15 ms·

In response to software which requires a lot of development time to create, specifically tax software or games, RMS says: > The reason I don't use nonfree soft

In response to software which requires a lot of development time to create, specifically tax software or games, RMS says: > The reason I don't use nonfree software is that it would take away my freedom. I don't want to let that happen. So I don't consider installing nonfree program, even as an possible option. I treat them as poison. I hope that you will too. This man lives in an imaginary world where no one has to make any money (or if they do, they are evil) or deserves to live a comfortable lifestyle by receiving monetary rewards for good and hard work. Frankly, I believe that this tone and rhetoric devalues some of the great things he has done. EDIT: clarification where I say (or if they do) I mean if they want to. EDIT 2: I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for expressing my opinion...

ajscherer 16y ago
It doesn't look like he said nobody should make any money. He said that nobody should install non-free software, which if everyone did as RMS wanted (they won't) would imply that one couldn't make money selling non-free software. Why is it that so many people believe they have a God-given right to make money by doing a certain activity? I see this same thinking all the time in arguments about the future of newspapers. Programmers are generally smart people. I'm sure most of them could find a way to make money if everyone stopped buying proprietary software.
- logic 16y ago
  You have a right to try to start a business around a given activity. You do not have the right to succeed.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    You might want to read question 4, where his answer says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, and points to this article for further information: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - ajscherer 16y ago
    You're not a bad person for wanting that. If your argument is that he is insulting you, and that is wrong, then I agree with you. My point was that people should only expect to make money by doing something other people are willing to pay for, whether they love it or hate it, and whether it is hard or easy as hell. It seemed like you were saying programmers deserve to make money just because they work hard.
- chc 16y ago
  Only in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.
  - ajscherer 16y ago
    Yes, but people buy nonfree cars, and carmakers stay in business, precisely because people like cars. In the same way I think that proprietary software will continue to be lucrative because in many cases people prefer it to free software, regardless what RMS thinks. I just don't think it's valid to say that carmakers should continue to be able to profit making cars in a world where nobody wants them simply because its hard work that they like.
    - chc 16y ago
      I think I miscommunicated if that's what it sounds like I was saying. I agree with you. You posed the hypothetical "If everybody stopped buying proprietary software…", and suggested that programmers would get by just fine. My suggestion is that they would indeed get by just fine, by becoming something else. I don't think that will happen, though, for precisely the reason you state.
  - avar 16y ago
    If the market changed overnight so that nobody wanted to buy non-free cars, which for the sake of argument we'll define here as cars where the full schematics are under a free license like the GPL. Nothing would really change. The main effort of making a car is still making the car. Just because you can download recipes or a CAD drawing of a car chefs or car makers aren't going to go out of business. They provide a valuable service that people want to buy. Similarly, programs aren't going to write themselves. There's always going to be demand for skilled programmers, just like there's demand for skilled carpenters.
    - chc 16y ago
      Source code is not equivalent to a schematic. Source code is equivalent to schematics, raw materials, free labor and the key to a factory. All you need to do is run it through a compiler and you've got an operational program.
Locke1689 16y ago
Frankly, I believe that this tone and rhetoric devalues some of the great things he has done. I completely disagree. He has certain values and political goals which he believes very strongly in -- and espouses them aggressively. This is true for all of us. I personally disagree with him (I am willing to give up some of my freedom for money), but I would never say that that diminishes his accomplishments and contributions.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  You don't necessarily give up freedom to use proprietary software. If free (as in speech) software offers no suitable solution for what you need to do, and you lack the skills or time to improve the existing alternatives, I don't think you can be free if you choose to use the next-best option. Proprietary vendors can do things to prevent a suitable alternative from existing, but that's a separate consideration from whether or not you're freer for choosing one way or the other.
  - turtle4 16y ago
    If you are using free software, and a feature is missing or a bug is present, and you have neither the time nor skills to correct the issue, you can sponsor or request that someone else make the change. Alternately, anyone else using the software could have that time or skill, and their contribution would benefit all. With proprietary software, you absolutely give up that ability. So yes, you do always give up the freedom. The counterpoint, though, is that if you were never to exercise the freedom, it has no value. So even though you've given up a freedom to use a proprietary solution, if you never encounter a case where you want/need to exercise that freedom, it hasn't really hurt you. That may be more what you are getting at?
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I've spent too much time in places (rest of the internet) where there's no real incentive to make sure your point is clear, so I had trouble making it so. :( Working on it though. :)
avar 16y ago
That's completely wrong. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what the free software movement is about. Ultimately it's a sort of grassroots consumer protection movement, not a bunch of hippies trying to abolish money. Stallman believes that you should vote with your feet and avoid using non-free software, and that if we all did this for everything there would be no space for non-free software in the market. That doesn't mean that you can't sell software. The FSF has always sold copies of their software (I know because I've bought some). All of their licenses allow you to sell software, they consider any license that doesn't allow this to be non-free.
