Linux.com

Yes. All the talk about getting Sun to Open Source java is really a purple kipper. There is already a free version of java. Let's just start using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Why is it that rms thinks he is the *only* person who can understand the world of free software? I am pretty sure that developers using Sun's Java are aware of the ramifications-I know I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

I am Free to choose the platform/language for my application, if you don't like it-don't use it. That's FREEDOM!

Regards,

iaebg

#

Microsoft Windows and a few such "non free" packages that I rely on cost a total of about $1000. That is what my employer pays for a few days of my services. I figure they cannot come much cheaper, and I figure that the extra weeks work I might put in on "free" software is not really "free".

#

Your talking free as in beer, RMS is talking free as in speech, learn the difference.

#

It would help if RMS would not monopolize the word 'free' and use it differently than, say, 90% of all other people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;o)

#

so you're saying 90% of all people care more about their pocketbooks than about their rights and liberties? the sad thing is you're probably correct.

#

in fact he is not monopolizing it. And he is not using it differently. You are in error. The English word "free" simply has 2 different meanings.

#

I agree with you. I have thought for some time it would be helpful if RMS would drop the word free and start using the word liberated . The word free confuses people.



Sean Stidman

#

The answer to your question is provided both by your post (with its reducitonist definition of freedom) and the moron below who proudly annouces that 1000 bucks worth of (louzy IMHO) software from M$ is *his* understanding of freedom.

If there is anybody out there who understands what free software means - its RMS and the people at the FSF.

All others define "freedom" the way Walmart would or, worse, the way the US State Department would. Their definitions are all variations on:

"Freedom is Slavery"!

Guys, for you who are not brainwashed yet: SUPPORT THE FSF!

https://agia.fsf.org/associate/member.py?stage=1

#

I am Free to choose the platform/language for my application, if you don't like it-don't use it. That's FREEDOM!

once again with this semantic merry-go-round. i'm sick of hearing this version.

yes, you have the "freedom" of choice to choose non-freedom. but what you end up with is less freedom than you'd have had you chosen a free alternative.

duh.

#

Sun has put a lot of work and effort into Java, and I appreciate the fact that it is non-free. I develop on linux for linux, and windows, and solaris, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., because of the cross platform beauty of this language.
This is a gateway that could bring great commercial applications of the future straight to linux on release day. I know everyone wants all thier applications free in the linux world, but commercial industries such as macromedia and adobe are not going to see things this way.
Java not being free, and available on the linux platform could be of great future benefit to linux taking off on the desktop, when people can get all thier applications to run on linux, then they won't have a need for MS anymore, and MS can play as an equal competitor, instead of rule as an evil monopoly.

#

Java not being free, and available on the linux platform could be of great future benefit to linux taking off on the desktop, when people can get all thier applications to run on linux,

>> then they won't have a need for MS anymore, and MS can play as an equal competitor, instead of rule as an evil monopoly.

Indeed, maybe they won't need Micro$oft, but they'll need Sun, and by that time $un and Micro$oft are going to be identical (or almo$t).

And that's exactly the right point of Stallman. Don't use Sun's Java if you don't want to be trapped!

#

Relying on a language for application support is much different than relying on an operating system, the language will be a vehicle to drive support to linux. True, at this point Sun could bend and pull its linux support leaving us high and dry, but what if vendors did linux support, just for the shear fact that it is no extra effort because of Java.
All these applications that the casual user relies on, and is scared witless to leave behind is already on linux. One or two viruses that month and that user is ready to switch. And once linux gets about a 30% in the market, Sun could pull support at that time, but it will only be cutting it's own throat because Microsoft in the early days has already proven that the application vendors will put support where the money is, and 30% of Desktops is a big market, they will find a way to support linux, and Sun will take a cut for not supporting.
And at this point, no home user is going to pay what sun is going to want for a computer with another OS besides linux on it, leaving MS and Linux as the main competitors, and Java finding itself in the same place as C/C++, a language, not an OS dictator.
Free software can keep using free tools, and languages, they are great, python, gcc, gtk, qt, all of these are great tools, and serve their purpose for gpl'd software. But bottom line is, a commercial company wants a commercial product to develope their commercial application to keep a lid on the source that they worked hard on, so they can make some money, and keep a competitive edge in the market.

#

Let's just start using it.

