5 ms·

Surprised Spotify's antitrust claims are not mentioned there Edit: All right so this website is meant to make a library of opposition against big corporations.

Surprised Spotify's antitrust claims are not mentioned there Edit: All right so this website is meant to make a library of opposition against big corporations. I understand now

throwaway8879 8y ago
What do you mean by library of hate? Stallman may have his quirks, but he's a fantastic positive force for our freedoms, despite his rigid idealism.
- chdaniel 8y ago
  Right, hate was not the best word, my bad. Changed it to "opposition" — what I meant was I understand now that the website is a library of what big big corporations abuse.
JimmyAustin 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Stallman has been the leading proponent of software freedom for many, many decades. He isn't inherently against big corps, he is against what a lot of big corps do.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Can anyone on HN explain why software freedom could ever be a bad thing? IE: I only see it as Apple having extreme upfront costs, keeping poor people away from developing.
  - mch82 8y ago
    I have two questions about licenses that require distribution of source code (like GPL & AGPL). 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? I’m fully supportive of “attribution” licenses like MIT, BSD, Apache 2. But, I don’t think Stallman considers those “free software”.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      > But, I don’t think Stallman considers those “free software”. He does, though they arent copyleft.
    - kilburn 8y ago
      > 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? There's a clash between user's and developer's freedoms: if a developer is free to keep the source code private, then said software's users are not free to study, change it, and distribute those changes. The free software movement prioritizes user's freedoms (the 4 essential freedoms [1]) over developer's freedoms. You seem to do the opposite. > 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? Your wording makes it hard to answer the question. If you get paid purely to write software, it doesn't matter if said software is free software or not. If you sell software copies/licenses to pay for your development, then it is objectively harder to earn as much. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      > 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? The (A)GPL aim is to retain the freedom of the user to view, modify, compile, and redistribute their changes. They explicitly limit the freedom of the developer to close their source would that the user has those freedoms. To use an extreme example that I'm not using as an example for moral equivalence, but as a procedural one: laws against any (e.g. theft, murder, trespassing, &c) limit the abilities of one party for the benefit of another. Licenses like the MIT and bsd license take the opposite approach: they give the developer the freedom to use the code as they want, including closing it from inspection and modification by the end user. Both allow someone to be constrained in some way. It's just a matter of who. > 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? I mean, RedHat seems to be doing OK? The recent kerfuffle about mongo and elastic search seem to be because they chose more permissive license at the start, and not a copyleft. So, who knows? Business is hard and no one factor makes or breaks your chances?
  - krapp 8y ago
    I don't see software freedom as a bad thing, I just disagree with the moralism of the free software philosophy. I don't believe there is an implicit moral dimension to software licensing, it's simply a matter of technical and financial tradeoffs.
  - valuearb 8y ago
    iOS development costs only $99 a year. Of course if Spotify is able to win its suit, iOS development will become far more costly, Apple won’t be able to distribute free apps at no charge anymore, like it does for Spotify.
weavie 8y ago
Not necessarily just big corporations. https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html
- badpun 8y ago
  Regarding his argument against paid toilets: can’t this be said about any other basic neccesity? I.e. don’t pay for food, because some people can’t afford it - so food should be free.
  - gowld 8y ago
    What's interesting about stallman is that he is zealous about his philosophy, but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent when you take it to its logical extremes. (See the paradox of closed source microwaves). Stallman's philosophy is a veneer over utilitarianism and assumption that the computer is a unique construct in society -- software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software, even if it's less profitable to the creators, and even this claim is not quite true due to the security benefits of closed platforms and the virtuous cycle of profit motive motivating people to work harder to produce more. It makes sense when you consider that Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations from people who made their money not from free software, or who shared such donations with him. The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      I know of no security benefits to closed platforms. I know many people believe one platform that happens to be closed, iOS, is more secure than some other platforms but I've seen no evidence that it's more secure because it's closed. In fact, the platform that's generally considered the least secure, Windows, is also closed.
      - throwawaymath 8y ago
        The general argument is that iOS is more secure because Apple strictly controls both the hardware and the software. The two are very tightly integrated in Apple products, which means proprietary software for e.g. segregating userland or interacting with the secure enclave is specialized and well-audited. The other (perhaps more compelling) argument is that Apple is only able to invest this level of security in its products because of its spectacular profits, which would likely be much lower if iOS were open source. That's basically the gist of it. EDIT: To whoeever downvoted this, I'm just relaying the argument.
valuearb 8y ago
All of Stallman cites are 5-10 years old.

