15 ms·

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn'

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? He comes back to "Proprietary software is evil" in the end. He is incapable of defending beyond that point. I think Bryan makes some very good points in the podcast below [0] that RMS fails to answer properly to. I love open source, I love the philosophy, I want to use as much FOSS as possible and I see how it ultimately will protect our society, I get that. But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. That to me is freedom, nobody is forced in that scenario. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

tequila_shot 9y ago
well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".
- dijit 9y ago
  To be fair, he's clarified why he feels this way many times. Repeating the same arguments has got to be frustrating and people might pick up on it. (assuming that RMS has very little to say but says it often). FWIW his reasons of proprietary software being evil are[0]: * Proprietary software obstructs the use of its programs * Proprietary software obstructs social cohesion, fragments communities. * Proprietary software obstructs the customisation and adaption of programs. * Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype. * Proprietary software prevents choice; swapping out proprietary software with something else can be tricky, if it's not resting on standards then sometimes it's simply impossible. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype. In fact, it's more vicious: If you have Skype, I am more likely to need Skype.
  - teekert 9y ago
    I agree with all of them. But please don't try to interfere with my freedom to ignore them as I please, which is what RMS would do if he got his way.
willtim 9y ago
Sure 'evil' is hyperbole, but he gives many examples in the posted video of control, security and privacy issues. Essentially with proprietary software, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the proprietor and user.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  How is it hyperbole? The devil doesn't usually reign down fire and brimstone; he's in the details.
deepnet 9y ago
Stallman's view is perhaps a little more nuanced. Don't forget Stallman saw the destruction of his beloved Hacker Culture of Sharing and Academic Discourse eroded and broken by the LISP machine debacle and the change to a closed anti-sharing approach of UNIX by the newly privatised Bell in the 1980s. And it was a proprietary printer driver which initiated his epiphany that in a world governed by proprietary software the user would have no freedom or a freedom that could be taken from them so no right to freedom. RMS could easily have made the modification to the driver he wanted but he was not allowed the source code. From this he invented his four essential freedoms [1] manifesto and the GPL which allowed developers to develop with out fear of the closing of their contributions behind paywalls. In the early 1990s the Linux kernel flourished with its GPL license ensuring it remained a bastion of freedom. As Stallman advocates for a future where users have maximum freedom then proprietary software is opposed to that. If I use Photoshop over GIMP and write tutorials and encourage others to use Photoshop then the world is a little less free for those users in the sense of the four essential freedoms [1] By this definition proprietary software is opposed to Stallman's vision and insiduously so. To oppose the freedom of others is in RMS's eyes not a good act, thus it can be rightly called evil in that context and IMHO he is not wrong in this. Proprietary software 'may' not steal your freedom today but it can lock away your contributions and data tomorrow and one has no recourse - Stallman having lived through this wishes to oppose it and fight for the right to Freedom for us all and forever. His is a glorious vision and he is not wrong, without free software competing with it, proprietary software would likely offer much less freedom and can and has taken what freedom it offered away ! We will live in an increasingly computerised and robotised society. We must choose : will we only have tenuous freedom exchanged for conveniences and mind-candy, rescindable freedoms only for some given by the whim of corporations; or will we work together on GNU and other Free projects and live as Free peoples of the solar system ? Free as in Liberty, Egality, & Community. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Oh ye of little faith, history has so far found that : https://stallmanwasright.reddit.com https://stallmanwasright.reddit.com
cbenz 9y ago
Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.
- ajuc 9y ago
  That depends on the software and market, surely. If there's 5 open source alternatives, is it more important to get 6th for the minimal gain in freedom for the users, or is it more important to let the creator keep his freedom to share it under whichever licence he prefers? What if there's 100 open source alternatives already?
  - madez 9y ago
    An "alternative" is is not necessarily a factual alternative. I'd said if a solution has many users, the freedom of the users has priority.
- legulere 9y ago
  The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.
  - reacweb 9y ago
    I think that everybody should be a developer and that programing should be far more easier. Why programming languages are so tricky ?
    - jrimbault 9y ago
      Because natural language is ambiguous and rocks are dumb.
  - belorn 9y ago
