6 ms·

RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. RMS believes that end user of software / hardware should be in complete c

RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. RMS believes that end user of software / hardware should be in complete control, it was/is never about developers. BSD/MIT/etc lic may provide for more developer freedom, but often they are used to restrict user freedom as the code is folded/packaged into commercial projects with non-free licenses

BrainInAJar 11y ago
That's terribly ironic, since the source code is completely useless to the user, only developers.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  That is not true at all, I know many non-developers that will compile source code themselves, one that is done often would be FFMPEG where you have several compile flags that will make the software preform differently based on the options you select, This is an example of Source Code being useful to non-developers.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Compiling source code you don't comprehend and aren't capable of rewriting isn't really an exercise of freedom. You could just as well distribute a closed binary with runtime configuration options, for all it matters in that case.
    - simondedalus 11y ago
      if you're implying that everyone who usefully modifies source code or compiles with options is able to write the code from scratch, i would advise you rethink your position. to put a finer point on it, the concept of "layers of abstraction" is fundamental to computers and software. i can know quite a bit about adjusting the pieces of a program without having the ability to build it as effectively as i modify it.
      - krapp 11y ago
        Not from scratch, perhaps, but it still takes technical acumen to do anything useful with the source code at all, which implies that a non-technical user can't really exercise the freedoms of free software, beyond simply having access to the source code.
- naveen99 11y ago
  User as a developer. Not a 3rd party developer.
- lmm 11y ago
  Even if you can't make changes yourself, if you have access to the source you can pay other people to make changes you need.
- slavik81 11y ago
  That's not really true. Perhaps they can't make changes themselves, but they can ask others to do so, or hire someone. Mozilla Science, for example, tries to pair up researchers who have ideas together with developers who can code to build open-source projects. Despite the fact that the researchers may not be able to code, the fact that they have the right to share and modify the code is important.
mjburgess 11y ago
It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. Prehaps it would not be if money (etc.) didnt exist. It's always the way, however, with idealists to prescribe policies that make people free in their utopia but cause chaos in our reality.
- _delirium 11y ago
  > And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...
  - eropple 11y ago
    > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
    - Nadya 11y ago
      You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.
haroldp 11y ago
Yeah, whether I agree with it or not, I'm not suggesting he doesn't have a reasonable point to make. I'm just saying he's an asshole, and to some extent, that is working against his own goals.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
> RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly software ever made?
- detaro 11y ago
  Especially after clang showed the world how useful error messages look like. And GCC has some serious limits when it comes to help other tools, because RMS (probably rightfully) fears that if GCC outputs to detailed backend information, people would start adding non-GPL software after it and build non-GPL compilers on top of GCC. Which lead to the funny situation of people asking to include LLVM-based tools into Emacs, because LLVM allows to build code-analysis tools GCC just doesn't provide the info for. IMHO clang's success and maybe even existence is clear result of GCCs restrictions, but removing these restrictions would undermine central principles. And both compilers are better now than they would be if the other didn't exist, so good for everyone I guess? It doesn't seem possible to reach all goals with just one of them.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > > RMS wants user freedom... > And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly... Eh? User-friendliness and user freedom aren't the same properties.
eropple 11y ago
> RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. Or we reject his attempt to lay exclusive claim to a word as all-encompassing as "freedom" and to co-opt it to his personal pet ends. You know, either/or.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

BrainInAJar 11y ago

That's terribly ironic, since the source code is completely useless to the user, only developers.

the_ancient 11y ago
That is not true at all, I know many non-developers that will compile source code themselves, one that is done often would be FFMPEG where you have several compile flags that will make the software preform differently based on the options you select, This is an example of Source Code being useful to non-developers.
- krapp 11y ago
  Compiling source code you don't comprehend and aren't capable of rewriting isn't really an exercise of freedom. You could just as well distribute a closed binary with runtime configuration options, for all it matters in that case.
  - simondedalus 11y ago
    if you're implying that everyone who usefully modifies source code or compiles with options is able to write the code from scratch, i would advise you rethink your position. to put a finer point on it, the concept of "layers of abstraction" is fundamental to computers and software. i can know quite a bit about adjusting the pieces of a program without having the ability to build it as effectively as i modify it.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Not from scratch, perhaps, but it still takes technical acumen to do anything useful with the source code at all, which implies that a non-technical user can't really exercise the freedoms of free software, beyond simply having access to the source code.
naveen99 11y ago
User as a developer. Not a 3rd party developer.
lmm 11y ago
Even if you can't make changes yourself, if you have access to the source you can pay other people to make changes you need.
slavik81 11y ago
That's not really true. Perhaps they can't make changes themselves, but they can ask others to do so, or hire someone. Mozilla Science, for example, tries to pair up researchers who have ideas together with developers who can code to build open-source projects. Despite the fact that the researchers may not be able to code, the fact that they have the right to share and modify the code is important.

mjburgess 11y ago

It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. Prehaps it would not be if money (etc.) didnt exist. It's always the way, however, with idealists to prescribe policies that make people free in their utopia but cause chaos in our reality.

_delirium 11y ago
> And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...
- eropple 11y ago
  > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
  - Nadya 11y ago
    You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.

haroldp 11y ago

Yeah, whether I agree with it or not, I'm not suggesting he doesn't have a reasonable point to make. I'm just saying he's an asshole, and to some extent, that is working against his own goals.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

> RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly software ever made?

detaro 11y ago
Especially after clang showed the world how useful error messages look like. And GCC has some serious limits when it comes to help other tools, because RMS (probably rightfully) fears that if GCC outputs to detailed backend information, people would start adding non-GPL software after it and build non-GPL compilers on top of GCC. Which lead to the funny situation of people asking to include LLVM-based tools into Emacs, because LLVM allows to build code-analysis tools GCC just doesn't provide the info for. IMHO clang's success and maybe even existence is clear result of GCCs restrictions, but removing these restrictions would undermine central principles. And both compilers are better now than they would be if the other didn't exist, so good for everyone I guess? It doesn't seem possible to reach all goals with just one of them.
simoncion 11y ago
> > RMS wants user freedom... > And that's why we have the GNU toolchain, which is some of the most end user-friendly... Eh? User-friendliness and user freedom aren't the same properties.

eropple 11y ago

> RMS wants user freedom, not developer freedom That is the point people always miss. Or we reject his attempt to lay exclusive claim to a word as all-encompassing as "freedom" and to co-opt it to his personal pet ends. You know, either/or.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]