Let's not. The real Java Trap isn't that Java programs are running on non-free runtimes, it's that they're Java programs. Java is a closed system, it interoperates poorly at best with other languages and environments, and it spreads the use of interfaces that are dependent on the increasingly cumbersome Java runtime.

I would applaud the possibility that Microsoft has finally driven a stake in Java's heart if not for the fact that Microsoft's replacement isn't likely to remain even as open as Java.

#

deploring traps and applauding M$ is probably the single most stupid post ever found on newsforge.

BRAVO - you won!

#

I'm not sure that you can read really...you may have just claimed the prize yourself. The previous poster said he "would" applaud MS, if it weren't for the fact that the replacement would be even less open than Java. He is clearly (to those who are somewhat literate) saying that he is glad that microsoft is killing java, but at the same time he knows that the replacement by MS will be even worse.

Wow, it amazes me. You wouldn't happen to be a slashdot reader would you?

#

"You wouldn't happen to be a slashdot reader would you?"

That was my first thought, too.

#

You wouldn't happen to be a slashdot reader would you?

Can we even call him a reader?

#

I think the lack of reading comprehension that would lead one to think I was applauding Microsoft beats me by a nose.

#

GCJ-developed native-compiled Java interoperates quite well with C++, thank you very much.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

"All the talk about getting Sun to Open Source java is really a purple kipper."

There is a lot of talk about Sun Open Sourcing java but it's not the topic under discussion here.

"There is already a free version of java. Let's just start using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"

Amazingly enough, RMS says just this at the end of the article.

#

Amaisingly enough that's because I'm agreeing with the article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Before we had the GNU C compiler, every C program (free or not) depended on a non-free C compiler

Ron Cain's Small-C compiler was free (as in beer) and widely used in the 8-bit world before GCC was a twinkle in RMS' eye, there were even free (as in beer) operating systems written for it back when GCC was still "entrapped" by the need to run on proprietary hardware and systems.

#

But, remember, that Small-C was a quite seriously restricted implementation of C which limited it for many.

That said, it was a language a personally liked a lot and used it both for 8080 and Z80 code as well as a version ported to 68k for the Sinclair QL (QC) which I did do some quite serious work with

#

Small C... I added anonymous functions to the 6809 port I did, just for the hell of it:

i = ${ int j;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... return j; }

It was limited, but it was not that far from the pre-V7 language (K&R1) and it had some advantages over the V6 K&R compiler. It was certainly far better than most of the 8-bit languages available at the time, and later versions of it passed the Allman compiler and the V7 K&R compiler in some areas.

Remember that the alternatives were things like BCPL (only one data type, the 32-bit word) and assembler.

#

When Stallman says free, he always means as in freedom, not beer.

#

"When Stallman says free, he always means as in freedom, not beer."

Free-as-in-fsf software is still free-as-in-beer. In the FSF ivory tower, the GNU Deluxe Distribution costs $5000, but in the real world people download it for free. In essence they are receiving a few donations but pretending they're sales.

#

Free-as-in-fsf software is still free-as-in-beer.

Yes, this is true. But this does not mean "Free-as-in-beer is the same as Free-as-in-fsf." You are arguing the opposite point as the original poster.

#

Small C was "free as in speech" as well as "free as in beer". IIRC, it was pretty much a BSD style license.

#

So?

You seem to understand the different meaning of "free" here, so why do you post such a stupid comment while you what RMS is talking about?!

#

Geeze, this is as bad as Slashdot.

You'd think people would google around and find the original code and article, and see that it was free as in speech as well as free as in beer.

#

Geeze, this is as bad as Slashdot.

again with the anonymous slagging of slashdot. i think it's great.

#

All great things are tragically flawed, just ask William Shakespeare.

Slashdot can be great without this is as bad as slashdot being anything but piquant and precise commentary.

#

One of the central laws of this universe is exchange. Give and take, in a balance. This is not a question of taste but of observation.
Insisting to receive something without the willingness to give something back in return may be a popular attitude today - but it is just the base of criminality. Be it in some dark alley or in the modern manager's shiny office.
No product has ever been free in the sense that there was no exchange required for its production. I love OSS but I will never fool myself into believing that its creation was free. Somebody DID pay for the food, shelter and clothing of the programmers who write OSS. Somebody DID give something to these programmers so they could do their job.
Sun invested an incredible amount of brilliant work into Java and it is the best platform (it is not just a language!) for developing software today. Java is BY FAR free enough to be used in any meaningful way you please. This is easily proven by the fact that an OSS implementation CAN and DOES exist.

