10 ms·
I expect most responses here will be pretty negative, and I honestly can't defend his position because our politics differ so greatly (and his stance spins dire
by logic 16y ago
I expect most responses here will be pretty negative, and I honestly can't defend his position because our politics differ so greatly (and his stance spins directly out of those philosophical roots). Nor can I forgive his personal attitude and general arrogance over the years, although it has softened significantly of late.
But I'll give the man a grudging amount of respect: he hasn't budged one inch on his position toward "freedom to tinker" as it relates to software in the entire time I've been aware of his work. And, more than that, he walks the walk; he won't urge anyone to do something or take on a position that he's not willing to jump into wholeheartedly himself.
He's a fundamentalist, but any successful movement needs people with "clarity of purpose". He has it in spades, allowing many of the rest of us to be rather more pragmatic.
- milesf 16y agoStallman is like a goalpost. He's as far over to one side as you can be. We need people like him since we all tend to measure our views and beliefs in reference to others. I just wouldn't want to hang out with the guy. I say "Linux" and buy proprietary software. I'm sure he wouldn't want to hang with me either, but I do respect him.
- hugh3 16y agoWho is the other goalpost? Are they equally necessary?
- StavrosK 16y agoSteve Jobs?
- tvon 16y agoApple is pretty active in OSS for someone you'd call the polar opposite of RMS.
- vorador 16y agoOh, yes, they're active, but only in their interest. You won't see apple freeing the source of cocoa...
- loewenskind 16y agoBut they're active right? Who's interests should they be active in? I bet their shareholders are so mad that they didn't follow Sun's lead....
- gizmomagico 16y agoOr Big Brother freeing the source to their Ad-magic.
- stoney 16y agoBut Open Source!=Free Software, as I'm sure RMS would point out if he was reading this. Apple do contribute to open source software, but you certainly don't have freedom when using their products, which is what RMS is all about.
- tvon 16y agoVery good point. Apple uses OSS for the sake of creating better software, not because they believe in any FSF ideals.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mishmash 16y agoBill Gates?
- alextgordon 16y agoOrganisations like the Business Software Alliance (http://www.bsa.org/ http://www.bsa.org/) are the closest I can think of to a pro-proprietary advocacy group.
- hugh3 16y agoDo they openly advocate for the end of free software?
- rbanffy 16y agoI don't think so, but I am quite sure most members would be quite happy with it.
- alextgordon 16y agoSort of. This article is about the IIPA, which the BSA are a member of: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/openso... They're not as upfront about it as Stallman and the FSF are about proprietary software, but they clearly don't like open source software. From one of their reports: "For example, in March 2009, the Ministry of Administrative Reform (MenPAN) issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2009 to all central and provincial government offices including State-owned enterprises, endorsing the use and adoption of open source software within government organizations. While the government issued this circular in part with the stated goal to “reduc[e] software copyright violation[s],” in fact, by denying technology choice, the measure will create additional trade barriers and deny fair and equitable market access to software companies." Source: http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDONESIA.pdf http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDONESIA.pdf
- btilly 16y agoThat would be a goalpost on the opposite end of the field, not the same goal. An example of an opposite goalpost on the same end as RMS might be Bruce Perens.
- ashconnor 16y agoGates.
- rbanffy 16y agoCasual users. There are lots of market forces pulling towards proprietary. Most people don't care about software freedom - they want shiny toys right now. Jobs, Gates, Ballmer and Ellison cater to them. They build and sell tools to help you lock yourself to their software. And they even use free software for that. edit: dear downmodder: try harder. I am sure you can articulate a useful argument instead of just downvoting a comment you disagree with. This should be a place for debating ideas.
- wtallis 16y agoI'm not the one who downvoted you, but I do think that casual users aren't quite the opposing goal post to RMS. They are greedy, but more than that, they are short-term thinkers. They can't (even collectively) cause quite as much harm as the guys like Jobs, Gates, Ballmer, and Ellison can when they manipulate the market. Big corporations led by big egos have the power to kill products and permanently remove innovations from the market: by [ab]using software patents, buying and killing threatening start-ups, or under-cutting competitors to drive them out of business. One of the most attractive aspects of a Free Software ecosystem unencumbered by patents is that ideas don't have to die while they are still useful to somebody.
- rbanffy 16y agoIndeed. I have no doubt people like Jobs, Gates, Ballmer and Ellison (among many others) oppose the freedom ideals Stallman stands for. Still, I think they rely (willingly or not) on the casual user and its disregard/unawareness of the freedoms they thrown away to reach their goals. Without uninformed users, they are harmless. Tools will be developed and willing users will free themselves from their power.
