3 ms·

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 th

by 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.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too, what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it. On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want. My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example, at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is open source. Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux. Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly. There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.

by dman 15y ago

_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.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too, what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it. On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want. My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.

tikhonj 15y ago
I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example, at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is open source. Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux. Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly. There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.