    The right to repair movement is in direct opposition with current US copyright law over DRM. The reason is not for "copy someone else's work without compensation". Karen Sandler and several security researcher want free software freedom in regard to medical devices. They want to verify the code and even out the power balance between those that depend on the code for their life and the producer of it. That too is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation". Yesterday there was an article that said that voting machines should be open source. The concern people have there is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation".
icebraining 9y ago
aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? How is rms doing that? Has he been granted lawmaking powers? No, he is only putting conditions on the software he made, nothing more. If selling binaries under any agreed terms is freedom, how can giving away source under agreed terms be restricting freedom? Your position is contradictory. Meanwhile, rms' position is clear and unambiguous: there are four freedoms that users should have, and software either respects them or not.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assuming any two humans have roughly the same moral value.) So yes, we would restrict a bit of freedom. But that's the only way to prevent even greater restrictions. By the way, RMS never called permissive licences evil. Just weak. And he's not opposed to GPL/proprietary dual licencing, as long as the two versions are the same. It's not weaker than a permissive licence, and the creator has another way to make a profit.
- teekert 9y ago
  This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wrong, that if RMS would be dictator of the world, he would rob people of the freedom to offer their products under their conditions. To me, the RMS world is less free. We could even start to argue things like: In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. What is freedom? To me it is the freedom to make deals with others under your conditions and the freedom to reject deals of others because they don't match the conditions you like. This works even when everybody has said attitude, that is the beauty of it.
  - Joeri 9y ago
    In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that. It's impractical to be sure, but crazier things have happened given enough time.
ajuc 9y ago
I think it's similar to third wave feminism. It's a revolution that has already won for most practical purposes, but keeps on fighting. In a world, where almost all software was proprietary, and open source only made sense if you're living in towers of academia - RMS made sense and contributed greatly to society. Nowadays - not so much. It isn't worth it to restrict freedom of creator and force him to write open source software for minimal increase in the freedom of the users, when there is already an open source alternative for the given task.
- dijit 9y ago
  Free Software has not "won", in any sense of the imagination. I am sitting in an office of 500+ Windows machines compared to 2 FreeBSD (and no Linux) machines. I have to use Outlook otherwise I can't book meetings. I must use Slack otherwise I can't communicate with my colleagues. (Or, alternatively, Skype For Business, but same issue) "Free Software" is _not_ winning anywhere that isn't servers. (and they have fierce competition there too).
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    The most-used operating system in the world has a Linux kernel. But, it might not be in front of you...except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook.
    - oblio 9y ago
      > except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook. You've just proved his point more than you ever wanted. > checking email On the (probably) proprietary Mail or Gmail app. > waiting in line On the (probably) proprietary app for whichever thing you're staying in line for. > playing Angry Birds ... > making a photograph ... > or checking up on Facebook ...! Who care if the kernel, heavily modified and buried 100 layers deep is Open Source if all the apps users actually use are proprietary?
cyphar 9y ago
You should note that Bryan Lunduke has changed his opinion significantly since that podcast, and he has become a very vocal activist for free software[1]. He's also stopped developing proprietary software, and is actually a board member of the openSUSE project now. A lot of things change after 5 years. Oh, and they did an episode immediately after that show where they decided to talk about RMS's arguments "behind his back" so-to-speak[2]. Personally that episode is the reason why I stopped watching LAS, because it was clear that their own personal biases were getting in the way of what they were talking about. Other people have already debated the reasons why user freedom is different to "vendor freedom" (and why the former is more important than the latter). In short, it's the difference between "freedom from being harmed" and "freedom to harm others". Also please remember that vendors are also often users, so user freedom does benefit them as well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg
- syshum 9y ago
  Lunduke has also done another interview with Stallman recently as well on his own channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk
  - cyphar 9y ago
    Which is what my first link was to. ;)
    - teekert 9y ago
      Thanx I only read your comment later.
  - teekert 9y ago
    Oh, that is a must watch for me, thanx. I remember Lunduke being vigilant because he was trying to sell his software on Linux without the risk of it immediately going into a repo for free (if I remember correctly). And why shouldn't he? I still think Linux would benefit from a strong offering of closed source software, as Lunduke did back in the day as well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
"When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?" I hope you're aware that this is the oldest argument in the book. It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if you're not free to make other people slaves.
- legulere 9y ago
