Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Free Software
RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending
By Richard M. Stallman
on
April 25, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient.
My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem in the first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it up.
There are thousands of non-free programs, and most merit no special attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach: inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to attract other paying users.
McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers. This did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged not to part with their money, but they still had to part with their freedom. They gave up the fundamental freedoms that define free software: freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose, freedom to study and change the source code as you wish, freedom to make and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified versions.
The Free Software Movement has said "Think of free speech, not free beer" for 15 years. McVoy said the opposite; he invited developers to focus on the lack of monetary price, instead of on freedom. A free software activist would dismiss this suggestion, but those in our community who value technical advantage above freedom and community were susceptible to it.
McVoy's great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component, and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy surely planned, the use of his program in Linux development was powerful publicity for it.
It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful political PR campaign, telling the free software community that freedom-denying software is acceptable as long as it's convenient. If we had taken that attitude towards Unix in 1984, where would we be today? Nowhere. If we had accepted using Unix, instead of setting out to replace it, nothing like the GNU/Linux system would exist.
Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they did. I won't argue with those reasons; they surely know what's convenient for them. But they did not count, or did not value, how this would affect their freedom -- or the rest of the community's efforts.
A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else, too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those projects face large obstacles -- the need to reverse engineer formats or protocols or pressure companies to document them, or to work around or face down patent threats, or to compete with a network effect. Success will require firmness and determination. A better kernel is desirable, to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening the impetus to liberate the rest of the software world.
When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software if the company went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long as the company remains in business. Linux developers responded by saying, "We'll switch to a free program when you develop a better one." This was an indirect way of saying, "We made the mess, but we won't clean it up."
Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a non-free program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free alternative. Finally Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a non-free program.
McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long as it is non-free, but they will no longer promote it, nor by using it teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to forget about that program.
We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Non-free programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them get a place in your life.
Copyright 2005 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Comments
on RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy endingNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
RMS' answer would be that using that tool to craft a replacement for it would be the only acceptable use of it. I'm not saying he's right. I'm just saying.
I am also one of those people who wonder whether RMS is 'right' i.e 'correct' or not.
But time and again he has been proven to be 'correct' and those of us who are willing to compromise, proven 'wrong'.
Maybe it is time to give his approach the default benefit of the doubt.
Eternal coding is the price of freedom?
But time and again he has been proven to be 'correct' and those of us who are willing to compromise, proven 'wrong'.
Maybe it is time to give his approach the default benefit of the doubt.
Eternal coding is the price of freedom?
When exactly has he been proven "right"?
Did you read the article? The use of non-free software has been shown to be a detriment to linux development, when the program's author packed up his toys and went home... leaving us with nothing but a huge inconvenience as we have to migrate to a new source management system.
err, no. someone on rms' side of things made sure that the prediction was self-fulfilling. if rms predicts the demolition of new york and then liberates it with a suitcase nuke, is he a visionary or a murderous nut? you decide.
-p
-p
I have read the article, and a lot of similar articles, making the same unfounded claims. The use of BK has not been shown to be a detriment to Linux. RMS *claiming* that it is so is not proof of anything.
Compare where the kernel is today and try to assess where it would have been, has Linus not used BK in the interim period. If you can *show* (i.e. not just *claim*) that the kernel would have been better off without BK, then you have a case. If you can *show* that the kernel development has actively suffered as a result of Linus using BK, then you have a case.
But you cannot do that, can you?
Compare where the kernel is today and try to assess where it would have been, has Linus not used BK in the interim period. If you can *show* (i.e. not just *claim*) that the kernel would have been better off without BK, then you have a case. If you can *show* that the kernel development has actively suffered as a result of Linus using BK, then you have a case.
But you cannot do that, can you?
You're overlooking the detriment caused to free software development by NOT having BitKeeper. Linus chose to use it exactly because he could make Linux better with it than he could with an alternative. If Linus wasn't more productive with BitKeeper, he wouldn't have wanted to use it in the first place.
RMS would have Linus not use BitKeeper at all, because it is nonfree. This is absolutely equivalent to wanting Linux to develop slower, since Linus would not be as productive. Is that really what you want Richard, a worse kernel? Because that's the result of the actions you've advocated.
RMS would have Linus not use BitKeeper at all, because it is nonfree. This is absolutely equivalent to wanting Linux to develop slower, since Linus would not be as productive. Is that really what you want Richard, a worse kernel? Because that's the result of the actions you've advocated.
I think you've forgotten the whole point that RMS was trying to make. Linux development may have been "slower" without BitKeeper, but now it will be slower because of BitKeeper (while a switch is made away from it).
Your argument would also hold that we should all be using Windows (TM), because it generally has better driver support and the widest available software base. There are a lot of people have invested a lot of time (and money) so they don't have to uses systems like Windows (TM).
It's not as easy as "pick the product which makes you most efficient now". Better to pick the product which most aligned with your long term goals and needs and can do the job now.
Sure, the Linux release might have been slowed down (by minutes) if they had to use a different product. But any advantage from this has already been lost.
Your argument would also hold that we should all be using Windows (TM), because it generally has better driver support and the widest available software base. There are a lot of people have invested a lot of time (and money) so they don't have to uses systems like Windows (TM).
It's not as easy as "pick the product which makes you most efficient now". Better to pick the product which most aligned with your long term goals and needs and can do the job now.
Sure, the Linux release might have been slowed down (by minutes) if they had to use a different product. But any advantage from this has already been lost.
As Linus has now created Git, which he says is better suited to kernel maintainence a la Linux, maybe it WOULD have been better if he had done that at the (sorry, I can't help myself) Git-go (;-)
Yes, oh Great Linus... Let me use the Kernel GRATIS and I will give up on my freedom.
I think you are overestimating the kernel.
sorry for just posting a link, but:
<a href="http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=46267&cid=111539" title="newsforge.com">http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=462<nobr>6<wbr></nobr> 7&cid=111539</a newsforge.com>
<a href="http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=46267&cid=111539" title="newsforge.com">http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=462<nobr>6<wbr></nobr> 7&cid=111539</a newsforge.com>
I'm not Stallman and can't speak for him, but I usually tend to be on his side on these things, so it seems likely his answer would be at least close to his.
Use the program? OK. If you have to. BUT, beware. Be very aware of how it hurts your freedom. Do not promote it. The more you need it, the more motivation you should have to create a free replacement, as soon as possible.
