4 ms·

... which I consider a major loophole in GPL. If google is using a single line of GPL'ed software in their "Big Table" implementation, I demand to see the sourc

by tx 18y ago

... which I consider a major loophole in GPL. If google is using a single line of GPL'ed software in their "Big Table" implementation, I demand to see the source, even though it's not "distributed" to my computer. Matt, free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible: this is why starting a software company is so cheap these days. Without it you'd be paying "enterprise-grade" fees for shit like a web server, operating system, complier, editor, bug tracker and commercial libraries for reading every imaginable file format or speaking any kind of protocol, plus a thousand other software things an average business needs to exist. Perhaps Stallman sees something you don't, partly because you take it for granted.

mattmaroon 18y ago
You're assuming it's an either/or proposition. I never said that. I love free software, we use it for many things at Draftmix, and I own a ton of websites myself, none of which are hosted on Windows. I think it's had a hugely positive impact on the world, and I hope that some day my startup can contribute back. But that doesn't mean proprietary software is evil. There's a place for both, and Stallman doesn't see that. He can't because his religion blinds him to it. Free software is often better for a given task, and would still be preferable if it were equal. But I like Photoshop a hell of a lot better than GIMP and Windows or OSX (for my laptop anyway, not so much for servers) much better than Linux. Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will. There's plenty of room for both. And it's quite a large error on your part to assume I take it for granted.
- bayareaguy 18y ago
  It's ironic that the biggest obstacle to Stallman's idea of free software is his own stupid use of the word "free", so I feel I have to ask but do you mean free as in "without charge" or free as in "unencumbered"? Given that this is Hacker News, it's perhaps important to keep in mind that Stallman has nothing against commercial software. The whole "free" issue for him has to do with restrictions on the right of people to hack and redistribute their hacks.
  - krschultz 18y ago
    No, the issue for Stallman is for the software to be open and stay open. There are many places where the GPL put limitations on what YOU CAN DO with the software. His whole "rights for the people" is a side effect of "rights for the software". By free he means the SOFTWARE is free, not the people using it are free to do what they want. There is a reason the BSD people complain like hell about GNU and the GPL. In my view, the BSD is 'free' software i.e. you can do what you want with it, and the GPL is 'shared' or 'collective' software i.e. you can change it, but you have to share all your changes.
    - juanpablo 18y ago
      How much you can do with an EULA covered software?
    - HansF 18y ago
      You USE (do) the software anywa. The gpl only limits distribution
- galactus 18y ago
  "Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will." For Stallman it is not a question of quality of software but of ethics. And he explains his views without resorting to religion or calling people idiots.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    His views are a religion, and he essentially calls Bill Gates something worse than an idiot: evil.
    - tx 18y ago
      I honestly don't understand your "religion" line towards Stallman's position. Yes, he's been consistent and kept saying the same thing for years, that's the only grounds you can base your analogy on. Free software is a wonderful thing and keeping a source code "secret" or patenting stupid shit like "single click buy" is indeed evil, what else you want to call it when closed-source systems are forcing the entire world to reverse-engineer their file formats, communication protocols, etc. How many programmer-hours have been wasted re-implementing JPEG compression, TCP/IP stack, XML parsing, etc etc etc? Tell me, how is it NOT evil to hold font-rendering patents forcing the entire non-Windows (or OSX) world to stare at fucked-up unreadable fonts? ... and at the same time borrowing anything they want from OSS community when they feel like it (look! there is "etc" folder in windows/system/drivers!) How is it possible to look into SCO vs Linux case and not call Microsoft's envolvement "evil"? If not evil, what is it then? Moreover, the modern history of computing is actually proving that Stallman's views make perfect sense, even from commercial perspective: look at Adobe, who's actually being forced to open-source because they suddenly realized that this gives them an edge over Silverlight. Just compare that to Macromedia's not so distant dreams of selling crazy ass expensive "Flex servers". Or look at poor Opera fighting against the whole world's efforts of improving FF. Even your own examples of better software don't apply. On features and flexibility alone, OSX can't hold a candle to even (!) Gnome and wins user's hearts purely on looks. What's more important, however, is that OSX itself is a giant example of open source (BSD) taking over commercial (Windows) with a for-profit company cashing out in the background - I still don't understand why OSS community lets Apple to get away with it: they took all they wanted and haven't given much of their own stuff back. Majority of code you get installed with OSX isn't written by Apple, yet they get to charge you for it. So don't use OSX as an example of successful closed-source product because it isn't. Also, look back in time: open source systems have been innovating and are responsible for nearly everything we see around ourselves: languages, compilers, internet itself, the list is huge: commercial and closed-loop development hasn't produced anything with an impact, merely playing "catch-up -> copy -> resell" game. You're an intelligent guy, you like to speak your mind directly and I enjoy your blog. There is probably something in your argument that you just can't get across.
mynameishere 18y ago
free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible This is not the argument that Stallman is making, and if he could fully grok the simple fact that business and not mankind is that which has benefited from free software, he'd probably go hang himself in despair. Windows + IIS + VS + SQL Server is not that expensive. Altogether, it's still much cheaper than starting a lawn-care business.