Ethical behaviour would mean to start giving something back to Sun so that this company and its great staff can continue their excellent work!

#

"One of the central laws of this universe is exchange. Give and take, in a balance. This is not a question of taste but of observation."

Implication is that "Free Software" users don't give anything back. You are a shill and a troll who understands less than enough about open source community transactions. Typical.

"Insisting to receive something without the willingness to give something back in return may be a popular attitude today - but it is just the base of criminality."

Ahh, lets perpetuate a little FUD for our friends, shall we? Free Software users are CRIMINALS, dontcha know. *You* are the criminal, sir. Back in your hole.

"No product has ever been free in the sense that there was no exchange required for its production."

Somehow we all have to figure out how to prevent the confusion between "free" and "Free", which are two VERY different things. The "free as in beer" phrase might have been amusing in the early days, but it *thoroughly* trivializes the "real" meaning of Free. One of those "free's" is going to have be a different word. Evil people have and will continue to exploit the free/Free confusion to the detriment of all.

Think you know what a hacker is? Well, the definition got hijacked by sound-bite media, and a hacker is now a whole different thing than when it was coined, whether you like it or not. Same thing is happening to "Free Software". This needs to be addressed by RMS soon, IMHO, the problem just gets worse as time rolls by.

#

Microsoft may be the Evil Empire, but exactly how many people does development of the LINUX OS employ? Free software is great, as long as you don't program for a living. Luser.

#

Microsoft may be the Evil Empire, but exactly how many people does development of the LINUX OS employ? Free software is great, as long as you don't program for a living. Luser.

well, luser, you could try asking a whole ass-load of IBM developers who spend time on the kernel. and a bunch of the guys Sun pays to develop OpenOffice/StarOffice. Or the netscape/mozilla guys whom AOL used to employ.

the vast majority of people who program for a living do NOT write shrink-wrapped commodity software like OS's and office suites. they write code for their companies, in virtually every business market that exists.

if you're writing proprietary shrink-wrapped commodity software, yeah, you might think about a career change. that doesn't mean it's destroying the profession of writing software - it just means that certain kinds of software will no longer be developed in the proprietary paradigm.

#

"well, luser, you could try asking a whole ass-load of IBM developers who spend time on the kernel."

They are just a handfull, not a whole assload.

"and a bunch of the guys Sun pays to develop OpenOffice/StarOffice"

Se above.

"Or the netscape/mozilla guys whom AOL used to employ"

Yes, they _used_ to employ them.

"the vast majority of people who program for a living do NOT write shrink-wrapped commodity software like OS's and office suites"

No, but they do write propietary software. Nearly all open source developers work for free, they don't get paid for the software, they don't get paid for support, they don't get paid for manuals, they do not get paid for services, they don't get paid for anything.

"it just means that certain kinds of software will no longer be developed in the proprietary paradigm."

There is no other development model where people get paid.

#

From the original poster of "Free!=Ethical":

While we probably really have a different view of life I do not believe that we are THAT far apart. Misunderstandings might well be the origin of all evil in this universe, so I would like to clarify some points:

Of course exchange does not happen always in the obvious and direct way between two persons only. Picking up the example of the mother who gives birth to a child: First of all I think children normally DO give something back to their parents, but these contributions tend to be overlooked in a money-minded world: A smile, a drawing, an offer to help etc. Not too long ago it was also usual for children to assist their parents when they became old. And finally the child will later on play the role of a mother or father herself and in that way also completes the cycle of exchange.

So obviously I do not think that an OSS user is criminal. There are millions of ways how a user can give something back to the world and probably most of us do. And of course money does not HAVE to be involved to have a valid exchange. A bug report is an obvious example of a user contribution.

On the other hand I also do not think that it is inherently evil to exchange with money. In a sane society money is just a symbol for production and it is handier than barter. The bad reputation that money has stems from the fact that money making schemes were invented, which made people rich without any honest production behind it.

The point I want to make is that Sun DOES have a great history of honest products and that they gave a lot to the world. Java being the most prominent contribution for me. By history and structure Sun depends on exchanging their products for money and I think that it is their right to do so, including Java. I have been very happy with how Sun dealt with and protected Java. As long as they continue on that line I see no need for a change. However, if Sun should ever bite the dust, then I would of course prefer that they open-source Java.

