3 ms·

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. I disagree with this. There ar

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. I disagree with this. There are things you can (are allowed to) do, things you know you can't do, and things that are inconceivable / impossible. His position is that #2 is evil (because knowing you could fix that printer driver if only you were allowed to is fucking annoying), and there is a moral duty to minimize it. I think that #1 is good and should be maximized, and there is very little practical difference between #2 and #3. Minimizing #2 at the expense of also reducing #1 is bad and harmful. In practice, there is a flow of things from #3 to #2 to #1. Things are moved out of the impossible with funds from paying customers, and then made open by people re-implementing them once the hard exploratory part is done. There is also a smaller flow of things directly from #3 to #1. Some research is publicly funded or due to individual curiosity, instead of corporate internal. Some kinds of products can be funded from support instead of initial sales. Destroying category #2 would choke off the first, much larger, flow. The second would not be able to make up the difference. This result would be good according to Stallman's ethics / priorities. I think it would be bad.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
#2 and #3 have one huge practical difference: incentive. See, as far as profit-maximising is concerned, expanding the realm of #2 is very good for whoever owns the stuff. See how DRM is doing exactly that. If #2 itself was either forbidden or visibly abhorrent for everyone involved, we'd get more #1 right away. Note that there is some flaw to #3 to #2 even when public funding is involved. Many patents were born that way. This abomination should of course stop yesterday. Because right now, the flow from #3 to #1 is smaller than it has rights to be. Destroying #2 doesn't have to choke off the flow from the impossible to the possible, if adjust our society around it. Stuff like ending capitalism may do. (Of course, let's not do USSR "communism", it obviously didn't work. To be honest, I'm not sure what a good solution should look like. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve mega-corporations that own more money than entire nation-states.)
- sedachv 10y ago
  > Destroying #2 doesn't have to choke off the flow from the impossible to the possible, if adjust our society around it. I honestly cannot tell exactly what the parent comment is referring to with #1 #2 #3, but a mutual change of societal incentives for writing software enabled by Free Software is what RMS suggested in the GNU Manifesto: "In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming" https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
  - greggman 10y ago
    The GNU Manifesto contains such gems as In response to “Programmers need to make a living somehow.” > All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: > Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development. Just what software needs. A bunch of politics to decide who gets funded and who doesn't In response to “Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?” We get > What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. So the GNU solution is to ban making money from software. Hmmm
    - cantagi 10y ago
      The first one makes sense in an ideal world though. If the government exists to ensure your freedom, then it should fund the development of free software. WRT the second one, shouldn't we be free to write closed source software?
      - loup-vaillant 10y ago
        Maybe not, because that would be infringing on the freedoms of the user (study, modify etc). A line has to be drawn, and we must decide which is worse: me reading the code of the software you distribute, or you preventing me to?

loup-vaillant 10y ago

#2 and #3 have one huge practical difference: incentive. See, as far as profit-maximising is concerned, expanding the realm of #2 is very good for whoever owns the stuff. See how DRM is doing exactly that. If #2 itself was either forbidden or visibly abhorrent for everyone involved, we'd get more #1 right away. Note that there is some flaw to #3 to #2 even when public funding is involved. Many patents were born that way. This abomination should of course stop yesterday. Because right now, the flow from #3 to #1 is smaller than it has rights to be. Destroying #2 doesn't have to choke off the flow from the impossible to the possible, if adjust our society around it. Stuff like ending capitalism may do. (Of course, let's not do USSR "communism", it obviously didn't work. To be honest, I'm not sure what a good solution should look like. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve mega-corporations that own more money than entire nation-states.)

sedachv 10y ago
> Destroying #2 doesn't have to choke off the flow from the impossible to the possible, if adjust our society around it. I honestly cannot tell exactly what the parent comment is referring to with #1 #2 #3, but a mutual change of societal incentives for writing software enabled by Free Software is what RMS suggested in the GNU Manifesto: "In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming" https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
- greggman 10y ago
  The GNU Manifesto contains such gems as In response to “Programmers need to make a living somehow.” > All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: > Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development. Just what software needs. A bunch of politics to decide who gets funded and who doesn't In response to “Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?” We get > What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. So the GNU solution is to ban making money from software. Hmmm
  - cantagi 10y ago
    The first one makes sense in an ideal world though. If the government exists to ensure your freedom, then it should fund the development of free software. WRT the second one, shouldn't we be free to write closed source software?
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      Maybe not, because that would be infringing on the freedoms of the user (study, modify etc). A line has to be drawn, and we must decide which is worse: me reading the code of the software you distribute, or you preventing me to?