  Your argument: Not giving away what you wrote for free under the terms dictated by Richard Stallman is literally slavery.
  - reacweb 9y ago
    Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in incompatible ways.
    - bobstaples 9y ago
      Isn't that comparable to going to a restaurant where they don't give away their recipes? If you encounter a problem with one of their meals you are dependent on their good will to change it for you. Isnt it that you are just using a service someone provides? Or are you enslaving yourself the moment you walk in a restaurant where they keep their recipes secret?
    - cJ0th 9y ago
      If you use FOSS only, you still remain dependent on the maintainers of your stack since realistically speaking you don't have the time to understand and hack every piece of software you rely on.
      - al_chemist 9y ago
        "I don't have time to learn how to fix it myself! Fix it now, asshole!" If you have any open-source project, you've probably received a lot of e-mails like that.
rmc 9y ago
RMS is basically a Pope of free software. He's ideologicaly "pure", he sticks to what he believes in entirely. It's useful for a discussion "Would this pass muster with RMS? Do we want to make this RMS-approved?". We don't have to imagine someone who's completly against propritary software, we can just think of RMS.
teddyh 9y ago
You’re assuming one thing, that the creator should be allowed to set terms for software they have created. A clothing designer, for instance, has no such rights. Why should software users be restricted in their use of the software by a law giving enormous power to the creator? That is the essential question you must answer. Arguments against are legion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_copyright The GPL license is not an end in itself. It is simply a holding action – a means to carve out a bit of freedom for end users using the current rules of copyright.
smithsmith 9y ago
> But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. Same thing can be said about slavery. Some very very small minority may be happy being slaves. The rest of the slaves(people who just use binary) just does not know what it means to be being free(the freedom that comes with changing their software they use at will).
AsyncAwait 9y ago
Well, the funny thing is that Bryan[0] has since pretty much defected to RMS's side, so clearly it wasn't as bad as you seem to suggest. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/user/BryanLunduke/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BryanLunduke/videos
- teekert 9y ago
  Because anyone who ever changes his principles always only exchanges them for better principles?
syshum 9y ago
>But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? That is the Open Source vs Free Software debate in alot of ways Stallman and the Free Software movement is about the USERS freedom, ensuring that the END USER of software retains the rights to modify, use, and examine the software they use Where Open Source is mainly focused on the DEVELOPER of the software, most Open Source advocates are developers that want to have their libraries, dev tools, frameworks, languages, compilers, etc all open so they can create closed software for end users, and use code interoperably between projects with out having to worry about Licensing, this is why Open Source favors MIT, BSD, and other non-copy left licenses, where Free Software is GPL Also you might want to watch the newer interview between Byran Lunduke and Richard Stallman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
RMS bangs on about freedom being the ability to have collective / individual control over software by being in possession of, and compiling the, source code. How does he reconcile this with, say, being in possession of his own DNA, but not knowing how to compile from source. Is RMS really free if he can't inspect, modify, and tinker with, his own software and hardware. In the RMS World there would be no life allowed unless all life came with GPL'ed Abiogenesis. Because non-free abiogenesis is unethical.
- teekert 9y ago
  He can't but nothing stops him from developing methods with which he can edit his DNA and subsequently applying those methods. So the DNA analogy is not valid, he is the owner of his DNA.
SeanMacConMara 9y ago
"But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. That to me is freedom, nobody is forced in that scenario." to hopefully explain more clearly... RS's FOSS agenda is promoting some very very specific legal freedoms for all the people in a state. Not "freedom" in general. Not just for software developers or any other niche group. Those freedoms are specific to software as he believes that it's impact on societies, especially democracies is fundamental now and in the future. If one were to think FOSS is just "open source" or a "nice thing for developers" one would have entirely missed the point. FOSS _is_ a "nice thing for developers" but that is just a side effect. FOSS is a hard-line political tool to very strongly promote specific kinds of legal rights/freedoms. RS drew a line in the sand and never crosses it. Thats why the GPL is so strict. It's the whole point of it. His use of the word "evil" can be non-obvious. He sees users of software who have had their legal rights restricted via proprietary licensing as having been harmed (possibly in a very small way, possibly in a very serious way) by that situation, even if they entered into it willingly (with or without knowledge of FOSS's philosophy). Even if the proprietary vendor didn't mindfully intend harm, harm can still be done. RS is not primarily concerned so much about the tiny individual incidents but the "network-effect" they have on society as whole when multiplied by billions. RS refers to that overall effect on democracy as "evil".
vcanales 9y ago
> I love open source Stallman doesn't.

