5 ms·

Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the software. T

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.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  That works fine for software which requires support. However, I don't want to rely on getting paid by doing support. I'd like to just write some software and for people to pay me for it. I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that. What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Exactly! That's my biggest problem with Stallman's beliefs. Let's take Red Hat Linux for example. Anyone can get or modify Linux free. Even Red Hat itself is open source. So Rwd Hat can't really make a buck selling Linux so they make money on training and support. If I wanted Red Hat I could certainly find an ISO somehwere online easily or I could just download Fedora. So for them it's great but what about the guy who writes a cool text editor for Linux? If that's open source then what does he do? Hope everyone sticks to the honor system and pays? How do you make money charging for support with that type of project? There are far more projects like the example I gave than companies like Red Hat. You're far more likely to find little solo acts who either can't provide support, dont want to, or even if they did wouldn't be able to sell it because it's just not that necessary. Imagine buying a license for support for some text editor you like and calling the support line to ask how to program in some macro or something. It's just not happening. Why do FOSS folks always equate closed software with evil? Couldnt we simply want to keep our code to ourselves so we can make money? In most cases 90% of the value of a developer's app comes from the fact that no one else has the code. Just because I've closed the source doesn't mean I'm adding back doors and spyware to my app. It just means I'm protecting my income stream. Demanding that all software release code so that people can extend the app to their liking presupposes that people want to modify the code. Of all the FOSS software I've downloaded and used I really haven't ever wanted to modify the app except in a few rare cases. It sometimes seems like this FOSS ideology completely forgets that not everyone is a programmer or assumes everyone should want to be a programmer.
praptak 15y ago
> One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/ http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/
dman 15y ago
You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view. To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view - one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and find magical is to read and understand how it works.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Ted Nelson's another person with that view, though he focuses less on licensing, and more on things like whether it's technically possible to modify software or hardware (e.g. how black-boxed, "no user serviceable parts" it is) and whether people get sufficient education to understand and manipulate the increasingly technical world we find ourselves in. I tend to agree with that; I think licensing barriers are one barrier, but not the only one, and not necessarily the biggest one. Unfortunately, some of Nelson's better books are out of print currently... Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk. As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.
- jhuni 15y ago
  Open source is nice but its not a silver bullet. Most young hackets are free to view UNIX crud well state of the art features in OS design like single address space orthogonal persistence remain mostly unknown.

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.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
That works fine for software which requires support. However, I don't want to rely on getting paid by doing support. I'd like to just write some software and for people to pay me for it. I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that. What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Exactly! That's my biggest problem with Stallman's beliefs. Let's take Red Hat Linux for example. Anyone can get or modify Linux free. Even Red Hat itself is open source. So Rwd Hat can't really make a buck selling Linux so they make money on training and support. If I wanted Red Hat I could certainly find an ISO somehwere online easily or I could just download Fedora. So for them it's great but what about the guy who writes a cool text editor for Linux? If that's open source then what does he do? Hope everyone sticks to the honor system and pays? How do you make money charging for support with that type of project? There are far more projects like the example I gave than companies like Red Hat. You're far more likely to find little solo acts who either can't provide support, dont want to, or even if they did wouldn't be able to sell it because it's just not that necessary. Imagine buying a license for support for some text editor you like and calling the support line to ask how to program in some macro or something. It's just not happening. Why do FOSS folks always equate closed software with evil? Couldnt we simply want to keep our code to ourselves so we can make money? In most cases 90% of the value of a developer's app comes from the fact that no one else has the code. Just because I've closed the source doesn't mean I'm adding back doors and spyware to my app. It just means I'm protecting my income stream. Demanding that all software release code so that people can extend the app to their liking presupposes that people want to modify the code. Of all the FOSS software I've downloaded and used I really haven't ever wanted to modify the app except in a few rare cases. It sometimes seems like this FOSS ideology completely forgets that not everyone is a programmer or assumes everyone should want to be a programmer.

praptak 15y ago

> One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/ http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/

dman 15y ago

You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view. To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view - one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and find magical is to read and understand how it works.

_delirium 15y ago
Ted Nelson's another person with that view, though he focuses less on licensing, and more on things like whether it's technically possible to modify software or hardware (e.g. how black-boxed, "no user serviceable parts" it is) and whether people get sufficient education to understand and manipulate the increasingly technical world we find ourselves in. I tend to agree with that; I think licensing barriers are one barrier, but not the only one, and not necessarily the biggest one. Unfortunately, some of Nelson's better books are out of print currently... Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk. As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.
jhuni 15y ago
Open source is nice but its not a silver bullet. Most young hackets are free to view UNIX crud well state of the art features in OS design like single address space orthogonal persistence remain mostly unknown.