- rimantas 16y ago
  I am glad I have a freedom to vote with my wallet and buy software I like.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Stallman believes that you should vote with your feet and avoid using non-free software, and that if we all did this for everything there would be no space for non-free software in the market. And this falls under the mantle of "consumer protection" how? Maybe a world with no non-free software would be better for me personally, or maybe it wouldn't (I think it probably wouldn't), but trying to create a world in which a particular product category doesn't exist doesn't exist isn't consumer protection. [Silly counterexamples include: flamethrowing baby-cribs. Fine, abolishing flamethrowing baby cribs does count as consumer protection.]
  - avar 16y ago
    I said "grassroots" consumer protection. He's suggesting that people that use software band together and collectively reject software under proprietary licenses. Because doing so creates a bigger market for free programs, and reduces the market for proprietary ones. There are similar movements that advocate boycotting e.g. out of season fruit, or goods manufactured by oppressive countries.
    - rimantas 16y ago
ohyes 16y ago
I think it is actually the opposite of that. > You have a choice between deserving a reward and not getting a material reward, and getting one but not deserving it. I think that RMS sees our current society as intrinsically flawed with regard to how it is that we reward people for their good and hard work (and the behavior patterns associated with that work). It is not that he lives in a world where no one has to make any money. He is a tremendous hacker and has analyzed the system. He has come to the conclusion that the system in which we live is flawed. The way that you (generally) make money is by hurting other people. Free software is based on the idea that we should change what behavior we reward. The idea being that proprietary software inhibits freedom of a computer literate (programming literate) person. We should not reward this behavior. 'Making money is evil' is a tremendous oversimplification of the philosophy. If everyone adopted the free software maxim of not using proprietary software, it would be inevitable that society would become extremely computer literate, and/or we would develop a way of compensating people for working on free software projects. This might be putting the cart before the horse, however. What is really needed is a way to reward people handsomely for working on free software projects. Then it would slowly become a norm to have access to the source code, and society (maybe) follow.
- benofsky 16y ago
  The fact of the matter though is that it is not financially viable in any way (or ever will be) for all software to be "free" in the sense of RMS "free". How could a company like Google, built fundamentally on trade secrets, ever be developed. No one would invest the kind of money that was required to build Google into what it is today if Microsoft could go to Github and download "google-search". It is pie in the sky stuff, unfortunately.
  - mquander 16y ago
    Wait a second. Why do you think the world is better, having Google, than it would be if "google-search" was on Github and hosted by a bunch of people? That sounds worse to me. I assume you think that the existence of Google has led to other good things, but I don't see any reason to believe that the people at Google are doing better or more valuable work there than they would be if Google didn't exist.
whyenot 16y ago
You selected a single sentence out of a multi-paragraph response. Why not look at the whole thing, which is a lot more nuanced (for Stallman) and kind of interesting? Tax software can and should be released by the state under a free license. But when the state fails to do its duty, the community do the job. In Brazil, FSF Latin America releases free software for filing tax returns, and this year managed to release the free program before the state released its nonfree program. So don't say it's impossible. I don't like to talk about "consumption" of these programs because that term adopts the narrow mindset of economics. It tends to judge everything only in terms of practical costs and benefits and doesn't value freedom. The reason I don't use nonfree software is that it would take away my freedom. I don't want to let that happen. So I don't consider installing nonfree program, even as an possible option. I treat them as poison. I hope that you will too. I don't know whether our community will make a "high end video game" which is free software, but I am sure that if you try, you can stretch your taste for games so that you will enjoy the free games that we have developed.
- kiba 16y ago
  Economics merely treat people's interests as a given. It's not valuing anything, but rather it's value free. If you want to maximize the freedom values, than you would trade X values for that freedom values, often controls over other people.
patrickaljord 16y ago
> This man lives in an imaginary world where no one has to make any money (or if they do, they are evil) Did you even read the article? He says it's ok to make money with free software and should be advertised: "When you meet people who think free software is supposed to be gratis, tell them "It's free as in freedom; it doesn't have to be gratis." Then refer them to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html, and you should be able to educate them with very little effort on your part. When you get practiced in doing this and you see how easy it is, you won't feel annoyed when the need arised."
- tjmc 16y ago
  He must know his philosophy on selling is fundamentally flawed though. The high-budget computer game question (which he side stepped) is a good one. Why would you spend millions of dollars on a software product if you could only count on selling the first copy?
  - ciupicri 16y ago
    You could charge for the binaries, like Red Hat and XChat do. Quoting from http://xchat.org/windows/ http://xchat.org/windows/: You may use XChat for Windows for free for 30 days. If, after this time, you would like to continue using the product, you are required to register. Registration is a one time fee of $19.99 USD (US Dollars) which can be paid using the PayPal service below.