- bandushrew 16y agoI dont know whether they 'oppose' the software ideals that stallman stands for or not. I agree very strongly with Stallman and the points he regularly makes regarding the dangerous of proprietary software, and I am very grateful for the things he has done to push his ideals and to increase awareness of the issues and dangers surrounding copyright abuse and the freedom of software users. I also create and sell proprietary software, and I disagree with him that it is immoral to do so. No need to oppose him, I can simply disagree with his conclusions while agreeing with a very large number of the points that he makes.
- lutorm 16y agoThe SCO guy, forget his name, that equates open source with communism.
- blhack 16y agoSteve Jobs
- moxiemk1 16y agoI normally have the same sentiment about RMS, but one of his responses here really ticked me off in the 'clarity of purpose' department: The bit about the microwaves (#23) 'Installing software' is a fairly abstract concept, especially given how liberally RMS likes to see the GPL used beyond normal software. To that end, I think that if he were truly logically pure, the same logic would apply to the iPhone. But, he would never agree that allowing something like an iPhone to be OK with free software (rightfully so), and so I think that should have demanded that every bit of that microwave be free. And everything else in his life. Also, his comments on co-op food "Thus, food co-ops are not useful for me. I like them in principle." GPL-encumbered libraries are not useful for me. I like them in principle. Good day sir.
- sprout 16y agoYour comparison of the microwave to the iPhone is just false. The point is that if the software is simple enough that it's pretty obviously bug-free, and you have no reasonable need to tinker with it, there's no reason you should need the source for the microcontroller. If the controller isn't working, the source is probably not going to help you. You just need a new microcontroller. On the flip side, there's no reasonable need to extend the microwave's software. The iPhone, by contrast, has millions upon millions of reasons you might need/want to tinker with the software. Hence the demand for source. Seriously, RMS is not the one with a logic problem.
- smallblacksun 16y agoWho gets to decide if there is "no reasonable need"? Apple clearly believes (just like the microwave manufacturer) that there is "no reasonable need" to extend the iphones software.
- culled 16y agoClearly the success of the app store shows that there's a desire to extend the functionality of the phone. Apple just doesn't believe that there's a reasonable need to do it beyond a certain point or to do it without their permission. However, no one is clamoring to write apps for a microwave. A microwave really just has one function and as long as it does that one thing then it doesn't really matter how the software works.
- code_duck 16y agoI think he secretly watches DRMed videos on his MacBook when nobody is looking.
- code_duck 16y agoHa. GOOD LORD, YOU UPTIGHT NERDS!
- kiba 16y agoESR is far more radical than RMS will ever be but few measure themselves by him, probably because ESR look like and act like a pragmatic man.
- biturd 16y agoMaybe that "clarity of purpose" is just age old stubbornness. Going at something so long, so hard, so staunch, and then learning over time perhaps you need to adapt and change. However, you have dug yourself into a deep hole, due to the rigidness over time, you would never be able to adapt, as people would see it as weak, and your own self/ego would not allow it. The guy is in a tough spot. I wish someone would have asked him about the eating of his toe jam. :) It was touched on, and I understand it is not important, but his appearance distracts from his goal. And who in the hell eats the crap between your toes? ( I mean, in public that is, I do so in the privacy of my safe room, duh! ) How in the heck could he have forgotten the belittling of a small kid. Either the OP was in fact making it up/embellishing, or there is no way he forgot, and was covering. The hypothetical about the software based medical solution; that was a surprising answer to me. In a way, he has invented a religious dogma. He seems to have an answer to everything that comes up, in the same way religions also have an answer for dinosaurs and aliens. Just pick a damn movie and pick a damn book for Christ's sake! :) This one just killed me: When a company says, "We want to merge with competitor XYZ, since we are too small to compete in this market, and by the way the merged company will become the biggest in the field," we need to respond, "We won't let you merge. However, we just split your biggest competitor into 5 pieces; maybe now you will find it easier to compete." That is insanity. The guy is not working towards freedom in any sense of the word when I read statements such as that. Government enforced split companies to help out the little guy; sorry, I can't get behind that one at all, no matter how skewed our system is in favor of the big guy. His inability to adapt his position hurts him in the long run. When making comments about textbooks, it was clear to me, that the preferable solution would be to use a free textbook over a non free textbook. I can get behind that. However, when the quality of the non free textbook is abysmal, you must go with the non free version. We are talking about one's eduction, or health, or life saving scenario, their future in general. Giving up a little in the beginning to position yourself to be able to make sure that what you gave up in the beginning never happens again, is the adaptation he lacks, which hurts his end game. Compromise does not seem to be in his vocabulary, yet I suspect he would be so much further along had he learned about it. He may walk into a meeting with major leaders of other countries to get them to look into free software deployment on a scale of millions. That sets the tone to be able to one day implement his idealistic end game. That meeting would have no negotiation to it, it would be his way, or no way, in which case, Microsoft just made all the money, and he took a step backwards for the sake of being stubborn.