8 ms·

Liberating software - interview with Richard Stallman

54 points by Tsiolkovsky 15y ago

Flimm 15y ago
"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free." Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis. Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 15y ago
  It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability. "Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).
  - lukifer 15y ago
    Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.
    - joke-away 15y ago
      "Software liberty" has a ring to it.
- xd 15y ago
  Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.
- thy 15y ago
  when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..
  - Flimm 15y ago
    I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.
    - Flimm 15y ago
      To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis." The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license). I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.
  - skeptical 15y ago
    Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it. If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it." People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license. "f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is." As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free. This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
      - skeptical 15y ago
- getsat 15y ago
  > Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...
- jhuni 15y ago
  This isn't a problem in other languages.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the software. This is not true and it really depends on what "features" you are comfortable with having in programs you buy. Stallman likes to say iTunes is a jail but to him that feature is restrictive while to others it's simply convenient. If I buy a copy of Windows or Office or iWork I do control the software. I'm able to control the input and output. It certainly has limitations but depending upon what knd of user I am I may not care to extend the application or modify it or learn how to do so. If I really wanted those "free" abilities then I'll choose free software but Stallman assumes we all want to be free as it relates to software. Not everyone does. The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version. That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place. One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends? In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons. In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.
- mahcuz 15y ago
  The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software. Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software. People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.
kabdib 15y ago
Stallman conflates "charging money" with "being evil". Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or releasing toy versions. When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something right. Charging money isn't evil, /evil/ is evil.
- skeptical 15y ago
  Err... no. He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute. Read this on the gnu website and understand how wrong you are: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for one, think that's the way it should be. In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute." ....except using it in a proprietary application and not redistributing your changes. Just ask the Thesis theme owner about this. "He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute." The problem with what you said here is that he things its evil to not allow someone to be able to share an application with all of their friends after they bought it once. I suppose he's not directly saying money is evil, but since you pretty much can't make money on an app this way (eventually it will be shared and you will lose any hope of making a profit), he's indirectly saying it. Sure, you can make money on support, but this rules out most small companies because most simply don't have the support staff. Eventually, this will catch up with the development community. We've all seen bookstores, newspapers, and many other traditional businesses go under in the past couple of years due to the Internet. Business owners are getting more tech savvy as the older generation dies off. Why should I hire a college-educated software engineer that can write complex apps when I can get all of those difficult parts for free in an OSS app and hire a less-educated software mechanic for less money? We aren't there yet, but as more and more things are released for free, we will be. My prediction is that the prevalence of open source software it will devalue developer wages over time. I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.
skeptical 15y ago
If you've seen other interviews with RMS, this is pretty much one more, a good one to be fair. Spoiler alert! Best part of the interview: Journalist: Are you married? RMS: No, I'm not. Journalist: Well, I am, I don't want to be free.
sathishmanohar 15y ago
If Richard Stallman, has changed the name of "Free Software Foundation" to "Software Freedom Foundation", He could have saved 2 years of his lifetime, not having to explain "free as in freedom, not free as in beer".
- mwk 15y ago
  First constructive comment I read.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  The issue isn't so much with the Foundation as with "Free Software" in general. It wouldn't make sense to call Firefox a "Software Freedom" project, but calling it "Free Software" does makes sense (just in too many ways at the same time).
  - calcnerd256 15y ago
    "The Software Freedom Foundation encourages (and participates in) the creation of Liberated Software"
- skeptical 15y ago
  On the flip side,a mantra is a very powerful marketing trick.
soitgoes 15y ago
Agreed with a lot of what he was saying about corporations controlling government and society. SOPA seems like a good example of that.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I have to play devil's advocate here because what you said is interesting. Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give them real control? How so and how much? Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to control those agencies then who should be "in control"? If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can and will only do good? Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted to. Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Edit: to clarify, I know Stallmam isn't the guy behind Linux. What I'm saying is that it would be reasonable to assume that whatever software he wants us to be using would need to have his stamp of approval and that stamp comes with a lot of opinionated, biased views. And as for being beholden to developers, free software mitigates many issues but it only works in this scenario if the agency has a team dedicated to ensuring the entire code base is up to their standards in which case why not just roll their own?
jroseattle 15y ago
> programmer-turned-philosopher Richard Stallman. Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become a philosopher. RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism. Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals in a society. Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box. That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us back in this scenario. I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Very well put and I'd like to add to that but before I do I'd just like to say that I don't get why you were downvoted. This is such a well reasoned, on-topic comment and it deserves more discussion. It seems any time there's a post on RMS all of his supporters jump on the thread and I,mediate ly and relentlessly downvote anything that doesn't correspond to their worldview no matter how relevant or rational it is. That speaks to the larger issue you touched on about Stallman and the FSF. They like to talk about control but don't see how they're being controlling. It's as if because Stallmam believes he's doing something "for the good of the people" it's okay to further his cause by any means necessary. I'm hesitant to say this but it kind of reminds me of Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a very well intentioned man and his cause was a just one. The only problem was that he went to extremes, glossed over the gray areas, and refused to accept any other view no matter how good a point the other side made. You can be a supporter of free software while still supporting proprietary software. What Stallman is arguing for takes control out of the hands of the creators and gives it not to the people but the FSF. It's like Stalinist Russia except for software. For the good of the people everyone should own your work. Stallman's views make some assumptions that are unacceptable. 1. He assumes people want to be able to modify the applications they use. Not so. In fact, most people I'd argue acquire software so they don't have to write code. I don't download a text editor because I want to extend it. I do it because it helps me get something else done. I choose the software that meets my needs. If I wanted to toy with source code I'd build my own IDE, compiler, etc and start everything from scratch. 2. It assumes everyone is, wants to be, or should be a programmer. What use is the source code if it looks like gibberish to you? This view glosses over the fact that the majority of users don't give one iota of a shit about programming. They just want to watch YouTube or write their English class essay. 3. It assumes that anything closed source must have something sneaky within it. Okay, so there's spyware and back doors in a lot of proprietary software. That doesn't mean the guy that doesn't release the source of his text editor (I'm thinking of my new favorite editor, Chocolate for Mac) is spying on you or doing anything malicious at all. 4. It assumes that anyone who supports, uses, or develops free software is on the honor system and would never do anything unethical. I think the part where he suggests that free software can be charged for is laughable. If you release anything under GPL you can be reasonably sure someone will take your source and give away some free version of your program or even derive something else and make money off your hard work. Red Hat Linux is not a good rebuttal of this point. Most software, especially from indie devs, doesn't lend itself to the Red Hat business model well at all. Programming is a very valuable skill and the creators of great software deserve to choose how they license and distribute that software. Stallman wants to take choice away from one group and give it to, well, no one really. I'd argue we have choice now. I want to be able to choose proprietary software if it meets my needs and I want to be able to not only charge people for my work but make sure they cannot turn around and undermine my efforts by deriving or giving away my work. That's very reasonable. I love free software and use it often but I can't say there's anything evil about it. There's this sense of entitlement to Stallman's message that I don't like too.
pm90 15y ago
There was a question in the video which i found interesting (and which i think was not answered in the video)... if the source code of a program is publicly available, then won't an attacker have an easy time in finding vulnerabilities? By making only the binary available, isn't this risk being eliminated? (I don't know much about this, so was just wondering whether there is a good explanation for why this is true or not...)

