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee."

In other words, he's not advocating software developers working for nothing but just the code should be available in source form for the user to change (bug-fix?) if necessary.

Also, (and what follows now is just my own opinion) while it's no doubt true that most of the software in the public domain is written by volunteers, I really can't imagine the software developers at large companies such as SuSE/Novell, IBM, Sun, etc, who work on free software and those like myself who develop software for the public sector working for nothing! (In fact it is precisely the kind of sharing and collaboration in the free software world that is most beneficial for the public sector and ultimately for the taxpayer. So to counter your argument, why should the taxpayer foot the hugely inflated licensing costs of a privately-held company?)
Of course, charging for a product that has been developed at great cost to you is necessary but, and with particlar attention to things like file formats, proprietry code does not necessarily lead to more competition, in fact in the software world it is more likely to stifle it and lead to the monopolistic practices and bullying tactics that we all know so well by now. So the argument, in my opinion, is not about turning away from capitalism at all but, given that the IT industry and the internet in particular is so potentially world-changing, it's more about profiting responsibly, predominantly from service and support agreements without resorting to the extortion tactics of licensing and forced upgrades. After all, if the company who made your car refuses to service it there's always another parts producer and mechanic. Software doesn't work that way so we cannot apply the same business rules. We need the free software model if we want the IT industry to remain a competitive arena for innovative businesses to thrive. It may be ahead of it's time but it's time we started thinking ahead. And besides, not everyone want's to drive a Ford.

#

Richard Stallman is partly right but I think he misses an important reality. The reality is that people use what is practical and the simple fact is that Windows is generally more practical than Linux and that's why Linux only has a small portion of the desktop share. If Linux were a better option for the price then people would use Linux. But it's not.

Now why isn't Linux a better option yet? Because the free software community is simply not as effective as a well-financed corporation. Many talented people choose not to write free software because they need income - I am one example.

There is also nothing wrong with writing software for profit if people are willing to pay for it. This is a free country and most people are still freely choosing Windows over Linux even if they have to pay for it. That's a simple fact.

Free software is not generally succeeding. Do I like the proprietary license agreements? No. I think it's ridiculous. If Microsoft allowed honor system copying of their software would people be ethical about it? No. I have seen so many people illegaly copy software with no regard to the license agreement. Let's face it people are often unethical also. So companies have no choice but to have strict licenses. We pay more for licenses to make up for those who copy like a store has to cover losses for shoplifting.

Linux or another OS could have already surpassed Windows if people could make a living writing it.

People just use the best option available until something better comes along. By the time Linux is better, Microsoft will have already shifted strategies to a new game where the OS is less important. Ever heard of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET? The free model has not and will likely never outperform a corporation. Do I like the free software concept. Yes, certainly the ability to copy and share. But it's not happening. You need an organization with financial backing and good management to really produce a professional product in a timely manner. Just a fact of life.

#

Why shouldn´t someone charge for their software if its good and usefull<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If software developers should work for free.

There is a big difference between not charging for software and working for free. If you look at all the succesfull Open source projects, most of the head developers are being paid to write open source software. How is this possible?

The first thing to realize is that the vast majority of software written is in-house custom software. Shrink-wrapped software only makes up a small but very visable portion of the market. Now if you are a company who needs a peice of software to do X, you have a couple of options. First you can buy a shrink-wrapped peice of software that doesn't completely meet you needs. Second, you can write the software from scratch, which is most expensive, but you can get exacly what you want. Third, you can find a peice of open source software which is close to what you need, and pay someone to modify it to best match your needs. This is often the most cost effective solution. And of course it is more cost effective to hire a developer that already has experince with the code base, and has demonstrated himself proficient. Therefore the origninal developers have a significant advantage in the labor market (whether they choose to leverage it is up to them).

This isn't anything like communism. It simply changes the software industry from a product market to a labor market.