And don't be shocked if the next version comes out with a new license that leaves you even less freedom. Anticipate, and prevent, by creating a replacement, sooner not later.
Use the program? OK. If you have to. BUT, beware. Be very aware of how it hurts your freedom. Do not promote it. The more you need it, the more motivation you should have to create a free replacement, as soon as possible.
And don't be shocked if the next version comes out with a new license that leaves you even less freedom. Anticipate, and prevent, by creating a replacement, sooner not later.
You shouldn't stop writing free software just because you are using non-free tools. Because,
1. To do so, you must be RMS. And obviously you aren't. It's really tough being RMS.
2. On a bigger scale, if your use of non-free software makes life easy for other free-software developers, you should be encouraged by every means. Afterall, it's community over an individual.
1. To do so, you must be RMS. And obviously you aren't. It's really tough being RMS.
2. On a bigger scale, if your use of non-free software makes life easy for other free-software developers, you should be encouraged by every means. Afterall, it's community over an individual.
I myself don't object to using open source or proprietary software, however what is important to me is the data format. That is why I have have always proposed "open standards" (not to be confused with "open source").
When I create something as far as I am concerned that something I have created is mine and I have the right to know the structure of the format I have saved the information in. If I cannot get this information openly then the company that gave/sold me their software can hold my work to ransom.
It never ceases to amaze me the people and organisations that constantly let their works be fully owned by others.
When I create something as far as I am concerned that something I have created is mine and I have the right to know the structure of the format I have saved the information in. If I cannot get this information openly then the company that gave/sold me their software can hold my work to ransom.
It never ceases to amaze me the people and organisations that constantly let their works be fully owned by others.
I think RMS makes an important point here. Even if a proprietary program is distributed for "free", the owner still maintains the right to pull the plug if the end user does something that upsets him. I won't try to argue whether Tridgell was right or wrong in what he did -- that's water over the dam now. What this case illustrates though is the ability of a proprietary software distributor to hold another project (free or not) hostage.
Fortunately, in this case, it looks like pulling out Bitkeeper will cause a noticeable delay in the kernel development, but nothing that can't be overcome. The whole situation has been messy, but it is still a lesson worth remembering.
Monsieur Bilbo..
As you are probably now aware, Linus has already written a replacement.. Git & used it on a release of the <A HREF="http://kerneltrap.org/node/5031" title="kerneltrap.org">Kernel</a kerneltrap.org>. (caps for the true believers! (;-))
Would that MS were that fast!!
<A HREF="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,39196292,00.htm" title="zdnet.co.uk">"Microsoft has released its first full 64-bit version of Windows, two years after 64-bit chips (& 64 bit Linux(1)) first hit the market"</a zdnet.co.uk>
(1) my addition (;-)
As you are probably now aware, Linus has already written a replacement.. Git & used it on a release of the <A HREF="http://kerneltrap.org/node/5031" title="kerneltrap.org">Kernel</a kerneltrap.org>. (caps for the true believers! (;-))
Would that MS were that fast!!
<A HREF="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,39196292,00.htm" title="zdnet.co.uk">"Microsoft has released its first full 64-bit version of Windows, two years after 64-bit chips (& 64 bit Linux(1)) first hit the market"</a zdnet.co.uk>
(1) my addition (;-)
"I think RMS makes an important point here. Even if a proprietary program is distributed for "free", the owner still maintains the right to pull the plug if the end user does something that upsets him."
An open file format would have achieved the same effect. Closed verses open software is a red herring.
An open file format would have achieved the same effect. Closed verses open software is a red herring.
Right on, Richard.. totally agree here.
McVoy overreacted to the whole thing. So some the developers were going to create a compatible client so they could connect to his proprietary software.
Big fricken deal - I use cvs for everything I personally use - it just suits my needs.
Now instead of McVoy still getting free advertisement he has created a rift and is not getting the support of the linux open source folks.
Umm - I wonder who looses in that proposition?
Big fricken deal - I use cvs for everything I personally use - it just suits my needs.
Now instead of McVoy still getting free advertisement he has created a rift and is not getting the support of the linux open source folks.
Umm - I wonder who looses in that proposition?
I disagree , not on the context or the text , but in the end result , we loose , I would much prefer to see Bitkeeper join the rank of so many software that where freed or changed there license to the GNU/GPL.
Someone like Red Hat should try to buy the company and software and free it , there is no point in this day and age to keep or make software proprietary.
This in my opinion would be a real victory.
Someone like Red Hat should try to buy the company and software and free it , there is no point in this day and age to keep or make software proprietary.
This in my opinion would be a real victory.
...you're probably never going to see that, and it's not going to be because of what happened. BitKeeper's not going to be a "victory" of that sort, probably ever, because of the person involved with it's making. There's a reason why RMS says what he says about Larry McVoy...
Have you seen any of the posts McVoy made to LKML?
He has threatened for years to prevent allowing interoperability. By changing protocols, or encrypting them, and so on.
Now, finally, he's followed through. He was never an ally, RMS saw it, and said so many times.
Now he's proven correct (again) and people are still disagreeing.
McVoy has no interest in creating Free Software, nor in advancing Open Source - that much has been obvious for years. He claimed to be an advocate, but at every turn threatened sabotage. Now he's done it for real - and so many are surprised.
He has threatened for years to prevent allowing interoperability. By changing protocols, or encrypting them, and so on.
Now, finally, he's followed through. He was never an ally, RMS saw it, and said so many times.
Now he's proven correct (again) and people are still disagreeing.
McVoy has no interest in creating Free Software, nor in advancing Open Source - that much has been obvious for years. He claimed to be an advocate, but at every turn threatened sabotage. Now he's done it for real - and so many are surprised.
bears mentioning in this context: the right to use whatever software you please without constant harping buy busybodies like RMS. Using closed source software is almost always a bad choice, I am not running any on the machine I'm writing this on. Contrary to RMS' assertions there are some times (be they ever so few and far between) when it makes more sense to run closed source. Real freedom means people are free to choose what they deem in their sole opinion to be in their best interests without having their choices dictated by RMS or closed source owners.
we should be free to give up our freedoms, and no one else should force us to stay free if we don't want to be. Amen to that.
You probably don't realize how shortsighted that is.
The thing is that many of those who "give up their freedoms" as you put it don't give it up because they all of a sudden want to be "slaves", but because it is more convinient to them *at that moment*. Such *choice* is bound to give you a painful payback in the future.
