5 ms·

I really dislike the image Stallman pushes of the FOSS movement. I stopped reading after "(referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in their propaganda)." set

I really dislike the image Stallman pushes of the FOSS movement. I stopped reading after "(referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in their propaganda)." set the likely tone for the rest of the article.

javert 17y ago
Same. Proprietary software can't "take away your freedom" under any meaningful definition of "freedom".
- wmf 17y ago
  I don't agree with RMS's politics, but the fact that you don't consider positive freedom to be meaningful (even though a large fraction of the population apparently subscribes to it) probably says more about you than about RMS. (If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/)
  - ez77 17y ago
    Using your own source, "Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes." Must one's (everyone's?) fundamental purposes include having all software available by law? If so, that's a mightily counterintuitive notion of freedom, be it positive, negative, or else.
  - tbrownaw 17y ago
    It has nothign to do with positive vs. negative freedom; the set of "things you can do" when you have only open software available is a strict subset of "things you can do" given that same open software and also the alternative of closed software. Closed software can only limit your freedom if its existence inhibits the availability of open software.
  - javert 17y ago
    This is an overly simplistic take on what I was getting at. For example, it could be said that proprietary software increases the "positive freedom" of proprietary software developers. So then what's wrong with them releasing proprietary software? Isn't that what they should do, if it works best for them---makes them the most money or whatever, and thus increases their "positive freedom"? One of the big problems with RMS is that he just throws out terms like "freedom" without stating what he means, giving a moral justification, and showing how they can be applied correctly.
- esspem 17y ago
  Proprietary software does take some of your freedom away due to government granted monopoly (copyright). For example, you are forbidden to to make a copy of it.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    The government granted monopoly (copyright) is what gives open source licenses, like the GPL, their power. Depending on the exact license, you aren't allowed to make a copy of non-proprietary software either. Copyright doesn't say you aren't allowed to make a copy, it says that the owner of the copyright is allowed exclusive exploitation of the work, which is sellable/transferable to other parties, and is often restricted based on conditions -- with proprietary software, these conditions are usually only money changing hands.
    - esspem 17y ago
      As far as i understand, GPL license is a "hack" for living in copyright world, until the abolishment of copyright.
      - thwarted 17y ago
        Yes, this is called working within the system to subvert it. It applies copyright like no one else conceived of, at the time the GPL was created, to achieve an ends other than "make money". If there was no copyright, or copyright is abolished, would there be a need for the GPL?
  - rick888 17y ago
    The GNU license requires all forks to also be open source. This means that I won't be able to add open source software to my proprietary application without all of my changes also being given out for free. The Free Software Foundation also sues companies in court for not complying with their license. This doesn't really sound like anything different than the current copyright system. I would not want to live in a world where I am forced by law to give out the source to my software.

javert 17y ago

Same. Proprietary software can't "take away your freedom" under any meaningful definition of "freedom".

wmf 17y ago
I don't agree with RMS's politics, but the fact that you don't consider positive freedom to be meaningful (even though a large fraction of the population apparently subscribes to it) probably says more about you than about RMS. (If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/)
- ez77 17y ago
  Using your own source, "Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes." Must one's (everyone's?) fundamental purposes include having all software available by law? If so, that's a mightily counterintuitive notion of freedom, be it positive, negative, or else.
- tbrownaw 17y ago
  It has nothign to do with positive vs. negative freedom; the set of "things you can do" when you have only open software available is a strict subset of "things you can do" given that same open software and also the alternative of closed software. Closed software can only limit your freedom if its existence inhibits the availability of open software.
- javert 17y ago
  This is an overly simplistic take on what I was getting at. For example, it could be said that proprietary software increases the "positive freedom" of proprietary software developers. So then what's wrong with them releasing proprietary software? Isn't that what they should do, if it works best for them---makes them the most money or whatever, and thus increases their "positive freedom"? One of the big problems with RMS is that he just throws out terms like "freedom" without stating what he means, giving a moral justification, and showing how they can be applied correctly.
esspem 17y ago
Proprietary software does take some of your freedom away due to government granted monopoly (copyright). For example, you are forbidden to to make a copy of it.
- thwarted 17y ago
  The government granted monopoly (copyright) is what gives open source licenses, like the GPL, their power. Depending on the exact license, you aren't allowed to make a copy of non-proprietary software either. Copyright doesn't say you aren't allowed to make a copy, it says that the owner of the copyright is allowed exclusive exploitation of the work, which is sellable/transferable to other parties, and is often restricted based on conditions -- with proprietary software, these conditions are usually only money changing hands.
  - esspem 17y ago
    As far as i understand, GPL license is a "hack" for living in copyright world, until the abolishment of copyright.
    - thwarted 17y ago
      Yes, this is called working within the system to subvert it. It applies copyright like no one else conceived of, at the time the GPL was created, to achieve an ends other than "make money". If there was no copyright, or copyright is abolished, would there be a need for the GPL?
- rick888 17y ago
  The GNU license requires all forks to also be open source. This means that I won't be able to add open source software to my proprietary application without all of my changes also being given out for free. The Free Software Foundation also sues companies in court for not complying with their license. This doesn't really sound like anything different than the current copyright system. I would not want to live in a world where I am forced by law to give out the source to my software.