#

Well "Slippy_Gecko", I do understand what Richard means by "free software", and I´ve read many comments about "free software" not actually being meant as money-free, but more like usage-free, so I´m clear on this issue (I hope!)!
I´m all for a reasonable world, but if professional developers made their source code available, users, some of whom may be commercial customers, will be able to use that software, or embed it, freely for their own benefit without the developer knowing; and I can´t see how you can stop that. That´s the problem as I see it, and I can´t see anyway around it.
Of course if commercial software has bugs, and the manufacturer won´t or can´t fix it, then the user would face the same problems we could all suffer with any complex product, and the remidy is to return the product or by another, and in the operating system arena, we now have a good alternative to Windows, so there is a choice!
Your analogy with the cars, in my view, is flawed as I don´t think you can buy second-source parts for all cars, and all parts for all cars, especially complex parts like engine management systems.
Take a real example, Midas ViewPoint, a specialised multimedia/custom TV player application. If the developer released source code it would have no control over licensing the product, and many hard-nosed commerical customers would just use the product in their embedded systems, especially as this product is proven reliable and flexible enough, too much some say, for 90% of all applications, and they would not even worry about support. The loss would be enormous!
So I think that there will always be a place for some specialised or professional/complex commercial applications, unless you can see a way of guaranteeing commerical clients would not abuse access to source code!?
regards, Rob

#

I certainly agree about your source code release comment if customers can´t get support, especially in Microsoft´s case! Haven´t they, for one, always put out largely money-making minor upgrades (i.e. 95 to 98, 2000 to XP) and then tried to "coerce" everyone to upgrade at high cost? I´m still using Windows and Office 2000 and have no plans to use XP or Office 2003/4, so I hope that MS don´t try that old sham before we migrate everything to Linux!

#

"Nonothread", I cannot disagree with you more strongly! Linux came after Microsoft, and that´s the only reason the desktop share is smaller today, give it a reasonable time, say 3 or 4 years, and the geography will be entirely different. You go on to say "If Linux were a better option [than Windows] for the price then people would use Linux. But it's not!", and I can only disagree. You can´t compare a relative new-comer like Linux to Windows, which was first released in ´85, although it didn´t work in a usable manner until version 3 in ´91! For all of Microsoft vast finances, Windows is still a very sad excuse of an operating system. It´s poorly designed, terribly inefficient, has nasty user-response times under many conditions, and that´s how Microsoft like it! Upgrades forever cry´s Bill! Look at RedHat version 9. It´s free, easy to install, comes with bundles of applications, and it makes Windows look like nothing special; I use it and prefer it. My view is that in 5-8 years Microsoft will be almost out of the game, or have their own Linux release - rumour is that Microsoft has already formed a Linux team to study the feasability of a Microsoft Linux release. No, for sure, Microsoft are in trouble for two reasons, one is that less people are upgrading now that Windows and Office 2K are reasonably effective, that develoeprs are bored by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, which is another nasty MS monopolistic strategy, no one will pay to use apps from an MS server under the proposed new pay-online license scheme, and new releases of Linux are eroding the desktop market. Wait and see, but I´d sell those MS shares fast, and I mean fast!

#

Very small percentage of desktops are using Linux. Free UNIX-like OS has been underway for 20 years.

#

Yes of course,but what I mean is that Linux needed time to reach "escape velocity" as a new product, to pick up hardware support, not just a functional Unix-based core, and that´s only happened in the last year, in my view. You know how fast new software can take off, and my bet is that Linux is going to continue to gain momentum fast. Lets look again at Christmas 2005!

#

I'm all for knocking off the Microsoft monopoly. I just think all these companies that claim to back Linux should actually pitch in on the development and bring it to a viable desktop much faster. I'm tired of "It's almost there." I want it there NOW. I would help because that's my field but there's no incomce in it and Richard Stallman's social views are opposed to my Christian values, so I refrain from getting involved.

#

Have you installed RH9? Or one of the other newer releases from other firms? RH9 is so easy to install, all the drivers configured automatically for my PCI and AGP cards, USB, etc., and it worked. full stop. The StarOffice suite is, well, sweet, works like a dream, I can read Office documents, create the most complex wp documents, spreadsheets, etc., many other free applications are included, screen-savers like the revolving 3D V6/8 engine simulation with spark plugs firing... it all looks great, even exciting compared to Windows on my other desktops, so where´s the problem? For sure there must be a few issues, but I can´t even get Windows 2K or XP to work reliably or properly with some of my Matrox graphics cards! As far as I can see, it ready, at least on the 5 sets of quite standard hardware configurations we´ve tested.

#

You are certainly a convincing advocate. I may try it. I still don't like Richard Stallman's views on abortion, religion etc. so I refrain from promoting his whole culture. I am also offended that the shell mocks Christianity by calling it the "Bourne Again Shell" (bash). I am all for the Linux concept but I am very serious about my faith also. At lease Microsoft keeps their offenses out of their software.