You will suffer the consequences of your own choice. It's how the world functions: action and reaction.
So, what is wrong with someone constantly trying to persuade you not to do something that will bring you to such a situation? What is wrong with someone trying to save you from your own actions?
To kill yourself is also a choice, but you'll end up dead! What is wrong with someone trying to persuade you to spare your life and continue living??
It is your choice indeed - but according to your choice there will be consequences - those which free software movement tries to prevent, by providing you with a better choice and persuading you to accept it.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
The thing is that many of those who "give up their freedoms" as you put it don't give it up because they all of a sudden want to be "slaves", but because it is more convinient to them *at that moment*. Such *choice* is bound to give you a painful payback in the future.
You will suffer the consequences of your own choice. It's how the world functions: action and reaction.
So, what is wrong with someone constantly trying to persuade you not to do something that will bring you to such a situation? What is wrong with someone trying to save you from your own actions?
To kill yourself is also a choice, but you'll end up dead! What is wrong with someone trying to persuade you to spare your life and continue living??
It is your choice indeed - but according to your choice there will be consequences - those which free software movement tries to prevent, by providing you with a better choice and persuading you to accept it.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
What is wrong with someone trying to save you from your own actions?
The audacity of this statement and many of RMS' statements is what gets me. I don't need saving, thank you.
The fact is, the major problem I have with Stallman's assessment of things is: two people of different ideologies trying to force their will each upon the other causes more friction and harm than good.
If you are of a certain ideology (closed source software is unethical, for instance), you can harp and harp all you want at people who are of a different ideology (closed source software is not inherently unethical, for instance) and all you do is stir up animosity.
And that's no way to win converts. You end up being viewed the same way many view the Jehovah's Witness neighborhood canvasers: annoying and to be avoided if at all possible.
They're just trying to save us from ourselves, aren't they? Yet many people hold a fundamentally different view on things and their insistence on continuing to knock on people's doors and "share the good news" with them, in the long run, does more harm than good.
Which is why even though I generally agree with Mr. Stallman and am thankful for his contributions to the world in general and my freedom of choice in software, sometimes I wish he'd just hold his tongue.
In this particular case, it seemed the parties involved were Linus Torvalds, Larry McVoy, and Andrew Tridgell. I would have preferred it if Richard would've stayed out of it and just kept his mouth shut.
so....you would like to somehow keep RMS from stating his opinion on a subject that is dear to him
freedom, and also you would like to keep from being annoyed by Jehovah's witnesses?
here is a simple solution,
1) don't read RMS' articles.
2) tell Jehovah's Witnesses that you are not interested in thier message.
whew! that really developed a brow of sweat to do.
OR, would you like to somehow stop people who have differing opinions/messages from yourself from stating them?
RMS is right, put yourself is a position of depriving youself of freedom and it WILL bite you in the end.
your whole post is a slippery slope.
freedom, and also you would like to keep from being annoyed by Jehovah's witnesses?
here is a simple solution,
1) don't read RMS' articles.
2) tell Jehovah's Witnesses that you are not interested in thier message.
whew! that really developed a brow of sweat to do.
OR, would you like to somehow stop people who have differing opinions/messages from yourself from stating them?
RMS is right, put yourself is a position of depriving youself of freedom and it WILL bite you in the end.
your whole post is a slippery slope.
One of the biggest objections I have to Stallman is how he has distorted the language to his advantage. Once you agree that he represents "freedom", which is an incredibly loaded word in our society, he's practically won the battle, right? Then to argue against Richard Stallman is to argue against freedom, which is obviously what a lot of posters on this board have bought into.
Some of them practically grovel at the feet of this champion of "freedom", which I find nauseating. Right, and Microsoft is going to be our source for "trustworthy computing"!! Stallman and Gates are using exactly the same trick.
But you can see from reading this very article that Stallman is calling for more restrictions on how software is used. Maybe not legal restrictions, but strict guidelines on how the FOSS community should behave. According to him, we had better NOT use proprietary software AT ALL.
Not to mention the restrictions built into the GPL, which often require large software development houses like IBM to consult with lawyers to make sure they're in compliance. The GPL should be properly called a "cooperative software license", not something that represents "freedom". Hey, cooperation is generally a very useful thing, but it ain't the same as freedom!
These are precisely the sorts of tactics that <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451524934/qid=1114531814/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6354855-2164666?v=glance&s=books" title="amazon.com">this gentleman</a amazon.com> warned us against.
Some of them practically grovel at the feet of this champion of "freedom", which I find nauseating. Right, and Microsoft is going to be our source for "trustworthy computing"!! Stallman and Gates are using exactly the same trick.
But you can see from reading this very article that Stallman is calling for more restrictions on how software is used. Maybe not legal restrictions, but strict guidelines on how the FOSS community should behave. According to him, we had better NOT use proprietary software AT ALL.
Not to mention the restrictions built into the GPL, which often require large software development houses like IBM to consult with lawyers to make sure they're in compliance. The GPL should be properly called a "cooperative software license", not something that represents "freedom". Hey, cooperation is generally a very useful thing, but it ain't the same as freedom!
These are precisely the sorts of tactics that <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451524934/qid=1114531814/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6354855-2164666?v=glance&s=books" title="amazon.com">this gentleman</a amazon.com> warned us against.
The GPL is a free-software license because it gives software users more freedom than proprietary licenses do. Doesn't mean it gives them complete freedom - that would be public-domain.
I agree with what you just said, but that is not how Stallman has characterized it. To him, only the GPL represents complete freedom.
So what you're saying is that people like Stallman shouldn't have freedom of speech if you find what they say annoying.
Of course, I find what you say annoying. Should I have the freedom to make *you* shut up?
People who go around claiming that people's right to say things to them = coercion really piss me off. If you don't like the voice of conscience suggesting you do something personally inconvenient because it's the right thing to do, don't listen. But don't displace your guilt feelings for ignoring them into some notion that their disturbing your complacency violates your freedom.
Of course, I find what you say annoying. Should I have the freedom to make *you* shut up?
People who go around claiming that people's right to say things to them = coercion really piss me off. If you don't like the voice of conscience suggesting you do something personally inconvenient because it's the right thing to do, don't listen. But don't displace your guilt feelings for ignoring them into some notion that their disturbing your complacency violates your freedom.
Thanks for saying what needed saying. Everytime somebody's caught with a guilty conscience, you can count on them making senseless, irrational charges that expressing an opinion is "dictating" to them. It always surprises me that folks this logic-impaired can even use computers, much less program for them.