It might be a good idea for RMS to work out practical and applicable definitions for what he wants to express with subtle differences like "free" or "Free" or "free as in beer" etc. To me these terms are not SO obvious.
He might also want to work out a model about how exchange can occur in the OSS world. I think IBM obtained a patent about how to pay OSS developers. Aside from the fact that they got a patent for such a simple idea I think this is a good step.

Again: I love OSS and the people who share their products with the world in this way. But it has to be understood that not everybody is in the comfortable position to do the same. Good companies like Sun deserve the right to operate their business the way they think it is necessary to survive. They created Java and it belongs to them. They do not OWE it to anybody.

#

"One of the central laws of this universe is exchange. Give and take, in a balance. This is not a question of taste but of observation."

Who gave you life?
and what did she ask in return?

#

Get it through your thick skull that Free is not "Free of charge" in this context!
It is FreeDOM
FreeDOM freedom FREEDOM

The exchange is in the code. Someone gives to the world and the ones receiving will give back. Hence an exchange. No money, just code.
You donate your time and in exchange you earn the time given by others. No money, just code.

#

Like what said here also, but longer, free here means FREEDOM, as in FREE markets (getting stuff for free? NO, freedom to operate) FREE enterprize, etc.

With a term like FREE markets in their vocabulary, you'd think many capitalists who harp that RMS is a communist would recognize what FREE means.

#

What exactly are the economics of software? Almost all of the cost is up front, and after the product is good enough to use the distribution costs are negligible and the maintenance costs aren't much higher (ideally approaching zero).

If a piece of software is worth the cost of production to the person who programmed it or to their employer who ultimately paid for the work, then all benefits derived from that work after the sunk costs are recovered is gravy. Giving that software away costs pocket lint, but the benefit that another person/company who uses that given software may be substantial. All benefit others get from using the software is also gravy. Gravy gravy gravy.

If a work of software's value does not exceed its production cost to the producers, then maybe it is worth some fraction of that production cost. That fraction is the reciprocal to the number of times the producers must sell it to break even. The risk of that software's failure is relative to that sales target. What if you can't sell it? What if someone else is duplicating your effort and doing it for less? However, if the value of the software is nearly universal, then it is unlikely anyone can produce software that costs as much as the target market is willing to pay as a whole. This is the rockstar fantasy of non-free software. The bigger the software market, the less significant the costs (ie. distribution and production) are. The risks go up with the gravy. Gravy risk; Gravy gravy gravy risk risk risk.

So, if there is economic gain, does that mean the software is ethical? Why are we throwing ethics into the debate when it is really an economic question of quality and efficiency?

#

Ethical behaviour would mean to start giving something back to Sun so that this company and its great staff can continue their excellent work!

the free software community has offered to give back the most valuable thing of all - more code, via open source development. sun turned them down.

#

I _really_ want to start using it but I can't figure out how to get my code going.

Most of the end-user gcj stuff seems to be done by the rhug folks so it is all very rh based. I'm running Debian unstable but I'm not sure whether I'd still need patches.

Can I just download ant and go?

#

# apt-get install java-common

then read:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/doc/java-common/debian-java-faq/index.<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml

Regards,

Dale.

#

The whole article is about being usable or not in the Free World. What is the importance of having software usable in the Free World. I get the point of how Java is not "free", but why is it important for it to be free?

And how does Mr. Stallman answer the obvious problem of people working for money? I mean his stuff is nice theory, but companies hiring me want to keep their stuff very closed. Should I become a monk and eat grass just to program for the Free World?

#

Hey! Another Genius! How cool.

You have have inadvertently discovered that when Moses said "Set My People Free!" He meant that they WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYTHING EVER AGAIN!

RICHARD -- People are NOT smart enough for the subtle difference between free and FREE. Fix it. New word time.

We are talking Liberties here people, NOT PRICE.

#

> are NOT smart enough for the subtle difference > between free and FREE

I read it and I understood that despite the noble "free world" effort, as in speech, some companies he's supposed to work with do not want it. So if he wants to have a real job and money to eat real food, not grass, the "Free World", as in speech, must be ignored.

Not word problem here.

#

I hate to say it, but I think RMS has very nice food on his table.

Just because you can't live for eternity and a day on some code you spent a few monthes creating isn't necessarily a bad thing (disclaimer: I'm a coder, and I'm adapting).