#

Try it, you might be surprised! As for other people´s views or comments on religious issues, I become more religious everytime the scientists are lost trying to explain the origin of life! The more they learn (just take a look at the recent and incredible molecular biology discoveries!) the harder it becomes to explain how the incredibly complex and precise functional mechanisms that make life possible occured by coincidence - maybe if I take all my old computer bits, leave them in a bag in a dark room for 20 years, shake the bag every week, then I´ll one day find they´ve arranged themselves into a working computer that can repair itself! Scientists seem blind to the fact that its just as much a possibility that we are not the only intelligent observers, but also perhaps the observed!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I don´t know what is more incredible, but I think that many people, me included, are very confused these days.

#

Yes, again, I agree with you, but what a change it is! I can appreciate that individual consultants or even small groups can make a living in this new and attractive open culture, but I think that companies can´t, because they need products that they can sell in some volume to generate the revenue needed to cover the costs of sometimes lenghty development cycles. This will take the traditional resource-focusing role away from centrally managed companies, and put it in to the hands of the open source community, and I wonder if that will work well in all things. Time will tell; it´s sure going to be an interestind decade ahead!

#

Someone earlier equated us programmers with wheat farmers.... I don't think I'm going to look forward to that future, when there is no product market and only a labor market. What fun would that be?

#

Money and the pursuit of knowledge, curiosity really, are common factors. Curiosity is a good survivial trait because the more you know about your environment and resource, the more you can use them to your benefit. I doubt anything we do is really altruistic as we are motivated by predetermined behavioural instincts. And the pursuit of money is really just the pursuit of security and power (power to do what you want). The problem is when some individuals do it to excess at the cost of their peers. The likes of Bill Gates are, in my opinion, unbalanced extremists, perhaps caused by childhood insecurity or megolamania, which can also cause a need to overachieve (at the costs of other important and rewarding factors in a persons life, or that of the community). Well, that´s how I see it anyway!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Yes, I had the same thought about that copyright message at the end of his speech!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) It does seem a bit ludicrous really, and I wondered if it was a joke! Double standards?

#

I am pleased that someone out there see´s the problem with Richard´s statements!! There is a place for free software, and if that place should grow, then it should be through natural selections!

#

I don´t think your restaurant analogy works either! You can´t equate restaurants with software, largely beause you don´t make one meal and use it for months at a time, like software, and people are often too lazy to cook for themselves, and like to be treated! Your idea would also dramatically cut reveneues to the developing company, many of whom reinvest large percentages of revenue into research and development - your plan would destroy their R&D budget! As a free software developer, will you invest your own money to buy special software tools or development hardware, or bring a team of even 70 expert programmers together, and keep a fulltime project manager or two working? There just isn´t enough programmers with free (as in beer) time to work on all the projects, so it has to be soem free software, and some commerical, and we can let free software evolve, freely!

#

I think you are CLOSE to the right track but not quite. I think that the government needs to step in at some point and make the following decree: If you no longer publish, sell or support your own software, it needs to be open sourced so that people still using it can fix bugs, modify it for current hardware, etc. If you do not wish to do this, then you must continue to provide support.

This would stop software companies like Microsoft from just dropping an OS when they want everyone to upgrade. I think this is the only REAL solution.

#

free for gratis.

RST has written many times in the last 20 years to pound this in. The Free Software Foundation promotes free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.


Here are the freedoms he advocates in regard to software:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
  (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
  (freedom 2).
  
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
  to the public, so that the whole community benefits
  (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  

I can reasonably see how software companies would object to freedom 2 and 3. They see software code as property, and you just don't let someone give your property away now do you.
What commercial free software does is turn this concept on its head, saying that the owner of the property does sell software, which gives the above freedoms to the user.

But how can a company survive that does this?

Interesting question. How do restaurants stay in business with the wide distribution of recipes through the network of housewives? Simple, because there will *always* be a demand for competent and valuable services. So what if people are making great tasting food at home that is just like the food you make at your restaurant. Even chefs go out to eat from time to time.

#

I do not think restaurants as good example. Duplication of food nearly costs as much. The food cannot be exactly duplicated by everybody, even by the same person. Software on the other hand can be exactly duplicated by anyone. This eliminates need to continously and repeatedly develop the same software unlike food.