You don't seem to understand that true freedom comes from making your own decisions, not having them dicated to you. I no guilt in saying that.
It is true RMS has a right to his opinion. It is also true I have a right to mine and so do others in the free software movement who don't blindly follow his lordship Stalllman.
It is true RMS has a right to his opinion. It is also true I have a right to mine and so do others in the free software movement who don't blindly follow his lordship Stalllman.
I agree with Stallman. Not because he is forcing me to agree with him, but because he convinced me that he is right. I also respect him for standing with his ideology. I'm not saying I don't use any non-free software. But I'm sure trying to eradicate as much as possible of it, hoping that, one day, I will be able to having banned all non-free software.
Jo
Jo
...but despite his considerable abilities, nobody respects him for his practicality. If an ideal can't be used in the real world (a place where few people spend any time, myself included, if I can help it), then there is a chance the ideal isn't ideal.
Free (as in freedom) software is probably the best long-term solution for almost any software problem, but lack of software is never a solution for a software problem. Linus Torvalds chose what he knew was a short-term fix for the problem, and when that fix stopped working he was back where he started, because the free-software community didn't step up and provide a better solution.
Now, Linus is providing his own solution. If you want something done right, you can do it yourself, hire someone else to do it... or tell the free-software community that they are too damn stupid to write software like Bitkeeper.
Free (as in freedom) software is probably the best long-term solution for almost any software problem, but lack of software is never a solution for a software problem. Linus Torvalds chose what he knew was a short-term fix for the problem, and when that fix stopped working he was back where he started, because the free-software community didn't step up and provide a better solution.
Now, Linus is providing his own solution. If you want something done right, you can do it yourself, hire someone else to do it... or tell the free-software community that they are too damn stupid to write software like Bitkeeper.
for anyone to call Mr. Stallman a busybody shows a complete lack of understanding.
if you ever come to know what it is you're talking about, you will look back on days like these in shame, for you ignorance.
if you ever come to know what it is you're talking about, you will look back on days like these in shame, for you ignorance.
You as a person remain free to choose any software you want. The "Free" in "Free" software applies to the state of freeom for the SOFTWARE, literally. It means that the software can never, like slaves, have their freedom taken away. The software will forever more remain free to use, learn from, and modify.
those in our community who value technical advantage above freedom and community were susceptible to it
Let's us hope that they (the "Linux" & "open source" part of our community) will learn the lesson this time and finally understand that no amount of technical superiority (whether real or only perceived as such) is worth the sacrifice or compromise of our freedoms.
Let's us hope that they (the "Linux" & "open source" part of our community) will learn the lesson this time and finally understand that no amount of technical superiority (whether real or only perceived as such) is worth the sacrifice or compromise of our freedoms.
.. and exactly those freedoms allow for technical superiority to flourish.
If one is really a pragmatist, he ought to care about freedom above all - as it is the true way to technical and practical superiority.
Isn't it that the open source movement builds on free as in *freedom* software movement?
They dismiss the "idealistic" issues of freedom and yet, their "technically superior" "open source" software wouldn't exist without those ideals of freedom - if RMS never decided to confront proprietary unix and build GNU and the Free Software movement.
I always say, pure pragmacy that dismisses all "ideals" is a self-destrictive construct. You can't really be a pragmatist and don't respect freedom. For that reason, "open source" people who think it is ok to use nonfree software *betray themselves*!
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
If one is really a pragmatist, he ought to care about freedom above all - as it is the true way to technical and practical superiority.
Isn't it that the open source movement builds on free as in *freedom* software movement?
They dismiss the "idealistic" issues of freedom and yet, their "technically superior" "open source" software wouldn't exist without those ideals of freedom - if RMS never decided to confront proprietary unix and build GNU and the Free Software movement.
I always say, pure pragmacy that dismisses all "ideals" is a self-destrictive construct. You can't really be a pragmatist and don't respect freedom. For that reason, "open source" people who think it is ok to use nonfree software *betray themselves*!
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else, too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS...
I have no problems with having a free stack of operating systems, drivers, applications... everything. That would certainly be a great boon for both end users and for transmittal of knowledge. I think it's a mistake when you define it as a moral issue and insist that development of the Linux kernel be done in a certain way, even though the creator and architect of that kernel is a known pragmatist who believes in interoperability between free and proprietary software as a worthwhile end goal, not merely as a tactical step.
People like to point out that "GNU" is a recursive acronym. But Mr. Stallman's "Free Software" is likewise a recursive definition - it is a license that requires propagation of "Free Software". If you ask him why the BSD license isn't at least as "free" as the GPL, he'll tell you it's because it doesn't require the individual right holder to propagate "Free Software".
If you're not using your notebook computer or iPod, why shouldn't I be allowed to borrow it without explicit permission and bring it back in a couple days, or perhaps pass it along to someone else? Maybe that's a definition of "Free Computing" that's just as good as Mr. Stallman's. Why isn't that a fundamental human right, just as fundamental as Mr. Stallman's "free software"?
I have no problems with having a free stack of operating systems, drivers, applications... everything. That would certainly be a great boon for both end users and for transmittal of knowledge. I think it's a mistake when you define it as a moral issue and insist that development of the Linux kernel be done in a certain way, even though the creator and architect of that kernel is a known pragmatist who believes in interoperability between free and proprietary software as a worthwhile end goal, not merely as a tactical step.
People like to point out that "GNU" is a recursive acronym. But Mr. Stallman's "Free Software" is likewise a recursive definition - it is a license that requires propagation of "Free Software". If you ask him why the BSD license isn't at least as "free" as the GPL, he'll tell you it's because it doesn't require the individual right holder to propagate "Free Software".
If you're not using your notebook computer or iPod, why shouldn't I be allowed to borrow it without explicit permission and bring it back in a couple days, or perhaps pass it along to someone else? Maybe that's a definition of "Free Computing" that's just as good as Mr. Stallman's. Why isn't that a fundamental human right, just as fundamental as Mr. Stallman's "free software"?
If you're not using your notebook computer or iPod, why shouldn't I be allowed to borrow it without explicit permission and bring it back in a couple days, or perhaps pass it along to someone else? Maybe that's a definition of "Free Computing" that's just as good as Mr. Stallman's. Why isn't that a fundamental human right, just as fundamental as Mr. Stallman's "free software"?
Because borrowing an iPod deprives the owner of the use of it, but if you copy software the original possesor still has it.