tequila_shot 9y ago

well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".

dijit 9y ago
To be fair, he's clarified why he feels this way many times. Repeating the same arguments has got to be frustrating and people might pick up on it. (assuming that RMS has very little to say but says it often). FWIW his reasons of proprietary software being evil are[0]: * Proprietary software obstructs the use of its programs * Proprietary software obstructs social cohesion, fragments communities. * Proprietary software obstructs the customisation and adaption of programs. * Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype. * Proprietary software prevents choice; swapping out proprietary software with something else can be tricky, if it's not resting on standards then sometimes it's simply impossible. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
- majewsky 9y ago
  > Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype. In fact, it's more vicious: If you have Skype, I am more likely to need Skype.
- teekert 9y ago
  I agree with all of them. But please don't try to interfere with my freedom to ignore them as I please, which is what RMS would do if he got his way.

willtim 9y ago

Sure 'evil' is hyperbole, but he gives many examples in the posted video of control, security and privacy issues. Essentially with proprietary software, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the proprietor and user.

akvadrako 9y ago
How is it hyperbole? The devil doesn't usually reign down fire and brimstone; he's in the details.

deepnet 9y ago

Stallman's view is perhaps a little more nuanced. Don't forget Stallman saw the destruction of his beloved Hacker Culture of Sharing and Academic Discourse eroded and broken by the LISP machine debacle and the change to a closed anti-sharing approach of UNIX by the newly privatised Bell in the 1980s. And it was a proprietary printer driver which initiated his epiphany that in a world governed by proprietary software the user would have no freedom or a freedom that could be taken from them so no right to freedom. RMS could easily have made the modification to the driver he wanted but he was not allowed the source code. From this he invented his four essential freedoms [1] manifesto and the GPL which allowed developers to develop with out fear of the closing of their contributions behind paywalls. In the early 1990s the Linux kernel flourished with its GPL license ensuring it remained a bastion of freedom. As Stallman advocates for a future where users have maximum freedom then proprietary software is opposed to that. If I use Photoshop over GIMP and write tutorials and encourage others to use Photoshop then the world is a little less free for those users in the sense of the four essential freedoms [1] By this definition proprietary software is opposed to Stallman's vision and insiduously so. To oppose the freedom of others is in RMS's eyes not a good act, thus it can be rightly called evil in that context and IMHO he is not wrong in this. Proprietary software 'may' not steal your freedom today but it can lock away your contributions and data tomorrow and one has no recourse - Stallman having lived through this wishes to oppose it and fight for the right to Freedom for us all and forever. His is a glorious vision and he is not wrong, without free software competing with it, proprietary software would likely offer much less freedom and can and has taken what freedom it offered away ! We will live in an increasingly computerised and robotised society. We must choose : will we only have tenuous freedom exchanged for conveniences and mind-candy, rescindable freedoms only for some given by the whim of corporations; or will we work together on GNU and other Free projects and live as Free peoples of the solar system ? Free as in Liberty, Egality, & Community. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Oh ye of little faith, history has so far found that : https://stallmanwasright.reddit.com https://stallmanwasright.reddit.com

cbenz 9y ago

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

ajuc 9y ago
That depends on the software and market, surely. If there's 5 open source alternatives, is it more important to get 6th for the minimal gain in freedom for the users, or is it more important to let the creator keep his freedom to share it under whichever licence he prefers? What if there's 100 open source alternatives already?
- madez 9y ago
  An "alternative" is is not necessarily a factual alternative. I'd said if a solution has many users, the freedom of the users has priority.
legulere 9y ago
The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.
- reacweb 9y ago
  I think that everybody should be a developer and that programing should be far more easier. Why programming languages are so tricky ?
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    Because natural language is ambiguous and rocks are dumb.
- belorn 9y ago
  The right to repair movement is in direct opposition with current US copyright law over DRM. The reason is not for "copy someone else's work without compensation". Karen Sandler and several security researcher want free software freedom in regard to medical devices. They want to verify the code and even out the power balance between those that depend on the code for their life and the producer of it. That too is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation". Yesterday there was an article that said that voting machines should be open source. The concern people have there is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation".