54 points by Tsiolkovsky 15y ago

Flimm 15y ago

"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free." Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis. Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 15y ago
It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability. "Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).
- lukifer 15y ago
  Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.
  - joke-away 15y ago
    "Software liberty" has a ring to it.
xd 15y ago
Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.
thy 15y ago
when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..
- Flimm 15y ago
  I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.
  - Flimm 15y ago
    To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.
paulhauggis 15y ago
"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis." The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license). I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.
- skeptical 15y ago
  Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it. If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it." People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license. "f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is." As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free. This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
    - skeptical 15y ago
getsat 15y ago
> Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...
jhuni 15y ago
This isn't a problem in other languages.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the software. This is not true and it really depends on what "features" you are comfortable with having in programs you buy. Stallman likes to say iTunes is a jail but to him that feature is restrictive while to others it's simply convenient. If I buy a copy of Windows or Office or iWork I do control the software. I'm able to control the input and output. It certainly has limitations but depending upon what knd of user I am I may not care to extend the application or modify it or learn how to do so. If I really wanted those "free" abilities then I'll choose free software but Stallman assumes we all want to be free as it relates to software. Not everyone does. The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version. That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place. One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends? In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons. In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.

mahcuz 15y ago
The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software. Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software. People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.

kabdib 15y ago

Stallman conflates "charging money" with "being evil". Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or releasing toy versions. When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something right. Charging money isn't evil, /evil/ is evil.

skeptical 15y ago
Err... no. He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute. Read this on the gnu website and understand how wrong you are: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for one, think that's the way it should be. In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute." ....except using it in a proprietary application and not redistributing your changes. Just ask the Thesis theme owner about this. "He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute." The problem with what you said here is that he things its evil to not allow someone to be able to share an application with all of their friends after they bought it once. I suppose he's not directly saying money is evil, but since you pretty much can't make money on an app this way (eventually it will be shared and you will lose any hope of making a profit), he's indirectly saying it. Sure, you can make money on support, but this rules out most small companies because most simply don't have the support staff. Eventually, this will catch up with the development community. We've all seen bookstores, newspapers, and many other traditional businesses go under in the past couple of years due to the Internet. Business owners are getting more tech savvy as the older generation dies off. Why should I hire a college-educated software engineer that can write complex apps when I can get all of those difficult parts for free in an OSS app and hire a less-educated software mechanic for less money? We aren't there yet, but as more and more things are released for free, we will be. My prediction is that the prevalence of open source software it will devalue developer wages over time. I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.