Absolutely correct. In your example, the iPod is what's known as a rivalrous good. Software is a non-rivalrous good.
Something like this was dealt with in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars series. He proposed a Gift Economy for things you needed to live along side of the more conventional Trade Economy we all know and (?) love.
Alternatively, Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan deals with a surplus economy in which products are free (gratis), even hand-crafted ones, but status is earned, often with great effort.
Just two samples of alternative economic systems which I think address the questions raised here.
parl
Alternatively, Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan deals with a surplus economy in which products are free (gratis), even hand-crafted ones, but status is earned, often with great effort.
Just two samples of alternative economic systems which I think address the questions raised here.
parl
Yeah, I was thinking that if someone had gone around for two decades preaching that doctrine like Mr. Stallman then that person would have a following, too. Or maybe it could still happen.
I just want people to think a bit when they hear Mr. Stallman talk. He is charismatic and I realize he is a hero to many, and has done some important things, but that doesn't mean that we should uncritically accept everything he says, even ideas that are central to his doctrine. Aristotle was certainly one of the great thinkers of antiquity but uncritical (and forced) acceptance of his ideas may have held back science for hundreds of years.
I just want people to think a bit when they hear Mr. Stallman talk. He is charismatic and I realize he is a hero to many, and has done some important things, but that doesn't mean that we should uncritically accept everything he says, even ideas that are central to his doctrine. Aristotle was certainly one of the great thinkers of antiquity but uncritical (and forced) acceptance of his ideas may have held back science for hundreds of years.
I fail to see the connection between your post and the original article. If you see something worthy of criticism, then by all means refer to it. Nobody's stopping you.
In my opinion, it's the people who accept the idea of "intellectual property rights" who haven't thought about it critically. I agree with Stallman because he usually puts forth an extremely logical argument.
the creator and architect of that kernel is a known pragmatist
It's not very pragmatic to have your tools susceptible to the whims of their 'owners'. Non-free software is not practical...even when it is more feature-advanced (as was the case with BitKeeper). This is the fundamental problem with Open Source compared to Free Software. Open Source has only the illusion of practicality.
It's not very pragmatic to have your tools susceptible to the whims of their 'owners'. Non-free software is not practical...even when it is more feature-advanced (as was the case with BitKeeper). This is the fundamental problem with Open Source compared to Free Software. Open Source has only the illusion of practicality.
What about software for things like medical diagnostic equipment, air traffic control systems, cars, microwave ovens, etc.? Is it really a moral issue to use all of that proprietary, non-free software? Should I refuse a CAT scan or not drive a car because I cannot see the code? Software isn't just about PCs...
I think the answer to your question is... then work to free that software too.
Before there was any free software, people like RMS had to use non-free software. But they worked to liberate it. Then they stopped using the non-free version.
There is a big difference between currently impossible and pragmatic, especially in the way "pragmatic" is being described in this whole bitkeeper hubbub.
Before there was any free software, people like RMS had to use non-free software. But they worked to liberate it. Then they stopped using the non-free version.
There is a big difference between currently impossible and pragmatic, especially in the way "pragmatic" is being described in this whole bitkeeper hubbub.
why isn't everything free then?-Liberating hammers
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 26, 2005 04:24 PM
"Before there was any free software, people like RMS had to use non-free software. But they worked to liberate it. Then they stopped using the non-free version."
Unfortunately "liberation" isn't building a better hammer. But copying the proprietary hammer, then maybe latter getting around to making it better.
Unfortunately "liberation" isn't building a better hammer. But copying the proprietary hammer, then maybe latter getting around to making it better.
What about software for things like medical diagnostic equipment, air traffic control systems, cars, microwave ovens, etc.?
These are exactly the kinds of software that I think one (or me, at least) would wish to be free.
When I am flying at thirty-five thousand feet at six hundred knots or approaching another vehicle at an accumulated velocity of two hundred kilometers per hour, I want to be confident that the integrity of the code upon which these vehicles rely was freely examined by as many people as possible.
I mostly agree with RMS in this issue. Some unfree programs are conveniant, but not dangerous; they are not important and can be left out or replaced when necessary. Their protocols and file formats are well-documented and free to use. Think of Adobe Reader: If you don't like it, use xpdf or whatever. These programs are in my opinion not dangerous. But BitKeeper is a differnt kind of beast: It was extremely unfree (think of the restriction the gratis license imposed on the developers) and played an important role for the Linux development. I'm very glad this dark period is over.
RMS is consistent and is right here. The Linux kernel developers were bought off too easily, but now that does not matter because they are on the right path.
It also makes me remember that Linux doesn't have to beat Microsoft, it is Free and will remain Free what ever Microsoft decides to do.
It also makes me remember that Linux doesn't have to beat Microsoft, it is Free and will remain Free what ever Microsoft decides to do.
And I certainly agree with him about the BitKeeper circumstance. A non-free tool has no place in a FOSS development project. Where I take issue with him is in circumstances where a group develops and distributes its own applications for a fairly narrow set of purposes, does not use any FOSS input, and does not use subterfuge to prevent competition, and sells its product to private businesses or individuals. In a case like this, if the proprietary solution is superior, and folks want to pay for it, then they are Free to do that without being considered "unethical". Widely used, commodity software, or software that touches other Free software, should not be proprietary.
Where I take issue with him is in circumstances where a group develops and distributes its own applications for a fairly narrow set of purposes, does not use any FOSS input, and does not use subterfuge to prevent competition, and sells its product to private businesses or individuals.
I do not know of a single case where a proprietary company did not use subterfuge, in some form, to prevent competition. Do you have examples?
Oh dear, a lot of small companies just sells their stuff and do not eighter have time or money to invest in subterfuge to prevent competition.
Ah, OK - can you name just one proprietary company and the software they sell?
Why is that important? I was talking about the general ethical concept, not evaluating individual cases. I even left out one case: software developed in-house for private business use.
Creating and selling proprietary software is not unethical per se. Patenting or otherwise attempting to monopolize ideas and algorithms that go into software, or using Free Software and then trying to proprietize it, is.
That being said, from a pragmatist's point of view, as others here have mentioned, Free Software is generally better -- even where it's not solely technically superior, if it's *good enough* and Free, it's better than *great* and proprietary. Not morally, necessarily, but because freedom is a practical value.
Thus, I use GIMP over Photoshop Elements, even though I have access to the latter.