icebraining 9y ago

aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? How is rms doing that? Has he been granted lawmaking powers? No, he is only putting conditions on the software he made, nothing more. If selling binaries under any agreed terms is freedom, how can giving away source under agreed terms be restricting freedom? Your position is contradictory. Meanwhile, rms' position is clear and unambiguous: there are four freedoms that users should have, and software either respects them or not.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assuming any two humans have roughly the same moral value.) So yes, we would restrict a bit of freedom. But that's the only way to prevent even greater restrictions. By the way, RMS never called permissive licences evil. Just weak. And he's not opposed to GPL/proprietary dual licencing, as long as the two versions are the same. It's not weaker than a permissive licence, and the creator has another way to make a profit.

teekert 9y ago
This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wrong, that if RMS would be dictator of the world, he would rob people of the freedom to offer their products under their conditions. To me, the RMS world is less free. We could even start to argue things like: In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. What is freedom? To me it is the freedom to make deals with others under your conditions and the freedom to reject deals of others because they don't match the conditions you like. This works even when everybody has said attitude, that is the beauty of it.
- Joeri 9y ago
  In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that. It's impractical to be sure, but crazier things have happened given enough time.

ajuc 9y ago

I think it's similar to third wave feminism. It's a revolution that has already won for most practical purposes, but keeps on fighting. In a world, where almost all software was proprietary, and open source only made sense if you're living in towers of academia - RMS made sense and contributed greatly to society. Nowadays - not so much. It isn't worth it to restrict freedom of creator and force him to write open source software for minimal increase in the freedom of the users, when there is already an open source alternative for the given task.

dijit 9y ago
Free Software has not "won", in any sense of the imagination. I am sitting in an office of 500+ Windows machines compared to 2 FreeBSD (and no Linux) machines. I have to use Outlook otherwise I can't book meetings. I must use Slack otherwise I can't communicate with my colleagues. (Or, alternatively, Skype For Business, but same issue) "Free Software" is _not_ winning anywhere that isn't servers. (and they have fierce competition there too).
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  The most-used operating system in the world has a Linux kernel. But, it might not be in front of you...except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook.
  - oblio 9y ago
    > except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook. You've just proved his point more than you ever wanted. > checking email On the (probably) proprietary Mail or Gmail app. > waiting in line On the (probably) proprietary app for whichever thing you're staying in line for. > playing Angry Birds ... > making a photograph ... > or checking up on Facebook ...! Who care if the kernel, heavily modified and buried 100 layers deep is Open Source if all the apps users actually use are proprietary?

cyphar 9y ago

You should note that Bryan Lunduke has changed his opinion significantly since that podcast, and he has become a very vocal activist for free software[1]. He's also stopped developing proprietary software, and is actually a board member of the openSUSE project now. A lot of things change after 5 years. Oh, and they did an episode immediately after that show where they decided to talk about RMS's arguments "behind his back" so-to-speak[2]. Personally that episode is the reason why I stopped watching LAS, because it was clear that their own personal biases were getting in the way of what they were talking about. Other people have already debated the reasons why user freedom is different to "vendor freedom" (and why the former is more important than the latter). In short, it's the difference between "freedom from being harmed" and "freedom to harm others". Also please remember that vendors are also often users, so user freedom does benefit them as well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg

syshum 9y ago
Lunduke has also done another interview with Stallman recently as well on his own channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk
- cyphar 9y ago
  Which is what my first link was to. ;)
  - teekert 9y ago
    Thanx I only read your comment later.
- teekert 9y ago
  Oh, that is a must watch for me, thanx. I remember Lunduke being vigilant because he was trying to sell his software on Linux without the risk of it immediately going into a repo for free (if I remember correctly). And why shouldn't he? I still think Linux would benefit from a strong offering of closed source software, as Lunduke did back in the day as well.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

"When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?" I hope you're aware that this is the oldest argument in the book. It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if you're not free to make other people slaves.