Put it this way, either you adapt to a service based model, or you say hello to your Indian replacement (who in 5 years will say hello to his Chinese replacement ad infinitum...).

And to all the anti-RMS trolls on this forum:
The only reason we have the rights we have today (I'm thinking of life, freedom and persuit of happiness here) is because people, just like RMS believed in them enough to fight for them and make them a reality. RMS is just one of the few today who isn't ready to hand them over to corporations for the latest eye-candy rich application or pop single. Give him the credit he deserves and don't forget that neither Linux nor the BSDs would be where they are today if it wasn't for the GNU tools and the FSF.

#

Because he already addressed that in other texts like "Why sofware should be Free (as in speech)."

See the philosophy section at gnu.org for info.

#

Some of you guys are so arrogant. One was insulting me saying I can't tell the difference between money-free and liberty-free. And the author of that article assumes everyone knows what he wrote in the past. Wow. That's really bad.

Anyway, thanks for the reference to gnu.org.

PS: I'm not saying you are arrogant, but some other people.

#

> And how does Mr. Stallman answer the obvious problem of people working for money?

In a free world people who want free software to be improved pay programmers to do the job. They don't pay them for each copy they will now and ever use of that specific software but they pay for the act of improving it.

But that work won't be lost if the programmer has no interest in developing it further, it remains as free software for everybody to use and to improve. Not so if the programmer were caught by the omnipotent traps of non-free software and would let his programs depend on non-free software, which everybody who'd want to improve or even use that software had to get a license for -- which means paying for it usally.

Traps of non-free software subversively harm free software. These traps suggest programmers to let their free programs to depend on non-free software -- effectively preventing that program from being part of a free world. The best thing we can do is to create replacements of that specific non-free programs which are posing such great risks to free software because many programmes who only live in a partially-free world will get trapped by propriatary software -- and there are still many of them left -- will get trapped.

#

What a load of.... This article is at best misleading. Why not point out the ways Java can be used well instead of B&C.

First the standard Java libraries are FREE!

The proprietary stuff is from the IDE. And any non-Free IDE has proprietary libraries if you choose to use them. I do not - never have. BTW - the free stuff is seldom well documented or well tested - IMHO & Experience.

So, any program I write in Java is 'free' capable since it only uses 'core' Java code or GNU-licensed libraries.

#

You must have a different definition than the rest of the rest of the 'Free World.' Free means I can modify the source and freely redistribute it. I do not have that freedom with any Sun version of the Java Runtime Environment. GNU Classpath currently implements only a subset of the core libraries, not including Swing or AWT graphical components, so for many projects, it is effectively useless.

#

Might want to take a look at SwingWT, a Swing implementation built using IBM's SWT. I think there is now some work on using SwingWT to create a Swing implementation for ClassPath and gcj.

#

The reverse is equally true. I work for a company that builds technology on the Linux platform. Because both the company accountant and CEO insist that we make money (huh, go figure), I spend half my day picking through libraries to make sure they're LGPL, Apache, or BSD compliant, just so we don't accidentally give up all of our trade secrets.

Stallman always complains that source code should be free for all, but shouldn't we really have a choice. If you want your software to be free, that's fine. But don't cost me my job by forcing me to make mine free too. I see the GPL as being almost as tyrannical as a Microsoft EULA.

I release software under the Apache licenses.

#

"I spend half my day picking through libraries to make sure they're LGPL, Apache, or BSD compliant, just so we don't accidentally give up all of our trade secrets."

-- Wow. You are like the only person in the world spending precious time picking thru licensing issues. If only you didn't "have to" leverage someone else's donated code, you would be "free" of all those pesky licensing management issues, is that what you mean? Are you on Crack?

"I see the GPL as being almost as tyrannical as a Microsoft EULA".

-- OF COURSE you do. You are on crack. You are delusional from years of being subjected to the TYRANNY of the Bill of Rights (if you happen to be in the US). Freedom is never Free.

#

You're, of course, allowed not to use GPL libraries.

What you're actually saying is that you'd like all the benefits of Free Software (the superior code) but you'd like to give nothing back.

Microsoft and other companies will make you sign EULAs to use thier code and charge you thousands of dollars. It's your and your company's choice on how you decide to make money.

If you don't like the terms, don't use the work.

