4 ms·

the future needs free software, open source software and the incredibly innovative licenses stallman pioneered to create. http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-fro

the future needs free software, open source software and the incredibly innovative licenses stallman pioneered to create. http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stand-up-for-stallman http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stan...

rimantas 15y ago
There was free software befor rms, there are other licenses which are more free than his. I know many will not agree with my opinion that rms and his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant, but they are. Mind you, free and open sofware is not irrelevant, quite the opposite. But rms view of the tech world is.
- gillianseed 15y ago
  If GPL ceases to be used (which seems extremely unlikely since it's the most popular software licence) then perhaps you could state that his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant. I do not share Stallman's view regarding proprietary software (although I can see where he comes from given the printer-driver which inspired him to craft GPL) but I certainly see the value of a licence which enforces source code availability of distributed derivates, both practically and ideologically, just as I see the value of licences such as BSD/MIT. As for his predictions regarding the 'tech-world' they have unfortunately been very accurate with software patents posing as the biggest threath to both open/closed source development just as he predicted back in 1996 (if not earlier). Add to this the increased widespread use of computer 'gadgets' and their locked-down functionality. As such I think his views of the tech world is more relevant than ever, despite not fully agreeing with it.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yeah, I have to agree with gill on this one. I do see Stallman's views as largely obsolete and irrelevant but the GPL does have its merit. There are times you want to give some code away but don't want it used in a proprietary way. But Stallman's insistence on the GPL for everything is just wrong. There are times when I want to give code away and don't care if it's used for profit or not or whether someone will use it to derive some proprietary software from it. I use the Apache license 99% of the time. Open source but free to take it and exploit it for money if you want too. I don't mind.

rimantas 15y ago

There was free software befor rms, there are other licenses which are more free than his. I know many will not agree with my opinion that rms and his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant, but they are. Mind you, free and open sofware is not irrelevant, quite the opposite. But rms view of the tech world is.

gillianseed 15y ago
If GPL ceases to be used (which seems extremely unlikely since it's the most popular software licence) then perhaps you could state that his ideas are obsolete and irrelevant. I do not share Stallman's view regarding proprietary software (although I can see where he comes from given the printer-driver which inspired him to craft GPL) but I certainly see the value of a licence which enforces source code availability of distributed derivates, both practically and ideologically, just as I see the value of licences such as BSD/MIT. As for his predictions regarding the 'tech-world' they have unfortunately been very accurate with software patents posing as the biggest threath to both open/closed source development just as he predicted back in 1996 (if not earlier). Add to this the increased widespread use of computer 'gadgets' and their locked-down functionality. As such I think his views of the tech world is more relevant than ever, despite not fully agreeing with it.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Yeah, I have to agree with gill on this one. I do see Stallman's views as largely obsolete and irrelevant but the GPL does have its merit. There are times you want to give some code away but don't want it used in a proprietary way. But Stallman's insistence on the GPL for everything is just wrong. There are times when I want to give code away and don't care if it's used for profit or not or whether someone will use it to derive some proprietary software from it. I use the Apache license 99% of the time. Open source but free to take it and exploit it for money if you want too. I don't mind.