Creating and selling proprietary software is not unethical per se. Patenting or otherwise attempting to monopolize ideas and algorithms that go into software, or using Free Software and then trying to proprietize it, is.
That being said, from a pragmatist's point of view, as others here have mentioned, Free Software is generally better -- even where it's not solely technically superior, if it's *good enough* and Free, it's better than *great* and proprietary. Not morally, necessarily, but because freedom is a practical value.
Thus, I use GIMP over Photoshop Elements, even though I have access to the latter.
What a surprise, RMS finally telling everyone "I told you so" about the BK issues. I'm surprised that it took this long.
Saying "we'll switch to a free program when you develop a better one" is not even remotely a way of saying "we made the mess, but we won't clean it up." This can't even be considered a misinterpretation, just an attempt to put words in peoples' mouths. The worst kind of wishful thinking.
It is, however, a very direct way of saying just what it does: Linus chose to use the best tool he could find. Someone who wants Linux kernel development to use a different tool should write a better one, not whine about it.
GNU Arch has had years to implement the features the kernel development needs. Why hasn't it done that so far?
It is, however, a very direct way of saying just what it does: Linus chose to use the best tool he could find. Someone who wants Linux kernel development to use a different tool should write a better one, not whine about it.
GNU Arch has had years to implement the features the kernel development needs. Why hasn't it done that so far?
"indirect way of saying..." ?-Mayday! Pants down!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 26, 2005 03:43 PM
<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146845&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=185&tid=106&mode=thread&pid=12301807" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146845&<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=185&tid=106&mode=th<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> ead&pid=12301807</a slashdot.org>
I already addressed this over on Slashdot. I'm afraid that the bigger lesson will be lost in all the "I told you so" back-patting that will go on for the next few days.
Also as I mentioned elsewere in this free-for-all that passes for a discussion around here. A free file format would have kept all sides happy. So the battle really isn't between open source and proprietary programs, but open file formats verses closed ones.
I already addressed this over on Slashdot. I'm afraid that the bigger lesson will be lost in all the "I told you so" back-patting that will go on for the next few days.
Also as I mentioned elsewere in this free-for-all that passes for a discussion around here. A free file format would have kept all sides happy. So the battle really isn't between open source and proprietary programs, but open file formats verses closed ones.
Re:"indirect way of saying..." ?-Mayday! Pants dow
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 28, 2005 08:08 PM
"A free file format would have kept all sides happy. So the battle really isn't between open source and proprietary programs, but open file formats verses closed ones. "
Argh, how boring to hear this over and over!
A "free file format" is useless without free software that can use it.
Argh, how boring to hear this over and over!
A "free file format" is useless without free software that can use it.
a "free application" to be useful. The free file format would permit any application to make use of the data contained in conforming files.
... was that though the linux/whatever source could be accessed without any efforts, the meta information that included the changes, who did what, when was something included, etc could not be accessed without using the Bit Keeper client.
This is what Tridge wanted to overcome and hence wrote a tool. IMO, Linus and Larry simply cried wolf!! Shame on them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
This is what Tridge wanted to overcome and hence wrote a tool. IMO, Linus and Larry simply cried wolf!! Shame on them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
This hostile attitude towards RMS continues to amaze me. People get all pissed because he says not to use non-free software. Like the guy above "One More Freedom". So what if you don't like RMS saying it, you obviously don't agree, why do you have to bitch about it everytime? He is *the* most important person in open-source history. If you don't understand his speach/beer argument by now, then you never will. *Some people just don't want to pay for sofware, others want a different kind of freedom.* So enjoy the software you aren't paying for (and probably aren't donating too either), and just ignore the next thing RMS says so that he doesn't continually have to be attacked by asshats like you.
I mostly agree, particularly about RMS. I don't like or dislike him. How can I? We've never met. Even so, some things I agree with him on and others I'm not so sure. But that doesn't matter to me.
For me I cannot say it's the opportunity to use software without paying for it.... at least which physical currency. There are other means of contributions.
Anyway.
What does was his forsight with the notion of GPL. And this hoopla over BitKeeper is a prime example of how proprietary software robs you of data freedom.... no matter who created it.
Some I have read say the best tool for the job. Well, maybe so. And that is the same argument the proprietary folks like to use. Is it ok? That is entirely an individual decision. For me I stay away as much as possible.
Was it appropriate to use a proprietary app to maintain an open source project? In my view, no.
Yes I know that contradicts the last paragraph but go figure.
This hostile attitude towards RMS continues to amaze me
Yet his hostile, condescending and smug attitude makes perfect sense right?
Look, RMS is your basic communist. He effectively wants to prevent the concept of ownership (at least of IP) and create a world where no one can make any real money from development.
Good for him. And when no one has the ability to resources into basic research... he'll be happy. Idiot.
Yet his hostile, condescending and smug attitude makes perfect sense right?
Look, RMS is your basic communist. He effectively wants to prevent the concept of ownership (at least of IP) and create a world where no one can make any real money from development.
Good for him. And when no one has the ability to resources into basic research... he'll be happy. Idiot.
Much of the IP that you profess would not have been their had it not been in the PUBLIC sector first then taken and "fenced" by proprietary owner that gave nothing back to the PUBLIC.
The reason the GPL is so successful is that it PREVENTS any one individual from TAKING from the community their collective contributions and IP.
The reason the GPL is so successful is that it PREVENTS any one individual from TAKING from the community their collective contributions and IP.
That has nothing to do with communism. It's fucking golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do for you." All the gpl does is put that in writing so that if you use my code and add stuff to it, I get to use what you added. Where the fuck do you get "prevention of ownership" from that? Idiot.
Did you read this article he just wrote? His viewpoint seems to go far beyond "if you use GPL'd code, your mods must also be GPL'd, fair is fair".
Like eliminate the first "if".
Like eliminate the first "if".
Folks who understand as little as you do about open-source and free software would avoid further embarassment by just shutting the hell up. Idiot.
He's actually a competitive capitalist. Do you know he sold his Emacs as freedom software for a price? As in, you could buy a copy, but receive freedom on your end. And the GPL provides the same thing today. Yes, people are making money off of freedom software, while at the same time creating a competitive environment which can prevent monopolies. The GPL is based on copyright, which is a type of "property".
If you want to cry communism, look in the direction of BSD. But even there, owners have copyright power.
If you are in love with the concept of monopolies, then that is your problem.
Competition is the key of the freedom software movement, and capitalism is not abolished by it.