#

>>> but you'd like to give nothing back

No, he's just saying he doesn't want to give ALL of HIS work back to those who claim they are sharing their code free. I can understand demanding bug fixes for code you've shared, but it is unreasonable to demand someone give you the entire source code base to a major commercial application they've written JUST BECAUSE they used a few lines of your "free" code or some library with the wrong license.

#

Much worse terms are presented by companies like Sun and Microsoft.

If you don't like the terms of the GNU GPL, then don't link to it.

#

It all depends on the circumstances.

* Dual-license possibility?
* Linking with alternative library?
* Use your program internal and don't hand out binaries?

#

> just so we don't accidentally give up all of our trade secrets

You are either stupid or pretending to be stupid. You cannot accidentaly give away your trade secrets by some force embedded in the GPL. You can only do it if _you_ aren't careful enough to keep the secrets secrets.

#

This text was translated into pt_BR at <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/40" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>

Este texto foi traduzido para o pt_BR em <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/40" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>

#

What about your first version of emacs ?

#

It is my freedom as a developer to decide which tools I use, and what to do with the work I create. And I don't take "advice" from trolls like RMS who view every media like usenet or such web forums as write-only tools for their own propaganda.

If I decide I want to make some work of mine free software (which I did in the past, despite people like RMS), then I do it. However, if I decide that I want to hide my work, or just sell me and my service to the highest bidder (to earn money for food), than this is my dammed god given right.

Everyone has a slave master. The only difference between free and non-free people ist that people who are free are their own slave master. As a free person I don't take orders from RMS or other gurus. I don't submit my soul to someone else's ideology. I alone decide what happens to my work.

If RMS would have followed his own advice 20 years ago, there would still be no GNU/Linux. By his own admission he had to take non-free tools to create free software. But now he condems people who do the same? His C compiler - running on a commercial OS - is good, free software written in Java - running on a commercial platform - is bad? How come? Simple, because he says so. Did you hear it? BECAUSE HE SAYS SO! AMEN.

Oh, and he says Sun's Java is bad, all the libraries which are not available on the free version of Java are a trap. He selectively seems to forget that the millions of GNU-specific extension in all the GNU versions of the classic Unix tools tie their users in to the GNU versions of the tools. So this GNU software trap is good, while the tie-in to Java libraries is bad?

Sorry Mr. RMS, this doesn't cut it. The simple and said truth is, you don't like the language. And you are abusing your loyal followers to spread the lies and fight your language advocacy. Oh, you invite people to help you out with the GNU Classpath project. Fine, but why don't you make it easier for people to contribute? Remove the hurdles. Walk the walk instead of fighting language wars.

#

Are you trolling?

RMS is not condemning anyone, he is just asking
for you to make sure your program runs on Free Software platform, or add to Classpath, or both.

#

What you are saying is basically that software licensed under GPL is not really free in the sense that anybody can do whatever they want with it. That is true, and it is intentional. If GPL were what you want it to be, then I could take and application licensed under GPL, make a small modification, and distribute the end result as my own proprietary software. It is precisely the reason why GPL exists to prevent this from happening.

You are free not to follow this ideology. Many people choose to follow it because they see something valuable in that ideology: it creates communities of software writers and users where everybody gets much more than they give, because everybody gets all the software that others have contributed.

Forget about good or bad. RMS never qualifies any software as "good" or "bad." Forget about "gurus." These words smack of religion. Just consider if you want to contribute to the community or not. It is your choice, and it's not even a one-time decision - for every new piece of software you write, you can make a different decision. Isn't that freedom?

#

Yep. I am willing to bet that his point of view would have been different if there exist Mrs.RMS, and 3 RMS Jr.

#

I hope you're joking! Let's just look at the personal life of all the Free Software Developers and see if some of them fit the 'profile' that you're trying to establish here. I'd bet most of them are ordinary people you see at work, school, on the streets, etc.

Although, as you may know RMS is not an ordinary person (and that is partly why FSF has been successful), and I doubt him having a family would have made any difference.

#

You make money by selling programming services, not code. Protecting company "Trade Secrets" you say??? Please, as a consumer of IT products, I want source code accessibility just to "protect my investment" and "protect my interests" in how I will use it. Don't pretend that software coding is actually INVENTING anything. And, yes, that is why software patents are baseless too.

I suppose you think that what you write is really special, too. I've been coding professionally my entire adult life, and I don't consider anything I've written a "Trade Secret". Anybody, anytime, can write anything based on THE REQUIREMENTS of THE NEED. Ala, Linus with the help of his friends rewrote UNIX.

