10 ms·
RMS on evil developers, spying social networks, the legitimacy of Anonymous
- dimitar 15y agoI think its unfortunate that RMS speaks at RT - a channel that broadcasts Russian government propaganda and weird conspiracy theories.
- spodek 15y agoFrom the article: "Stallman is the man behind the concept that every computer program must be free for users to study and modify as they want." Does he suggest software must be free? We know he doesn't say the must be free in cost. Does he say they need to be free as in speech? I've never heard him say that. I don't think of him as telling others what they must do. I feel like a lot of the polarization around what he says comes from misunderstanding. This feels like one of them.
- dchest 15y agoDoes he suggest software must be free? Yes.
- willvarfar 15y ago> I don't think of him as telling others what they must do Then think of him as telling others that they mustn't limit others
- brmj 15y agoHe consistently states that he views this as a moral imperative. He's not exactly telling everyone that they have to, but he is saying it is fundamentally morally wrong not to.
- bct 15y agoI'm not sure why it matters either way; it's not like he's going to send goons to your house if you don't release your source.
- Dove 15y agoDoes he suggest software must be free? If you mean must as in, it should be illegal to do otherwise, I'm not sure. I don't think so, but given that he casts the conversation in terms of human rights, I can't entirely tell. But if you mean must as in, does he really think all software, without exception, should be free? Absolutely. I think that's clear from the linked article alone.
- flatline 15y agoI really respect many of Stallman's views but I still have trouble reconciling GPL'd software and sustainable commercial innovation. Doesn't the GPL level the playing field to such an extent that the competition can undercut your business model with trivial ease? I would hate to put a bunch of work into something that I planned on making money from only to have perfect copycats overnight. Selling support only scales well for some software.
- jshen 15y agoI don't think your reasoning applies to most software. I'm guessing most software these days runs on the server. Think of heroku. If they open sourced their full stack they still wouldn't have to worry too much about copycats. It still takes a lot of expertise and work to run something like heroku, and they are always making progress which the copycat would have a hard time keeping up with.
- DasIch 15y agoIt works perfectly if you use GPL'd software for a web service or you don't actually sell the software but service for it.
- anon1385 15y agoIt works perfectly if you use GPL'd software for a web service I think RMS sees that as a loophole in the GPL rather than a desirable feature. Hence the existence of the AGPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/index_html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/index_html We recommend that people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network
- prodigal_erik 15y agoOr charge up front for the labor (which is inherently scarce) rather than writing on spec and charging for copies (which never needed to be scarce).
- wmf 15y agoIf the software is to have many users there tends to be a collective action problem in paying for it.
- jerrya 15y agoWith software patterns the US has become a dangerous place for software development, including innovative software development That's close to how I feel about patterns as well.
- bitwize 15y agoYeah, that Gang of Four, man. Almost as bad as the original Gang of Four.
- stock_toaster 15y agoFour horsemen of the scrumpocolypse?
- tux1968 15y agoRMS is likely to be judged very kindly by future historians for fighting the good fight. But let's hope that it's not because his worst fears have come to fruition.
- neilk 15y agoOh yeah, he's one of those guys that nobody wants to talk to when he's alive and in everyone's face, but will be widely praised after he's safely dead.
- plg 15y agoI think it's great that RMS still generates debate. These are issues that we should always be thinking about and debating. What a wonderful legacy.
- shocks 15y agoI agree with a lot of RMS' views, but I would be very interested to know what he thinks about computer games (PC, and consoles). Can anyone shed any light on this? The way I see it, games are much like an interactive film. It's an experience someone has personally created for us. It's more of an art than a computer program. I'm aware of open source games, but I wonder how an open source model would affect a game like Battlefield 3? Cheating would surely be rampant. I certainly do not expect Terabytes of data when I watch a film so I can make the changes I want, nor do I expect sheet music when I buy an album. Games are as much of an art as music & films. What about consoles? They are viciously protected from custom modifications. I don't agree with this, I believe it's our hardware and we should be allowed to do as we wish (hey Microsoft, blowing fuses in my NVRAM without telling me is really not cool).
- dchest 15y agoSee this talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_3i7ZX_Gvk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_3i7ZX_Gvk "Copyright vs Community". Text: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.htm... Search for "I distinguish three broad categories of works".
- shocks 15y agoMany thanks for this.
- pantaloons 15y ago> Cheating would surely be rampant. Not at all, as it is anybody can modify the game binaries in the same way they would modify the source code (albeit with more difficulty). Cheating is prevented by having a central server validate all client actions for consistency, or in games without a simulation server (Starcraft II) having clients compare a game state hash and disconnect if they differ. Client side cheating (Wallhacks, Aimbots) are not preventable without a locked down client, open source or not.
- shocks 15y ago
- rbanffy 15y agoIt's really ludicrous we all know the business model of record labels and movie studios, of selling the right to use and possess something that costs nothing to duplicate, is dead while we are still delusional about our ability to sell software licenses...
- paulhauggis 15y ago"costs nothing to duplicate" I have a challenge for you. Make the last Metallica album in your home without making copy. How long do you think it will take you? How about Photoshop? If you find it's difficult, it's because the original is what costs money, not the duplicate. I also find it interesting that you can't see the value in bits that "cost nothing to copy". Yet, with currency, it's just ink and paper (physically worth considerably less) that represents much more in value. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp when we've already been using it for many years before digital content.
- steve-howard 15y agoI was particularly shocked by the following: "The Anonymous protests for the most part work by having a lot of people send a lot of commands to a website, that it can’t handle so many requests. This is equivalent of a crowd of people going to the door of a building and having a protest on the street. It’s basically legitimate. And when people object to this, let’s look at who they are and what they do. Usually they are people who are doing much worse things" So he's saying that DDoS attacks are legitimate, and anyone who doesn't think they are is up to no good?
- IvarTJ 15y agoIf I understand, he is first of all referring to DDoS attacks where many people voluntarily traffic a server with common computer setups, not when a small number of people pull off major attacks using extra resources such as unwilling puppets.
- steve-howard 15y agoIt's still an intentional denial of service.