If you want to cry communism, look in the direction of BSD. But even there, owners have copyright power.
If you are in love with the concept of monopolies, then that is your problem.
Competition is the key of the freedom software movement, and capitalism is not abolished by it.
You seem to think that creating an artificial scarcity increases the availability of resources. Consider:
1. If proprietary software doesn't suit your needs and the owner isn't interested in changing it, you have to do all the work of inventing that software over again. This is a waste of resources.
2. Governments spend billions of their citizens' dollars on licenses for proprietary software, money that could otherwise be spent on research and development to benefit everyone. Do you really believe that all those lost resources could not have made something better?
1. If proprietary software doesn't suit your needs and the owner isn't interested in changing it, you have to do all the work of inventing that software over again. This is a waste of resources.
2. Governments spend billions of their citizens' dollars on licenses for proprietary software, money that could otherwise be spent on research and development to benefit everyone. Do you really believe that all those lost resources could not have made something better?
The GPL depends on the original author having copyright of the work. It uses IP, and allows the author to choose that their software be free if used in another project.
It's a matter of choice, and always will be.
It's a matter of choice, and always will be.
He's most definitely not a communist.
I can tell you I'm a pro-business libertarian and I find him both measured, reasoned, and more often correct than most.
He does, however, tell us things we don't want to hear.
That's our failing not his.
I can tell you I'm a pro-business libertarian and I find him both measured, reasoned, and more often correct than most.
He does, however, tell us things we don't want to hear.
That's our failing not his.
Did you get the 'communist' line directly from Microsofts Anti-Linux Propganda Handbook?
I'm just dying to hear how bastions of capitalism like the corporate behemoths IBM, HP, Sun, CA, etc that utilise and develop Free Software fit into your pinkos-under-the-bed conspiracy. They seem to find it profitable enough..
Or could it be that you are full of crap? Yeah I thought so.
I'm just dying to hear how bastions of capitalism like the corporate behemoths IBM, HP, Sun, CA, etc that utilise and develop Free Software fit into your pinkos-under-the-bed conspiracy. They seem to find it profitable enough..
Or could it be that you are full of crap? Yeah I thought so.
Go find me a communist who is willing to stand up for my freedom as fiercely as RMS and I just might think about joining the Party.
Then again, maybe you should learn what a communist is before you go any further, fool.
Then again, maybe you should learn what a communist is before you go any further, fool.
This hostile attitude towards RMS continues to amaze me.
RMS invented hostility in this realm. He continually proclaims to anyone and everyone who will listen that any software developer who opts to distribute non-GPL licensed software is unethical. He doesn't stop at saying they are naive, or making an unwise decision. No, he brands them unethical.
RMS is a typical radical. (radical - n. One who insistst that their way is the only right way.) He is so concerned with preserving the right of people to do whatever the heck they want that he desires the end of your right to distribute YOUR software in the way YOU want.
Every good idea taken to its extreme is ridiculous. Don't attack the ridiculers when they prove that maxim.
A look at <A HREF="http://www.stallman.org/" title="stallman.org">stallman.org</a stallman.org> will show you what hostility looks like...
RMS invented hostility in this realm. He continually proclaims to anyone and everyone who will listen that any software developer who opts to distribute non-GPL licensed software is unethical. He doesn't stop at saying they are naive, or making an unwise decision. No, he brands them unethical.
RMS is a typical radical. (radical - n. One who insistst that their way is the only right way.) He is so concerned with preserving the right of people to do whatever the heck they want that he desires the end of your right to distribute YOUR software in the way YOU want.
Every good idea taken to its extreme is ridiculous. Don't attack the ridiculers when they prove that maxim.
A look at <A HREF="http://www.stallman.org/" title="stallman.org">stallman.org</a stallman.org> will show you what hostility looks like...
RMS invented hostility in this realm. He continually proclaims to anyone and everyone who will listen that any software developer who opts to distribute non-GPL licensed software is unethical. He doesn't stop at saying they are naive, or making an unwise decision. No, he brands them unethical.
Oh yeah? Go read it again. He doesn't call anyone unethical. He says the software is (rather, its use).
RMS is a typical radical. (radical - n. One who insistst that their way is the only right way.) He is so concerned with preserving the right of people to do whatever the heck they want that he desires the end of your right to distribute YOUR software in the way YOU want.
If you notice, he doesn't harp about people releasing non-free software...what he harps on is what software should be *used*. He isn't mad at BK for being non-free, he's concerned that a free software project would use it. So saying stallman is trying to take away your freedom to distribute your software the way you want to is rediculous.
A look at stallman.org will show you what hostility looks like...
I have, can you point to some hostility? What I see is passion for what you think is right.
Oh yeah? Go read it again. He doesn't call anyone unethical. He says the software is (rather, its use).
RMS is a typical radical. (radical - n. One who insistst that their way is the only right way.) He is so concerned with preserving the right of people to do whatever the heck they want that he desires the end of your right to distribute YOUR software in the way YOU want.
If you notice, he doesn't harp about people releasing non-free software...what he harps on is what software should be *used*. He isn't mad at BK for being non-free, he's concerned that a free software project would use it. So saying stallman is trying to take away your freedom to distribute your software the way you want to is rediculous.
A look at stallman.org will show you what hostility looks like...
I have, can you point to some hostility? What I see is passion for what you think is right.
He doesn't call anyone unethical. He says the software is (rather, its use).
Which is it? Is the software unethical, or is everyone who uses it, as your parenthetical editorial comment suggests?
What RMS said is, "The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long as it is non-free"
I hate to tell you this, but you cannot call an object or idea unethical without impugning the object's or ideass creator for being unethical as well. Your hair-splitting still leaves RMS in the same boat. He still condemns everyone who does things in any different way from what he declares to be the one true way. That is the definition of radical. There is no compromising with a radical, and there is no compromising with RMS. Just ask those who are devoted backers of the BSD license.
In RMS' "utopian" world, there would not have been a UNIX to replicate for functionality. Without proprietary software rights, Bell Labs would never have been set up by AT&T, we would have never heard of K&R C, or Multics, and none of this discussion would be occurring.
If RMS and those who unswervingly swear allegiance to him ever rule the world, anarchy will be the end result.