GNU, OSS, Free Software will NOT take from your plate. Get over it.

#

> You make money by selling programming services, not code.

Sure. And with selling my service, my buyer gets the right to do whatever he wants to do with my work (let's ignore the legal details). Hide it, sell it, release it as free software. This is their freedom, this is part of the deal. And RMS has no saying in this.

And when I code something for myself, I reserve the exclusive right to decide what happens with the code. I reserve to hide it, burn it, release it as free software, make toilet paper from it. This is my freedom. And again RMS has no saying in it.

He has no saying when it comes to decide which language to use. If I sell my service, then the buyer has that right. He might delegate that decission to me, or not. When I do something for myself, I have the right to decide what to use. RMS will not dictate what I can or can't use. It is non of his business.

His fscking freedom stops where my freedom begins. And it is my freedom to chose whatever language I like. I am not his inflatable doll.

#

Ofcourse, everyone is free to choose to release his or her code under whatever license they please. It is a right to choose any other license than a FSF approved one.



Just remember this. As an enduser I have the freedom to shun your software, simply because I disaprove of your choice of license. It's just like that and quite simple, so don't come whine that I steal your livelyhood, because it's simply not true. I just shop at those outfits that licenses their goods the way I like.



It's the consumer that decides to which tune you dance. You can take the freedom to code for yourself, but get another job. Coding might not yield enough if noone takes your proprietary products. It's called free market.

#

right to the point that so may people appear to miss!

I believe it will get to them, once Free Software will become the dominant force in the popular software market!

#

Need a new term for "Free"?

How about, GNU/Free?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

"we can now run these programs on free platforms."

There are other secrets:
- The code used to specify the CPU, and other chip layouts
- Manufacturing specifications of the circuit boards
- Processes used to make materials used in the hardware

If I could download complete electronic, mechanical, and software designs and code, then build a system at home from raw materials (dirt), that would be more free, I think.

#

Yes, that's true. Since people are so scared to loose their control over other people they make things like secrets, which help them to maintain power over those who don't have a secret against them.

So maybe someday, when processing and producing (maybe printing) CPUs would be cheap at home, it will become obvious to people to have a 'free' version of it - that is anyone can print their own modification of a CPU (or any other component) to fit their needs. Although this is highly unlikely due to the expertise needed to produce a CPU at this point.

#

You can make a computer from raw materials, if you have enough time. Just follow these simple steps:
1. Mine some iron and/or copper. Since you're not allowed tools, dig by licking the ground
2. Light a fire by rubbing two sticks together, cut down some trees to make it REALLY REALLY hot (cut down the trees by gnawing at them with your teeth)
3. Melt the metals into wire, using sticks as tools. This step may involve burning your hands.
4. Design some transistors (based on telephone relays, they're probably the simplest), capacitors (bent wires), etc
5. Connect the wires in logical ways (remember, one bit of semi-reliable RAM would take about 15-20 transistors). Watch out for crossing wires: they'll break the whole thing
6. Develop some form of input -- a morse-code-like system would probably be best
7. Create a clock by making a wheel which you spin manually (takes some accurate gnawing of a tree trunk). If you're clever, figure out how to use it as a source of power, too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

You get the idea.

Alternatively, just make your own CPU using VHDL and hack at GCC to compile for it.

Both options are completely viable. However, you'll find it extremely hard to create something without standing on the shoulders of others.

#

This is rediculous. Who the sh*t cares about Stallman's free rants. I just take and use what I want. Get over it.

#

"don't support all the features yet. We are still catching up"

That is practially Stallman's middle name.

For some reason, people will blindly drink someone else's urine if it's packaged as "free drinks".

#

More likely to be Microsoft's middle name. Except they never admit it. They release the product without people knowing how they are still catching up with technology that has been implemented by the Free Software developers years ago (example Mozilla vs. IE).

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and go fuck yourself with your 'free drinks' philosophy. For the millionth time: GNU IS NOT ABOUT FREE COST!

#

"For the millionth time: GNU IS NOT ABOUT FREE COST! "

For the millionth time: YES IT IS!

In all practical aspects "free as in speech" is the same thing as "free as in beer". You can't charge for anything that is freely redistributable.

#

if you've lived in the world of capitalism you'd probably know that nothing in it is free. One way or another you end up paying for everything. That is why GPL doesn't imply anything about the cost.

#