ajscherer 16y ago

It doesn't look like he said nobody should make any money. He said that nobody should install non-free software, which if everyone did as RMS wanted (they won't) would imply that one couldn't make money selling non-free software. Why is it that so many people believe they have a God-given right to make money by doing a certain activity? I see this same thinking all the time in arguments about the future of newspapers. Programmers are generally smart people. I'm sure most of them could find a way to make money if everyone stopped buying proprietary software.

logic 16y ago
You have a right to try to start a business around a given activity. You do not have the right to succeed.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  You might want to read question 4, where his answer says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, and points to this article for further information: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- ajscherer 16y ago
  You're not a bad person for wanting that. If your argument is that he is insulting you, and that is wrong, then I agree with you. My point was that people should only expect to make money by doing something other people are willing to pay for, whether they love it or hate it, and whether it is hard or easy as hell. It seemed like you were saying programmers deserve to make money just because they work hard.
chc 16y ago
Only in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.
- ajscherer 16y ago
  Yes, but people buy nonfree cars, and carmakers stay in business, precisely because people like cars. In the same way I think that proprietary software will continue to be lucrative because in many cases people prefer it to free software, regardless what RMS thinks. I just don't think it's valid to say that carmakers should continue to be able to profit making cars in a world where nobody wants them simply because its hard work that they like.
  - chc 16y ago
    I think I miscommunicated if that's what it sounds like I was saying. I agree with you. You posed the hypothetical "If everybody stopped buying proprietary software…", and suggested that programmers would get by just fine. My suggestion is that they would indeed get by just fine, by becoming something else. I don't think that will happen, though, for precisely the reason you state.
- avar 16y ago
  If the market changed overnight so that nobody wanted to buy non-free cars, which for the sake of argument we'll define here as cars where the full schematics are under a free license like the GPL. Nothing would really change. The main effort of making a car is still making the car. Just because you can download recipes or a CAD drawing of a car chefs or car makers aren't going to go out of business. They provide a valuable service that people want to buy. Similarly, programs aren't going to write themselves. There's always going to be demand for skilled programmers, just like there's demand for skilled carpenters.
  - chc 16y ago
    Source code is not equivalent to a schematic. Source code is equivalent to schematics, raw materials, free labor and the key to a factory. All you need to do is run it through a compiler and you've got an operational program.

Locke1689 16y ago

Frankly, I believe that this tone and rhetoric devalues some of the great things he has done. I completely disagree. He has certain values and political goals which he believes very strongly in -- and espouses them aggressively. This is true for all of us. I personally disagree with him (I am willing to give up some of my freedom for money), but I would never say that that diminishes his accomplishments and contributions.

mkr-hn 16y ago
You don't necessarily give up freedom to use proprietary software. If free (as in speech) software offers no suitable solution for what you need to do, and you lack the skills or time to improve the existing alternatives, I don't think you can be free if you choose to use the next-best option. Proprietary vendors can do things to prevent a suitable alternative from existing, but that's a separate consideration from whether or not you're freer for choosing one way or the other.
- turtle4 16y ago
  If you are using free software, and a feature is missing or a bug is present, and you have neither the time nor skills to correct the issue, you can sponsor or request that someone else make the change. Alternately, anyone else using the software could have that time or skill, and their contribution would benefit all. With proprietary software, you absolutely give up that ability. So yes, you do always give up the freedom. The counterpoint, though, is that if you were never to exercise the freedom, it has no value. So even though you've given up a freedom to use a proprietary solution, if you never encounter a case where you want/need to exercise that freedom, it hasn't really hurt you. That may be more what you are getting at?
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I've spent too much time in places (rest of the internet) where there's no real incentive to make sure your point is clear, so I had trouble making it so. :( Working on it though. :)

avar 16y ago

That's completely wrong. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what the free software movement is about. Ultimately it's a sort of grassroots consumer protection movement, not a bunch of hippies trying to abolish money. Stallman believes that you should vote with your feet and avoid using non-free software, and that if we all did this for everything there would be no space for non-free software in the market. That doesn't mean that you can't sell software. The FSF has always sold copies of their software (I know because I've bought some). All of their licenses allow you to sell software, they consider any license that doesn't allow this to be non-free.

