4 ms·

Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. His restrictions is very dogmatic. Don't get me wrong, I think he is important to create the far extreme end o

Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. His restrictions is very dogmatic. Don't get me wrong, I think he is important to create the far extreme end of the open source movement so we can gauge ourselves. But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free. He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses. This is craaaaaaazy. People gotta eat. With his model you fall into the musician trap. If you are a world-renown musician you get people coming to your recitals and don't gotta worry about anything else. If you are not, nobody attends and thus you work as a teacher or waiter. There are some open-source developers who make a full living on donations. But they are few and far between.

quadrangle 8y ago
> Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL Actually, Richard emphasizes consistently every time that he is asked that copyleft (GPL) is not required to be free software, and that non-copyleft free software is absolutely fine in itself. It's just that it risks being used to develop proprietary software which shouldn't exist. Richard's problems with GitHub are only about the non-free aspects of it. There's tons of cases of Richard supporting non-GPL free software. Even if he would prefer GPL, the idea that he opposes (let alone "hates") non-GPL free software can only come from pure ignorance of his actual views. > He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free Certainly. He feels that we are better off with no software than with non-free software. And incidentally, I find that view to be too dogmatic. But it's not true that he wants people to "magically develop on their spare time for free". That's not only a distortion of his views but a complete fabrication from nothing. Richard wants free software development to be funded and actively advocates for it to be funded. But since he feels non-free software is negative, of course he doesn't want people funded to do something he sees as bad! It's true that he advocates for those privileged enough to volunteer in their spare time to do so, but that's part and parcel of pushing for everyone to take whatever resources they have and actively use them for pro-social good. Regarding the musician analogy, it's pretty decent. We're talking about public goods in both cases, with a set of economic dilemmas inherent. Richard doesn't deny any of this or think it's fine. He's interested in (and has actively proposed) solutions both for music and software. You're completely mistaking Richard's view that non-free software doesn't deserve to be funded (or made at all) with a view he doesn't hold in the slightest (that software doesn't deserve to be funded).
kylnew 8y ago
This makes me think a lot about my own challenges with building things and whether or not to take an open source approach. In principle I want to be the ‘good guy’ open sourcer, but I don’t want to go bankrupt either. Thanks for the food for thought.
hunterjrj 8y ago
> He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses. This is craaaaaaazy. People gotta eat. You are flat-out misrepresenting him. Read his definition of "non-free". His concern isn't with the commercial aspect of software. This is clearly stated by him, repeatedly. His concern is with closed source, walled gardens, restrictive licensing.
TheDong 8y ago
> But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free His position is self-consistent and logical. He actually is okay with exceptions (such as using closed-source pacemakers if no open source ones exist), but those exceptions need a STRONG justification because they are depriving people of their rights. If you believe that proprietary software is a violation of the user's rights, it's perfectly consistent to be so strongly opposed to it. > He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses This is not true. He has no issues with companies like Red Hat (who primarily make money off of GPLd software) nor with individual developers selling their GPL licensed software. > With his model you fall into the musician trap The fact that companies like Red Hat exist counters that point I think. I don't think your prediction adequately captures the market forces and profession.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  RMS is definitely not okay with closed-source pacemakers. There's no exception there for the developers. In fact, that's a case (because of hardware) that using free software wouldn't even destroy the current business model. Richard is okay with users of pacemakers making exception in their own avoidance of non-free software. But he's as critical as ever about the software developers making the thing non-free.
- Tijdreiziger 8y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-want-to-be-the-next-red-hat/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-wa...
pron 8y ago
Stallman is certainly extreme and dogmatic in his views of free software, but I don't think being dogmatic means not being logical. What is "logical" when policies are considered, anyway? A policy is meant to advance a goal. You may not share Stallman's goals, or, you may share them but believe that a different policy is a better means of achieving those goals, but I wouldn't say he's not logical. I also do not think that he wants all software development to be unpaid. He just believes that software should generate income by means other than selling licenses to closed-source software. In fact, GNU specifically talks about how to sell free software[1]. You may believe that their economic model is not viable, but they certainly don't advocate unpaid programming, nor do they advocate donations as the sole or even primary means for generating income from software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
volgo 8y ago
Are there any reason that the new generation of developers still listen to random people from GNU like this? The organization seems completely irrelevant now. Developers nowadays face very different issue than they did 20-30 years ago.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  It's just a different side of the same issue. Please note: GNU was never ever about developer issues. It was and remains about USER freedom (and developers are included in that, also encouraging the capacity of users to become developers). Today, the issues about whether you can control your own devices remains and freedom issues come up with using software running on someone else's servers over the internet. Both aspects are significant to whether users have freedom and overall whether we have a free society. Both in the past and today, developers who are not pro-social (don't care about what impacts their work has on the world, just want to focus on getting paid or on a satisfying coding experience) don't see the software-freedom message resonating with them, at least not until they experience a particularly frustrating lack of freedom in some way that affects them personally. The whole time, it's been those who have pro-social values who bother caring about the ethics here.
shock 8y ago
> Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. If you don't know him personally and he hasn't told you this specifically, then stating your opinions as fact harms the larger conversation. Even if I don't agree with him on everything he says, he has been right enough times, that I'm forced to consider the possibility that he might be right and not dismiss his ideas outright as coming from someone `far extreme` as you categorize him.