skeptical 15y ago

If you've seen other interviews with RMS, this is pretty much one more, a good one to be fair. Spoiler alert! Best part of the interview: Journalist: Are you married? RMS: No, I'm not. Journalist: Well, I am, I don't want to be free.

sathishmanohar 15y ago

If Richard Stallman, has changed the name of "Free Software Foundation" to "Software Freedom Foundation", He could have saved 2 years of his lifetime, not having to explain "free as in freedom, not free as in beer".

mwk 15y ago
First constructive comment I read.
tikhonj 15y ago
The issue isn't so much with the Foundation as with "Free Software" in general. It wouldn't make sense to call Firefox a "Software Freedom" project, but calling it "Free Software" does makes sense (just in too many ways at the same time).
- calcnerd256 15y ago
  "The Software Freedom Foundation encourages (and participates in) the creation of Liberated Software"
skeptical 15y ago
On the flip side,a mantra is a very powerful marketing trick.

soitgoes 15y ago

Agreed with a lot of what he was saying about corporations controlling government and society. SOPA seems like a good example of that.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
I have to play devil's advocate here because what you said is interesting. Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give them real control? How so and how much? Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to control those agencies then who should be "in control"? If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can and will only do good? Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted to. Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Edit: to clarify, I know Stallmam isn't the guy behind Linux. What I'm saying is that it would be reasonable to assume that whatever software he wants us to be using would need to have his stamp of approval and that stamp comes with a lot of opinionated, biased views. And as for being beholden to developers, free software mitigates many issues but it only works in this scenario if the agency has a team dedicated to ensuring the entire code base is up to their standards in which case why not just roll their own?

jroseattle 15y ago

> programmer-turned-philosopher Richard Stallman. Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become a philosopher. RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism. Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals in a society. Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box. That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us back in this scenario. I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Very well put and I'd like to add to that but before I do I'd just like to say that I don't get why you were downvoted. This is such a well reasoned, on-topic comment and it deserves more discussion. It seems any time there's a post on RMS all of his supporters jump on the thread and I,mediate ly and relentlessly downvote anything that doesn't correspond to their worldview no matter how relevant or rational it is. That speaks to the larger issue you touched on about Stallman and the FSF. They like to talk about control but don't see how they're being controlling. It's as if because Stallmam believes he's doing something "for the good of the people" it's okay to further his cause by any means necessary. I'm hesitant to say this but it kind of reminds me of Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a very well intentioned man and his cause was a just one. The only problem was that he went to extremes, glossed over the gray areas, and refused to accept any other view no matter how good a point the other side made. You can be a supporter of free software while still supporting proprietary software. What Stallman is arguing for takes control out of the hands of the creators and gives it not to the people but the FSF. It's like Stalinist Russia except for software. For the good of the people everyone should own your work. Stallman's views make some assumptions that are unacceptable. 1. He assumes people want to be able to modify the applications they use. Not so. In fact, most people I'd argue acquire software so they don't have to write code. I don't download a text editor because I want to extend it. I do it because it helps me get something else done. I choose the software that meets my needs. If I wanted to toy with source code I'd build my own IDE, compiler, etc and start everything from scratch. 2. It assumes everyone is, wants to be, or should be a programmer. What use is the source code if it looks like gibberish to you? This view glosses over the fact that the majority of users don't give one iota of a shit about programming. They just want to watch YouTube or write their English class essay. 3. It assumes that anything closed source must have something sneaky within it. Okay, so there's spyware and back doors in a lot of proprietary software. That doesn't mean the guy that doesn't release the source of his text editor (I'm thinking of my new favorite editor, Chocolate for Mac) is spying on you or doing anything malicious at all. 4. It assumes that anyone who supports, uses, or develops free software is on the honor system and would never do anything unethical. I think the part where he suggests that free software can be charged for is laughable. If you release anything under GPL you can be reasonably sure someone will take your source and give away some free version of your program or even derive something else and make money off your hard work. Red Hat Linux is not a good rebuttal of this point. Most software, especially from indie devs, doesn't lend itself to the Red Hat business model well at all. Programming is a very valuable skill and the creators of great software deserve to choose how they license and distribute that software. Stallman wants to take choice away from one group and give it to, well, no one really. I'd argue we have choice now. I want to be able to choose proprietary software if it meets my needs and I want to be able to not only charge people for my work but make sure they cannot turn around and undermine my efforts by deriving or giving away my work. That's very reasonable. I love free software and use it often but I can't say there's anything evil about it. There's this sense of entitlement to Stallman's message that I don't like too.

pm90 15y ago

There was a question in the video which i found interesting (and which i think was not answered in the video)... if the source code of a program is publicly available, then won't an attacker have an easy time in finding vulnerabilities? By making only the binary available, isn't this risk being eliminated? (I don't know much about this, so was just wondering whether there is a good explanation for why this is true or not...)