rimantas 16y ago
I am glad I have a freedom to vote with my wallet and buy software I like.
hugh3 16y ago
Stallman believes that you should vote with your feet and avoid using non-free software, and that if we all did this for everything there would be no space for non-free software in the market. And this falls under the mantle of "consumer protection" how? Maybe a world with no non-free software would be better for me personally, or maybe it wouldn't (I think it probably wouldn't), but trying to create a world in which a particular product category doesn't exist doesn't exist isn't consumer protection. [Silly counterexamples include: flamethrowing baby-cribs. Fine, abolishing flamethrowing baby cribs does count as consumer protection.]
- avar 16y ago
  I said "grassroots" consumer protection. He's suggesting that people that use software band together and collectively reject software under proprietary licenses. Because doing so creates a bigger market for free programs, and reduces the market for proprietary ones. There are similar movements that advocate boycotting e.g. out of season fruit, or goods manufactured by oppressive countries.
  - rimantas 16y ago

ohyes 16y ago

I think it is actually the opposite of that. > You have a choice between deserving a reward and not getting a material reward, and getting one but not deserving it. I think that RMS sees our current society as intrinsically flawed with regard to how it is that we reward people for their good and hard work (and the behavior patterns associated with that work). It is not that he lives in a world where no one has to make any money. He is a tremendous hacker and has analyzed the system. He has come to the conclusion that the system in which we live is flawed. The way that you (generally) make money is by hurting other people. Free software is based on the idea that we should change what behavior we reward. The idea being that proprietary software inhibits freedom of a computer literate (programming literate) person. We should not reward this behavior. 'Making money is evil' is a tremendous oversimplification of the philosophy. If everyone adopted the free software maxim of not using proprietary software, it would be inevitable that society would become extremely computer literate, and/or we would develop a way of compensating people for working on free software projects. This might be putting the cart before the horse, however. What is really needed is a way to reward people handsomely for working on free software projects. Then it would slowly become a norm to have access to the source code, and society (maybe) follow.

benofsky 16y ago
The fact of the matter though is that it is not financially viable in any way (or ever will be) for all software to be "free" in the sense of RMS "free". How could a company like Google, built fundamentally on trade secrets, ever be developed. No one would invest the kind of money that was required to build Google into what it is today if Microsoft could go to Github and download "google-search". It is pie in the sky stuff, unfortunately.
- mquander 16y ago
  Wait a second. Why do you think the world is better, having Google, than it would be if "google-search" was on Github and hosted by a bunch of people? That sounds worse to me. I assume you think that the existence of Google has led to other good things, but I don't see any reason to believe that the people at Google are doing better or more valuable work there than they would be if Google didn't exist.

whyenot 16y ago

You selected a single sentence out of a multi-paragraph response. Why not look at the whole thing, which is a lot more nuanced (for Stallman) and kind of interesting? Tax software can and should be released by the state under a free license. But when the state fails to do its duty, the community do the job. In Brazil, FSF Latin America releases free software for filing tax returns, and this year managed to release the free program before the state released its nonfree program. So don't say it's impossible. I don't like to talk about "consumption" of these programs because that term adopts the narrow mindset of economics. It tends to judge everything only in terms of practical costs and benefits and doesn't value freedom. The reason I don't use nonfree software is that it would take away my freedom. I don't want to let that happen. So I don't consider installing nonfree program, even as an possible option. I treat them as poison. I hope that you will too. I don't know whether our community will make a "high end video game" which is free software, but I am sure that if you try, you can stretch your taste for games so that you will enjoy the free games that we have developed.

kiba 16y ago
Economics merely treat people's interests as a given. It's not valuing anything, but rather it's value free. If you want to maximize the freedom values, than you would trade X values for that freedom values, often controls over other people.

patrickaljord 16y ago

> This man lives in an imaginary world where no one has to make any money (or if they do, they are evil) Did you even read the article? He says it's ok to make money with free software and should be advertised: "When you meet people who think free software is supposed to be gratis, tell them "It's free as in freedom; it doesn't have to be gratis." Then refer them to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html, and you should be able to educate them with very little effort on your part. When you get practiced in doing this and you see how easy it is, you won't feel annoyed when the need arised."

tjmc 16y ago
He must know his philosophy on selling is fundamentally flawed though. The high-budget computer game question (which he side stepped) is a good one. Why would you spend millions of dollars on a software product if you could only count on selling the first copy?
- ciupicri 16y ago
  You could charge for the binaries, like Red Hat and XChat do. Quoting from http://xchat.org/windows/ http://xchat.org/windows/: You may use XChat for Windows for free for 30 days. If, after this time, you would like to continue using the product, you are required to register. Registration is a one time fee of $19.99 USD (US Dollars) which can be paid using the PayPal service below.