Lest you call me a troll, I earn my living working on UNIX, Linux, and *BSD systems. I love Linux, and I am so thankful that I picked up that copy of RedHat off the shelf in '98, but I will just as happily use FreeBSD if it makes more sense for the task/problem at hand. I wouldn't go back to Windows for anything. (Had enough years of answering the pager when a server needed its daily reboot.) But I will never agree that RMS' way is the only "good" way. It is the height of arrogance to believe that everyone but me is wrong.
Which is it? Is the software unethical, or is everyone who uses it, as your parenthetical editorial comment suggests?
What RMS said is, "The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long as it is non-free"
I hate to tell you this, but you cannot call an object or idea unethical without impugning the object's or ideass creator for being unethical as well. Your hair-splitting still leaves RMS in the same boat. He still condemns everyone who does things in any different way from what he declares to be the one true way. That is the definition of radical. There is no compromising with a radical, and there is no compromising with RMS. Just ask those who are devoted backers of the BSD license.
In RMS' "utopian" world, there would not have been a UNIX to replicate for functionality. Without proprietary software rights, Bell Labs would never have been set up by AT&T, we would have never heard of K&R C, or Multics, and none of this discussion would be occurring.
If RMS and those who unswervingly swear allegiance to him ever rule the world, anarchy will be the end result.
Lest you call me a troll, I earn my living working on UNIX, Linux, and *BSD systems. I love Linux, and I am so thankful that I picked up that copy of RedHat off the shelf in '98, but I will just as happily use FreeBSD if it makes more sense for the task/problem at hand. I wouldn't go back to Windows for anything. (Had enough years of answering the pager when a server needed its daily reboot.) But I will never agree that RMS' way is the only "good" way. It is the height of arrogance to believe that everyone but me is wrong.
I'm going to use an analogy to which you may object, but that I think makes its point well.
Identity theft is rampant these days. Crooks want to get your credit card number, social security number or password, so they can masquerade as you and buy nice things at your expense.
Do you think this is ethical? No? Then you're condemning everyone who does things in any different way from what you declare to be the one true way (buying things without stealing identities).
That's different, of course, because nearly everyone agrees identity theft is wrong. Whereas a lot of people see no problem with non-free software.
But look a little deeper. Why is it people don't see a problem with non-free software? It's simply because of the culture we live in. Very many businessmen are working very hard to remind us that sharing is wrong. Non-free software is ubiquitous. You've probably used it your whole computer-using life.
You can say that non-free software is different, because identity theft takes away something you had before, and non-free software doesn't. That's true, if software exists in a vacuum.
Software doesn't. Tried looking for a job recently? Maybe you personally can hack on *nix systems and be happy, but suppose you didn't have those skills, and had to get a normal job. Chances are you'd have to submit a resume in Microsoft Word format. And use Windows at the office. In other words, you are forced to give up important freedoms. If non-free software didn't exist, this would not be the case. You don't need to agree to a EULA to use a typewriter.
I submit that if someone needed K&R C and Multics, K&R C and Multics would've been written. Or rather programs of equivalent utility. It doesn't have to have happened at AT&T.
Identity theft is rampant these days. Crooks want to get your credit card number, social security number or password, so they can masquerade as you and buy nice things at your expense.
Do you think this is ethical? No? Then you're condemning everyone who does things in any different way from what you declare to be the one true way (buying things without stealing identities).
That's different, of course, because nearly everyone agrees identity theft is wrong. Whereas a lot of people see no problem with non-free software.
But look a little deeper. Why is it people don't see a problem with non-free software? It's simply because of the culture we live in. Very many businessmen are working very hard to remind us that sharing is wrong. Non-free software is ubiquitous. You've probably used it your whole computer-using life.
You can say that non-free software is different, because identity theft takes away something you had before, and non-free software doesn't. That's true, if software exists in a vacuum.
Software doesn't. Tried looking for a job recently? Maybe you personally can hack on *nix systems and be happy, but suppose you didn't have those skills, and had to get a normal job. Chances are you'd have to submit a resume in Microsoft Word format. And use Windows at the office. In other words, you are forced to give up important freedoms. If non-free software didn't exist, this would not be the case. You don't need to agree to a EULA to use a typewriter.
I submit that if someone needed K&R C and Multics, K&R C and Multics would've been written. Or rather programs of equivalent utility. It doesn't have to have happened at AT&T.
You are confining freedom to a single dimension. In the same way that I would *never* support *any* effort to outlaw open software in general, or to invalidate the GPL in particular, I would also *never* support any effort to outlaw proprietary software.
There is nothing at all unethical about McVoy deciding to offer a proprietary version control system. Neither I nor you have the right to demand that he give us the fruit of his labors, or the right to produce derivatives from it. Anything to the contrary is socialist. That said, it is equally true that McVoy has no right to require someone to use it against their wishes.
Any educated person who reads RMS' personal site can ascertain that he is in sympathy with groups (such as the ACLU) that eschew any authority outside the individual. This is at odds with any societal structure that protects private property rights, whether intellectual or real.
One can make a case that RMS' is the key figure behind the existence of Linux. (The case could also be made for Linus, clearly, and I would tend to side that way, as Linus seems able to manage a massive project and would have created the needed pieces that came from GNU, while GNU has still not produced an operating system apart frim Linus' kernel that is suitable for widespread adoption. Stallman's idealism has been less
There is nothing at all unethical about McVoy deciding to offer a proprietary version control system. Neither I nor you have the right to demand that he give us the fruit of his labors, or the right to produce derivatives from it. Anything to the contrary is socialist. That said, it is equally true that McVoy has no right to require someone to use it against their wishes.
Any educated person who reads RMS' personal site can ascertain that he is in sympathy with groups (such as the ACLU) that eschew any authority outside the individual. This is at odds with any societal structure that protects private property rights, whether intellectual or real.
One can make a case that RMS' is the key figure behind the existence of Linux. (The case could also be made for Linus, clearly, and I would tend to side that way, as Linus seems able to manage a massive project and would have created the needed pieces that came from GNU, while GNU has still not produced an operating system apart frim Linus' kernel that is suitable for widespread adoption. Stallman's idealism has been less
Dilemma
Posted by: orv on April 25, 2005 09:35 PMThe tool I use is IDAPro a heavy duty reverse engineering tool.
I love the product. I think the people that develop it are great. The product even has a clause in the license agreement stating that I can if I want reverse engineer their software.
Should I refuse to use all non-free tools? Even if as in this case they help me immensely in producing other free software?
Yours in a dilemma,
<A HREF="http://www.ivor.it/" title="www.ivor.it">Ivor Hewitt</a www.ivor.it>
#