4 ms·

RMS may be seen by many as a zealot or maybe even an extremist, and I personally disagree with some of his views, but it's clear that without him the open-sourc

RMS may be seen by many as a zealot or maybe even an extremist, and I personally disagree with some of his views, but it's clear that without him the open-source world would be in a completely different place. Hat tip.

adtac 9y ago
There wouldn't be a place for free and open software without him. I'm absolutely convinced of this -- he is a combination of good will, great programming talent, insane dedication who is not motivated by money. It's just a shame he'll never be as well known to the general public as someone like Steve Jobs.
- AceJohnny2 9y ago
  > insane dedication who is not motivated by money You can say that again. I believe he's pretty far on Asperger's? I view RMS as one pole of the philosophical spectrum of free software (the other being entirely proprietary). An uncompromising absolutist, his views can't survive contact with the real world intact, but they can influence the landscape as he exerts pressure on it. And he has proven visionary and right time and time again. I don't agree with many things he says, but I do appreciate the direction he's pulled the industry in. For that, he has my continued respect.
  - jimmies 9y ago
    > An uncompromising absolutist, his views can't survive contact with the real world intact, but they can influence the landscape as he exerts pressure on it. Well, somehow his views survived. GNU happened and is alive today. Billions of people are using it or a variant of it. In fact, GNU/Linux is arguably the most successful OS in the planet. The GNU has projects that power almost every computer and every mobile phone and it is inside many embedded systems today. There are even laptops that run strictly on free software, which hasn't happenned until recently. What more you want?
    - AceJohnny2 9y ago
      > What more you want? Broader adoption of the GPLv3 and AGPLv3, for one thing. Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL, for another. Ever wondered why macOS shipped with antiquated version of Bash, Emacs, Make...?
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL Apple isn't going to join the Free Software Movement. If they do, they will be something entirely different, using the same name. Apple's business model is based on proprietary software, and limiting users.
        tjr 9y ago
        Apple does sell some proprietary software for a fee, and they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. That is explicitly not the definition of free software, which is "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". The monetary exchange for software copies is a separate topic. I do wish Stallman picked a less ambiguous word like "libre", but here we are. > But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. That's what I'm talking about. IOS is explicitly designed to be a "walled garden". That design is directly contradictory to free software design. It requires that users are unable to do certain things in IOS, meaning it requires IOS to be proprietary, and irriplaceable. > I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? That is a good question. Unfortunately, Apple (as it exists today) will quite certainly never show is. > Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software? Any user level software would not be needed for their "walled garden" approach, so there is nothing but Apple's current mindset preventing them from releasing the source. Maybe someday they will realize this, after all, their current open source projects (LLVM/clang, etc.) have certainly flourished.
  - vfclists 9y ago
    I don't get why people pretend not to understand Stallman's view point. If you buy a physical device which isn't controlled by some software black box, you can fix or improve it so long as you have the materials, skills and tools to do so, or you can afford for others to do that for you. Libre software operates on the same principle. If you have the skills to understand the code, you can extend it or fix it. What is so difficult to comprehend about this? Libre software is not about money, but the ability to learn, fix and improve the software. You can sell a 100 line free software package for a $1bn if you want to, so long as you provide the code. Why so much propaganda has developed around this principle only shows how the free software discussions are overrun with shills. The fact that tons of free software can be downloaded for the cost of a monthy internet subscription doesn't change financial principle.
    - AceJohnny2 9y ago
      Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy _and redistribute_ the work or any derivative version That redistribute there is what undermines any business model that depends on selling licenses for GPL software. If you sell your 100-line code for $1bn, there is huge incentive for the customer to sell it themselves at a lower cost, undercutting you.
      - vfclists 9y ago
        The purpose of the license is to enable the end user to fix the software if it is broken and extend it if they want to. It is to remove restrictions on the use of the software, not the sale of the software. If avoids the current situation in which equipment manufacturers deliberately insert software into equipment roles which have historically worked fine without software to prevent the users and third-party repairers from repairing them, and criminalizing attempts to fix problems via DRM regulations. Making software fixable by end users doesn't involve any major losses as most people, even advanced computer programmers don't have the knowledge or domain expertise to fix or extend software themselves. It only means they have the option of locating and hiring other experts to fix themselves if they need to, as goes for a lot of the sophisticated hardware and software devices out there.
rekado 9y ago
It's a bit ironic to recognize him for his impact on the "open source world". "Open source" is a term that was introduced as a means to divorce the social implications of free software from the boring bits. Here's a good article about the history: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
agumonkey 9y ago
We still don't have fixable printers though. Come on Rich, finish the job ;)

adtac 9y ago

There wouldn't be a place for free and open software without him. I'm absolutely convinced of this -- he is a combination of good will, great programming talent, insane dedication who is not motivated by money. It's just a shame he'll never be as well known to the general public as someone like Steve Jobs.