Surprised Spotify's antitrust claims are not mentioned there Edit: All right so this website is meant to make a library of opposition against big corporations. I understand now

throwaway8879 8y ago

What do you mean by library of hate? Stallman may have his quirks, but he's a fantastic positive force for our freedoms, despite his rigid idealism.

chdaniel 8y ago
Right, hate was not the best word, my bad. Changed it to "opposition" — what I meant was I understand now that the website is a library of what big big corporations abuse.

JimmyAustin 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Stallman has been the leading proponent of software freedom for many, many decades. He isn't inherently against big corps, he is against what a lot of big corps do.

robertAngst 8y ago
Can anyone on HN explain why software freedom could ever be a bad thing? IE: I only see it as Apple having extreme upfront costs, keeping poor people away from developing.
- mch82 8y ago
  I have two questions about licenses that require distribution of source code (like GPL & AGPL). 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? I’m fully supportive of “attribution” licenses like MIT, BSD, Apache 2. But, I don’t think Stallman considers those “free software”.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > But, I don’t think Stallman considers those “free software”. He does, though they arent copyleft.
  - kilburn 8y ago
    > 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? There's a clash between user's and developer's freedoms: if a developer is free to keep the source code private, then said software's users are not free to study, change it, and distribute those changes. The free software movement prioritizes user's freedoms (the 4 essential freedoms [1]) over developer's freedoms. You seem to do the opposite. > 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? Your wording makes it hard to answer the question. If you get paid purely to write software, it doesn't matter if said software is free software or not. If you sell software copies/licenses to pay for your development, then it is objectively harder to earn as much. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    > 1. Do they limit the freedom of the developer to keep source code private? The (A)GPL aim is to retain the freedom of the user to view, modify, compile, and redistribute their changes. They explicitly limit the freedom of the developer to close their source would that the user has those freedoms. To use an extreme example that I'm not using as an example for moral equivalence, but as a procedural one: laws against any (e.g. theft, murder, trespassing, &c) limit the abilities of one party for the benefit of another. Licenses like the MIT and bsd license take the opposite approach: they give the developer the freedom to use the code as they want, including closing it from inspection and modification by the end user. Both allow someone to be constrained in some way. It's just a matter of who. > 2. Do they make it harder to sustain a living wage through the labor of writing software? I mean, RedHat seems to be doing OK? The recent kerfuffle about mongo and elastic search seem to be because they chose more permissive license at the start, and not a copyleft. So, who knows? Business is hard and no one factor makes or breaks your chances?
- krapp 8y ago
  I don't see software freedom as a bad thing, I just disagree with the moralism of the free software philosophy. I don't believe there is an implicit moral dimension to software licensing, it's simply a matter of technical and financial tradeoffs.
- valuearb 8y ago
  iOS development costs only $99 a year. Of course if Spotify is able to win its suit, iOS development will become far more costly, Apple won’t be able to distribute free apps at no charge anymore, like it does for Spotify.

weavie 8y ago

Not necessarily just big corporations. https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html

badpun 8y ago
Regarding his argument against paid toilets: can’t this be said about any other basic neccesity? I.e. don’t pay for food, because some people can’t afford it - so food should be free.
- gowld 8y ago
  What's interesting about stallman is that he is zealous about his philosophy, but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent when you take it to its logical extremes. (See the paradox of closed source microwaves). Stallman's philosophy is a veneer over utilitarianism and assumption that the computer is a unique construct in society -- software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software, even if it's less profitable to the creators, and even this claim is not quite true due to the security benefits of closed platforms and the virtuous cycle of profit motive motivating people to work harder to produce more. It makes sense when you consider that Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations from people who made their money not from free software, or who shared such donations with him. The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    I know of no security benefits to closed platforms. I know many people believe one platform that happens to be closed, iOS, is more secure than some other platforms but I've seen no evidence that it's more secure because it's closed. In fact, the platform that's generally considered the least secure, Windows, is also closed.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      The general argument is that iOS is more secure because Apple strictly controls both the hardware and the software. The two are very tightly integrated in Apple products, which means proprietary software for e.g. segregating userland or interacting with the secure enclave is specialized and well-audited. The other (perhaps more compelling) argument is that Apple is only able to invest this level of security in its products because of its spectacular profits, which would likely be much lower if iOS were open source. That's basically the gist of it. EDIT: To whoeever downvoted this, I'm just relaying the argument.

valuearb 8y ago

All of Stallman cites are 5-10 years old.