quadrangle 8y ago

> Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL Actually, Richard emphasizes consistently every time that he is asked that copyleft (GPL) is not required to be free software, and that non-copyleft free software is absolutely fine in itself. It's just that it risks being used to develop proprietary software which shouldn't exist. Richard's problems with GitHub are only about the non-free aspects of it. There's tons of cases of Richard supporting non-GPL free software. Even if he would prefer GPL, the idea that he opposes (let alone "hates") non-GPL free software can only come from pure ignorance of his actual views. > He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free Certainly. He feels that we are better off with no software than with non-free software. And incidentally, I find that view to be too dogmatic. But it's not true that he wants people to "magically develop on their spare time for free". That's not only a distortion of his views but a complete fabrication from nothing. Richard wants free software development to be funded and actively advocates for it to be funded. But since he feels non-free software is negative, of course he doesn't want people funded to do something he sees as bad! It's true that he advocates for those privileged enough to volunteer in their spare time to do so, but that's part and parcel of pushing for everyone to take whatever resources they have and actively use them for pro-social good. Regarding the musician analogy, it's pretty decent. We're talking about public goods in both cases, with a set of economic dilemmas inherent. Richard doesn't deny any of this or think it's fine. He's interested in (and has actively proposed) solutions both for music and software. You're completely mistaking Richard's view that non-free software doesn't deserve to be funded (or made at all) with a view he doesn't hold in the slightest (that software doesn't deserve to be funded).

kylnew 8y ago

This makes me think a lot about my own challenges with building things and whether or not to take an open source approach. In principle I want to be the ‘good guy’ open sourcer, but I don’t want to go bankrupt either. Thanks for the food for thought.

hunterjrj 8y ago

> He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses. This is craaaaaaazy. People gotta eat. You are flat-out misrepresenting him. Read his definition of "non-free". His concern isn't with the commercial aspect of software. This is clearly stated by him, repeatedly. His concern is with closed source, walled gardens, restrictive licensing.

TheDong 8y ago

> But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free His position is self-consistent and logical. He actually is okay with exceptions (such as using closed-source pacemakers if no open source ones exist), but those exceptions need a STRONG justification because they are depriving people of their rights. If you believe that proprietary software is a violation of the user's rights, it's perfectly consistent to be so strongly opposed to it. > He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses This is not true. He has no issues with companies like Red Hat (who primarily make money off of GPLd software) nor with individual developers selling their GPL licensed software. > With his model you fall into the musician trap The fact that companies like Red Hat exist counters that point I think. I don't think your prediction adequately captures the market forces and profession.

quadrangle 8y ago
RMS is definitely not okay with closed-source pacemakers. There's no exception there for the developers. In fact, that's a case (because of hardware) that using free software wouldn't even destroy the current business model. Richard is okay with users of pacemakers making exception in their own avoidance of non-free software. But he's as critical as ever about the software developers making the thing non-free.
Tijdreiziger 8y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-want-to-be-the-next-red-hat/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-wa...

pron 8y ago

Stallman is certainly extreme and dogmatic in his views of free software, but I don't think being dogmatic means not being logical. What is "logical" when policies are considered, anyway? A policy is meant to advance a goal. You may not share Stallman's goals, or, you may share them but believe that a different policy is a better means of achieving those goals, but I wouldn't say he's not logical. I also do not think that he wants all software development to be unpaid. He just believes that software should generate income by means other than selling licenses to closed-source software. In fact, GNU specifically talks about how to sell free software[1]. You may believe that their economic model is not viable, but they certainly don't advocate unpaid programming, nor do they advocate donations as the sole or even primary means for generating income from software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

volgo 8y ago

Are there any reason that the new generation of developers still listen to random people from GNU like this? The organization seems completely irrelevant now. Developers nowadays face very different issue than they did 20-30 years ago.

quadrangle 8y ago
It's just a different side of the same issue. Please note: GNU was never ever about developer issues. It was and remains about USER freedom (and developers are included in that, also encouraging the capacity of users to become developers). Today, the issues about whether you can control your own devices remains and freedom issues come up with using software running on someone else's servers over the internet. Both aspects are significant to whether users have freedom and overall whether we have a free society. Both in the past and today, developers who are not pro-social (don't care about what impacts their work has on the world, just want to focus on getting paid or on a satisfying coding experience) don't see the software-freedom message resonating with them, at least not until they experience a particularly frustrating lack of freedom in some way that affects them personally. The whole time, it's been those who have pro-social values who bother caring about the ethics here.

shock 8y ago

> Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. If you don't know him personally and he hasn't told you this specifically, then stating your opinions as fact harms the larger conversation. Even if I don't agree with him on everything he says, he has been right enough times, that I'm forced to consider the possibility that he might be right and not dismiss his ideas outright as coming from someone `far extreme` as you categorize him.