#

I somewhat agree with the principles behind what Richard is saying, but also we have to be pragmatic. The world in which he describes implies complete altruism. Imagine you are in the business of producing a product. You charge people for it because there are costs involved in creating this product. Let's say its a new mp3 player. You can/should give the right for the buyers of your product to take it apart, modify it, and resell or give it away if they wish... because they paid you for the product. That makes complete sense, and in the physical world, of physical products, I agree with Stallman completely.
Now think of intellectual property. Say a book. You write a book, and you sell the rights of the book to a publisher. They print it, and charge people to buy it. You get a royalty per purchase. People are free to resell it if they wish, but people don't because they can just buy a new book from the publisher. You can see here how it is essential that people can't just modify the book without the author's permission. To do so would mean the death of the original piece of work as the author intended if people can change and mutate it.

So you see, only HALF of the "free software" principles can work here... people should have the right to distribute/sell unmodified copies of the book, but not modify it. You see, if you were allowed to modify, say, Lord of the Rings, without Tolkien's permission, then say you add one small addition to the book. Its a good addition, and most people like it. Now people will buy the book from you, instead of the original from Tolkien. Tolkien doesn't like your addition, because he feels it takes away from his intention. So he does not incorporate your addition into his version. Now more people will buy Lord of the Rings++ from you, even though Tolkien wrote 99% of the book.

That's not fair. But we are talking artwork here, lets move onto software.

Of course, software is hardly (in most cases) a piece of "art" or a work of art, in copywrite terms. So yes, there is some leeway we can give here. For software though, one of the imporatant issues is, say you write a very large program. Your company spends $1,000,000 in reasearch and development, and you start selling your product for $50each under GPL. Now someone else, adds a tiny feature to your product. Say it cost them $100 in development costs. They turn around and sell your modified product for $1each. Everyone buys their version, because of economic reasons. More for less. You are of course free to add their addition to your version, but you CAN'T possibly match their price point, since you spent so much on R&D. You're company is out of $1,000,000 dollars and now you are out of a job.

Now I'm not saying that there is no room for free software! There is definitely a place for it. But there will always be a place for proprietary software as well. I work as a developer for the trading desk at a Wall Street investment bank. We really don't have time to "wait around" until free software alternatives are comparable to their proprietary counterparts. Sure, in principle we all like free software, but the reality is, we are in business here, and making money is the primary concern, not upholding some utopian ideal. While we sit and doddle waiting for an adequate "free" replacement, our competitors buy proprietary software and are making money and doing business.

But, I might add, where there are free alternatives that are adequately comparable to their pay counterparts, we DO use them. Linux and (just recently, MySQL) is an example. Though widespread adoption is not yet here, linux is slowly moving in on certain areas previously dominated by Microsoft and Sun.
One of the good advantages is that a lot of the software we need are very highly customized, so it makes much more sense if we can dig into the code and change it ourselves to make it do what we want. In cases like those Free software makes sense. And like any good capitalist company, what makes sense ecomincally is usually the path we take.

To conclude I like to state that the most viable compromise between proprietary and free should be the aforementioned law that would make proprietary software BECOME free after the producing company decides it will no longer support a product. Or perhaps something akin to copywrite law's or patent laws, which rights expire after a certain amount of time. (20 years is too long for software, but say, 5 years sounds like a fair amount of time) After which the software becomes open source. That sounds like the most reasonable and PRACTICAL alternative to Richard's utopian but unrealistic ideals.

#

Djchan, you have several interesting points. First of all, I agree that software itself is much different from other products in that software is not physical. Like the mp3 player you mentioned, you can do anything you want with a physical product: take it apart, dissect it, and figure out how it works so that it can be modified. With the physical product, you can resell it after you have modified it (kind of like souping up a new car and then reselling it). However, with software, things are a bit different. (I'm going to try to shed some light on the "free distribution and modification" issue)

Software can be copied, verbatim. You can write one program and make a million copies of it. Car manufacturers must actually manufacture each and every car, and the bulk of the value of any given car lies in its physical manifestation, not in its original blueprints and design. Software, on the other hand, can be copied instantaneously, and there tends to be a much greater emphasis on the value of the algorithms and mechanisms of the program itself.