legulere 9y ago
Your argument: Not giving away what you wrote for free under the terms dictated by Richard Stallman is literally slavery.
- reacweb 9y ago
  Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in incompatible ways.
  - bobstaples 9y ago
    Isn't that comparable to going to a restaurant where they don't give away their recipes? If you encounter a problem with one of their meals you are dependent on their good will to change it for you. Isnt it that you are just using a service someone provides? Or are you enslaving yourself the moment you walk in a restaurant where they keep their recipes secret?
  - cJ0th 9y ago
    If you use FOSS only, you still remain dependent on the maintainers of your stack since realistically speaking you don't have the time to understand and hack every piece of software you rely on.
    - al_chemist 9y ago
      "I don't have time to learn how to fix it myself! Fix it now, asshole!" If you have any open-source project, you've probably received a lot of e-mails like that.

rmc 9y ago

RMS is basically a Pope of free software. He's ideologicaly "pure", he sticks to what he believes in entirely. It's useful for a discussion "Would this pass muster with RMS? Do we want to make this RMS-approved?". We don't have to imagine someone who's completly against propritary software, we can just think of RMS.

teddyh 9y ago

You’re assuming one thing, that the creator should be allowed to set terms for software they have created. A clothing designer, for instance, has no such rights. Why should software users be restricted in their use of the software by a law giving enormous power to the creator? That is the essential question you must answer. Arguments against are legion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_copyright The GPL license is not an end in itself. It is simply a holding action – a means to carve out a bit of freedom for end users using the current rules of copyright.

smithsmith 9y ago

> But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. Same thing can be said about slavery. Some very very small minority may be happy being slaves. The rest of the slaves(people who just use binary) just does not know what it means to be being free(the freedom that comes with changing their software they use at will).

AsyncAwait 9y ago

Well, the funny thing is that Bryan[0] has since pretty much defected to RMS's side, so clearly it wasn't as bad as you seem to suggest. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/user/BryanLunduke/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BryanLunduke/videos

teekert 9y ago
Because anyone who ever changes his principles always only exchanges them for better principles?

syshum 9y ago

>But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? That is the Open Source vs Free Software debate in alot of ways Stallman and the Free Software movement is about the USERS freedom, ensuring that the END USER of software retains the rights to modify, use, and examine the software they use Where Open Source is mainly focused on the DEVELOPER of the software, most Open Source advocates are developers that want to have their libraries, dev tools, frameworks, languages, compilers, etc all open so they can create closed software for end users, and use code interoperably between projects with out having to worry about Licensing, this is why Open Source favors MIT, BSD, and other non-copy left licenses, where Free Software is GPL Also you might want to watch the newer interview between Byran Lunduke and Richard Stallman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

RMS bangs on about freedom being the ability to have collective / individual control over software by being in possession of, and compiling the, source code. How does he reconcile this with, say, being in possession of his own DNA, but not knowing how to compile from source. Is RMS really free if he can't inspect, modify, and tinker with, his own software and hardware. In the RMS World there would be no life allowed unless all life came with GPL'ed Abiogenesis. Because non-free abiogenesis is unethical.

teekert 9y ago
He can't but nothing stops him from developing methods with which he can edit his DNA and subsequently applying those methods. So the DNA analogy is not valid, he is the owner of his DNA.

SeanMacConMara 9y ago

"But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. That to me is freedom, nobody is forced in that scenario." to hopefully explain more clearly... RS's FOSS agenda is promoting some very very specific legal freedoms for all the people in a state. Not "freedom" in general. Not just for software developers or any other niche group. Those freedoms are specific to software as he believes that it's impact on societies, especially democracies is fundamental now and in the future. If one were to think FOSS is just "open source" or a "nice thing for developers" one would have entirely missed the point. FOSS _is_ a "nice thing for developers" but that is just a side effect. FOSS is a hard-line political tool to very strongly promote specific kinds of legal rights/freedoms. RS drew a line in the sand and never crosses it. Thats why the GPL is so strict. It's the whole point of it. His use of the word "evil" can be non-obvious. He sees users of software who have had their legal rights restricted via proprietary licensing as having been harmed (possibly in a very small way, possibly in a very serious way) by that situation, even if they entered into it willingly (with or without knowledge of FOSS's philosophy). Even if the proprietary vendor didn't mindfully intend harm, harm can still be done. RS is not primarily concerned so much about the tiny individual incidents but the "network-effect" they have on society as whole when multiplied by billions. RS refers to that overall effect on democracy as "evil".

vcanales 9y ago

> I love open source Stallman doesn't.