by tx 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

You're assuming it's an either/or proposition. I never said that. I love free software, we use it for many things at Draftmix, and I own a ton of websites myself, none of which are hosted on Windows. I think it's had a hugely positive impact on the world, and I hope that some day my startup can contribute back. But that doesn't mean proprietary software is evil. There's a place for both, and Stallman doesn't see that. He can't because his religion blinds him to it. Free software is often better for a given task, and would still be preferable if it were equal. But I like Photoshop a hell of a lot better than GIMP and Windows or OSX (for my laptop anyway, not so much for servers) much better than Linux. Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will. There's plenty of room for both. And it's quite a large error on your part to assume I take it for granted.

bayareaguy 18y ago
It's ironic that the biggest obstacle to Stallman's idea of free software is his own stupid use of the word "free", so I feel I have to ask but do you mean free as in "without charge" or free as in "unencumbered"? Given that this is Hacker News, it's perhaps important to keep in mind that Stallman has nothing against commercial software. The whole "free" issue for him has to do with restrictions on the right of people to hack and redistribute their hacks.
- krschultz 18y ago
  No, the issue for Stallman is for the software to be open and stay open. There are many places where the GPL put limitations on what YOU CAN DO with the software. His whole "rights for the people" is a side effect of "rights for the software". By free he means the SOFTWARE is free, not the people using it are free to do what they want. There is a reason the BSD people complain like hell about GNU and the GPL. In my view, the BSD is 'free' software i.e. you can do what you want with it, and the GPL is 'shared' or 'collective' software i.e. you can change it, but you have to share all your changes.
  - juanpablo 18y ago
    How much you can do with an EULA covered software?
  - HansF 18y ago
    You USE (do) the software anywa. The gpl only limits distribution
galactus 18y ago
"Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will." For Stallman it is not a question of quality of software but of ethics. And he explains his views without resorting to religion or calling people idiots.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  His views are a religion, and he essentially calls Bill Gates something worse than an idiot: evil.
  - tx 18y ago
    I honestly don't understand your "religion" line towards Stallman's position. Yes, he's been consistent and kept saying the same thing for years, that's the only grounds you can base your analogy on. Free software is a wonderful thing and keeping a source code "secret" or patenting stupid shit like "single click buy" is indeed evil, what else you want to call it when closed-source systems are forcing the entire world to reverse-engineer their file formats, communication protocols, etc. How many programmer-hours have been wasted re-implementing JPEG compression, TCP/IP stack, XML parsing, etc etc etc? Tell me, how is it NOT evil to hold font-rendering patents forcing the entire non-Windows (or OSX) world to stare at fucked-up unreadable fonts? ... and at the same time borrowing anything they want from OSS community when they feel like it (look! there is "etc" folder in windows/system/drivers!) How is it possible to look into SCO vs Linux case and not call Microsoft's envolvement "evil"? If not evil, what is it then? Moreover, the modern history of computing is actually proving that Stallman's views make perfect sense, even from commercial perspective: look at Adobe, who's actually being forced to open-source because they suddenly realized that this gives them an edge over Silverlight. Just compare that to Macromedia's not so distant dreams of selling crazy ass expensive "Flex servers". Or look at poor Opera fighting against the whole world's efforts of improving FF. Even your own examples of better software don't apply. On features and flexibility alone, OSX can't hold a candle to even (!) Gnome and wins user's hearts purely on looks. What's more important, however, is that OSX itself is a giant example of open source (BSD) taking over commercial (Windows) with a for-profit company cashing out in the background - I still don't understand why OSS community lets Apple to get away with it: they took all they wanted and haven't given much of their own stuff back. Majority of code you get installed with OSX isn't written by Apple, yet they get to charge you for it. So don't use OSX as an example of successful closed-source product because it isn't. Also, look back in time: open source systems have been innovating and are responsible for nearly everything we see around ourselves: languages, compilers, internet itself, the list is huge: commercial and closed-loop development hasn't produced anything with an impact, merely playing "catch-up -> copy -> resell" game. You're an intelligent guy, you like to speak your mind directly and I enjoy your blog. There is probably something in your argument that you just can't get across.

mynameishere 18y ago

free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible This is not the argument that Stallman is making, and if he could fully grok the simple fact that business and not mankind is that which has benefited from free software, he'd probably go hang himself in despair. Windows + IIS + VS + SQL Server is not that expensive. Altogether, it's still much cheaper than starting a lawn-care business.