The algorithms and mechanisms behind proprietary software are what incur the greatest cost, not the reproduction and distribution process, which is cheap and nearly instantaneous. Going back to the car manufacturer metaphor, lets say you decide to go out and buy the new Corvette Z06 from your nearest chevy dealer. You have a nice new car, but you aren't given the ability to "distribute" it around your block. Yes, you do have the ability to modify it and resell it, but you can only resell your car once! You can't make duplicate copies of it after you have modified it and then sell all the copies!

Now, with software, since intantaneous duplication is possible, there has to be mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized duplication. Software in compiled form usually takes care of this with product key codes, or even serial keys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way of providing the source code with a program without breaking the piracy prevention mechanisms. In other words, with the source code, anyone could make a version of the program that doesn't check product key codes, and the program would then be freely distributable.

The problem here is that software is not physical. Because it can be copied instantaneously, there has to be more defined methods of controlling distribution. If someone invented an atomic duplicator that could duplicate any physical object, they could take their new Corvette, duplicate it a bunch of times, and then sell them all and make a bunch of money. I guess this in analogous to sheer piracy, but that's what a lot of R.S.'s convictions seem to shout out anyway. When I read R.S.'s columns, the words "communism", "piracy", and "dark ages" come to mind. Why does he not see the need to respect things like intellectual property?

#

You brought up some very insightful points here. Besides the chuckles that they incurred, I complete agree with you. The fact that R.S. seems internally fuming that Linux "stole his show" is proof in the pudding of what companies who develop free software are up against. ie. A losing economic model. You put 99% of the effort, and some guy comes along, puts in the remaining 1%, and steals all the glory! Thanks to Linus Torvalds for this hilarious piece of cosmic irony!

#

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why Richard Stallman always has that paradoxical message at the end of everything he writes and posts? Why shouldn't we be able to modify his column and redistribute it as we please, even selling it or publishing it as we like? What the hell is the difference between written english and written code? They are both forms of human expression. Why should Richard Stallman, of all people, advocate the protection of english writings with such steadfastness while at the same time outright condemn the protection of written source code?

When I first was introduced to the open source movement, it looked like a very promising endeavor, but now I'm beginning to see the loop-holes and hypocrisy in it. I, personally, will only use "free software" if it provides superior, convenient, and more valuable functionality than comparable "proprietary software". I will not use or promote "free software" for the sake of upholding some communistic (or "altruistic") ideals. Does anyone actually agree completely with Richard Stallman? I'd like to know.

Oh yeah, and R.S. also seems to like to mention a lot that he doesn't get enough credit for creating GNU because people don't realize that linux is built on it. Why does he complain if he supports that kind of thing?

#

Okay, does all this "open source" apply to video game developers as well? Video and computer games lean more to the side of art, media, and literature. Should anyone and everyone be allowed to tamper with the code behind video games. Companies like id software have developed some awe-inspiring games just from a programming perspective. It seems fairly obvious why they shouldn't be expected to ship source code along with their games. Game programs have a lot of advanced code to simulate physics, graphics, and sound. Should all that code be made available to the public? The content of the game (i.e. everything except the actual game engine) should at least be protected by copyright laws.

#

Those non-free programs are not trivial.

... and there will always be new ones.

Developing free replacements for them will be a big job; it may take years. The work may need the help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired to join the work on free software.

It's true that there's a lot of work to do in many areas.

But if the Free Software movement limits itself to catching up with proprietary software, then it can either loose or succeed in catching up (the moving target makes this a job that's never finished). If cloning existing software is the only goal then the movement can't really succeed: as soon as all current propriety software is cloned, there will be a whole new set of modern and innovative proprietary software.

The Free Software movement can only win if it keeps on pursuing the second goal: innovating and creating new software, concepts, and standards (not just clones or variations of existing software). Then users will have earlier and better options in Free Software, and proprietary implementers will have to catch up.

Major applications of tomorrow (today's are for example Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXPress, Dreamwaver, etc) should be invented and created by the Free Software movement.

Tobi

#

Poor King Richard,
Devoted his life to free consumer machinery. He convinces himself it's the "right"cause. Is it? What about free medicine for the indigent? What about free transportation for the working poor? What about free water for the geographically poor?
Why free machinery? So we can "read the code when we have a question?". Is that a good reason? What about open government? Why can't i "read the logic of legislation" legally?

Richard, you're an idealist. And i love you. But, your cause is less than immediate.
Don't suck more people into the intellectually complex vortex of a black hole.

#