AceJohnny2 9y ago
> insane dedication who is not motivated by money You can say that again. I believe he's pretty far on Asperger's? I view RMS as one pole of the philosophical spectrum of free software (the other being entirely proprietary). An uncompromising absolutist, his views can't survive contact with the real world intact, but they can influence the landscape as he exerts pressure on it. And he has proven visionary and right time and time again. I don't agree with many things he says, but I do appreciate the direction he's pulled the industry in. For that, he has my continued respect.
- jimmies 9y ago
  > An uncompromising absolutist, his views can't survive contact with the real world intact, but they can influence the landscape as he exerts pressure on it. Well, somehow his views survived. GNU happened and is alive today. Billions of people are using it or a variant of it. In fact, GNU/Linux is arguably the most successful OS in the planet. The GNU has projects that power almost every computer and every mobile phone and it is inside many embedded systems today. There are even laptops that run strictly on free software, which hasn't happenned until recently. What more you want?
  - AceJohnny2 9y ago
    > What more you want? Broader adoption of the GPLv3 and AGPLv3, for one thing. Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL, for another. Ever wondered why macOS shipped with antiquated version of Bash, Emacs, Make...?
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL Apple isn't going to join the Free Software Movement. If they do, they will be something entirely different, using the same name. Apple's business model is based on proprietary software, and limiting users.
      - tjr 9y ago
        Apple does sell some proprietary software for a fee, and they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. That is explicitly not the definition of free software, which is "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". The monetary exchange for software copies is a separate topic. I do wish Stallman picked a less ambiguous word like "libre", but here we are. > But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. That's what I'm talking about. IOS is explicitly designed to be a "walled garden". That design is directly contradictory to free software design. It requires that users are unable to do certain things in IOS, meaning it requires IOS to be proprietary, and irriplaceable. > I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? That is a good question. Unfortunately, Apple (as it exists today) will quite certainly never show is. > Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software? Any user level software would not be needed for their "walled garden" approach, so there is nothing but Apple's current mindset preventing them from releasing the source. Maybe someday they will realize this, after all, their current open source projects (LLVM/clang, etc.) have certainly flourished.
- vfclists 9y ago
  I don't get why people pretend not to understand Stallman's view point. If you buy a physical device which isn't controlled by some software black box, you can fix or improve it so long as you have the materials, skills and tools to do so, or you can afford for others to do that for you. Libre software operates on the same principle. If you have the skills to understand the code, you can extend it or fix it. What is so difficult to comprehend about this? Libre software is not about money, but the ability to learn, fix and improve the software. You can sell a 100 line free software package for a $1bn if you want to, so long as you provide the code. Why so much propaganda has developed around this principle only shows how the free software discussions are overrun with shills. The fact that tons of free software can be downloaded for the cost of a monthy internet subscription doesn't change financial principle.
  - AceJohnny2 9y ago
    Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy _and redistribute_ the work or any derivative version That redistribute there is what undermines any business model that depends on selling licenses for GPL software. If you sell your 100-line code for $1bn, there is huge incentive for the customer to sell it themselves at a lower cost, undercutting you.
    - vfclists 9y ago
      The purpose of the license is to enable the end user to fix the software if it is broken and extend it if they want to. It is to remove restrictions on the use of the software, not the sale of the software. If avoids the current situation in which equipment manufacturers deliberately insert software into equipment roles which have historically worked fine without software to prevent the users and third-party repairers from repairing them, and criminalizing attempts to fix problems via DRM regulations. Making software fixable by end users doesn't involve any major losses as most people, even advanced computer programmers don't have the knowledge or domain expertise to fix or extend software themselves. It only means they have the option of locating and hiring other experts to fix themselves if they need to, as goes for a lot of the sophisticated hardware and software devices out there.

rekado 9y ago

It's a bit ironic to recognize him for his impact on the "open source world". "Open source" is a term that was introduced as a means to divorce the social implications of free software from the boring bits. Here's a good article about the history: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler

agumonkey 9y ago

We still don't have fixable printers though. Come on Rich, finish the job ;)