3 ms·

I think RMS' thinking is stuck in the 80s and 90s. This hinders the whole free software movement. I can see three main points where he is behind the times: 1.

I think RMS' thinking is stuck in the 80s and 90s. This hinders the whole free software movement. I can see three main points where he is behind the times: 1. Permissive licensing actually helps the cause by spreading free software more widely, saturating demand faster, and displacing all proprietary software. It also avoids the contradiction when free software developers use their power to spread software freedom by force. 2. What RMS is afraid of is front-ending of free software with proprietary facades. This is why free software must extend through the whole stack all the way to the end user and it must be complemented with non-profits that deliver complete services to users. Non-profits can also ensure de facto freedom whilst licenses only barely protect de jure freedom. 3. Internet is not about communication. It's about remote operation of server-side software. Software freedoms must extend to teleoperated software, for example through the above mentioned non-profits.

icebraining 8y ago
I don't see how he is stuck at all; I see current events as validating his fears. The problem with (1) is that it doesn't solve (2) at all; free software has spread on the backend thanks to permissive licenses, and yet proprietary facades are rampant. A good example of this is Chrome (built on FOSS webkit) displacing Firefox. And that's despite Mozilla being just that kind of non-profit trying to ensure freedom. Non-profits ensuring freedoms is a nice thought, but it's very hard to compete with the abusive business models of large software corps, so unless you somehow convince regular people that they are better off paying for the stuff they use, licensing is the only real tool you have to avoid having your work contribute to those proprietary facades.
- guy98238710 8y ago
  RMS' thinking comes from the early days of free software when free software was rare and viral licenses helped spread it. Free software is so commonplace now that its sheer volume displaces proprietary software. Proprietary software vendors are trying to adapt by replacing fees with ads and spyware (like in the case of Chrome), but this business model will not last. It is abusive and people feel it. They will eventually gravitate to free software. Once they get used to free software, they wouldn't accept abuse anymore.

icebraining 8y ago

I don't see how he is stuck at all; I see current events as validating his fears. The problem with (1) is that it doesn't solve (2) at all; free software has spread on the backend thanks to permissive licenses, and yet proprietary facades are rampant. A good example of this is Chrome (built on FOSS webkit) displacing Firefox. And that's despite Mozilla being just that kind of non-profit trying to ensure freedom. Non-profits ensuring freedoms is a nice thought, but it's very hard to compete with the abusive business models of large software corps, so unless you somehow convince regular people that they are better off paying for the stuff they use, licensing is the only real tool you have to avoid having your work contribute to those proprietary facades.

guy98238710 8y ago
RMS' thinking comes from the early days of free software when free software was rare and viral licenses helped spread it. Free software is so commonplace now that its sheer volume displaces proprietary software. Proprietary software vendors are trying to adapt by replacing fees with ads and spyware (like in the case of Chrome), but this business model will not last. It is abusive and people feel it. They will eventually gravitate to free software. Once they get used to free software, they wouldn't accept abuse anymore.