7 ms·

You've probably heard this a lot lately, but: "everything Stallman said was true"...and now it's happening on a huge scale.

mtgx 14y ago
People who are ahead of their time always get shot down by the majority.
- glhaynes 14y ago
  And oftentimes so do people who are just kooks. So getting shot down by the majority doesn't really tell us much.
  - novalis 14y ago
    So being ahead of their time AND having people trying to shoot them like they are kooks, doesn't make them kooks. I see your point.
cookiecaper 14y ago
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Stallman is cool and everything but he is NOT 100% right. Most of us here, for instance, do not believe it is unethical to create "proprietary software". There is still a lot of basic philosophy on which to contest Stallman.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  I'm a fan of specifics. Got any specific predictions of his that haven't panned out / have panned our wrong? Other than HURD / Microkernel architecture.
- beagle3 14y ago
  You may disagree with Stallman's philosophy (many do, me too). But his predicitions WERE spot on, and they were made more than 30 years ago. He predicted DRM for consumer media, and that DRM violations will carry a harsh punishment. As the laws are written (and occasionally practiced), he was more than spot-on. He predicted being unable to run unapproved software on commodity hardware you own. This has started happening with iPhone/iPad and somewhat with Win7 and (boot locked) Android devices. This post is about it coming to a PC near you in the near future via Win8 UEFI Secure Boot requirements. In the beginning, you'll have to pay more to get hardware that can run anything you fancy, and it some point you might not be able to. I'd say his predictions were right. Philosophy and ethics is never a well defined right or wrong, so I'm not sure what you are arguing with.
  - Create 14y ago
    Those were not predictions. Those things were already happening -- to paraphrase, the rest of the world got caught up in the future of 30 years ago. The "F* u nvidia" seems also to catch on slowly in Finland -> "there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented - they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn't yet happened." -- http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html
    - beagle3 14y ago
      Was anything like DRM (sanctioned in law or not) happening in 1985 when Stallman wrote "The right to read"? I'm very interested in the details.
      - maratd 14y ago
        DRM is as old as the floppy. Frequently, bad sectors were created on the original media and the software checked for those bad sectors. If you copied the software, you couldn't copy the bad sectors, so the software wouldn't load.
        hollerith 14y ago
        Right. It was called "copy protection" back then, not DRM.
        beagle3 14y ago
        That's a very distant cousin to DRM: if you had two machines, you could just move the floppy or dongle between them (or lend them to a friend, or resell them). You cannot do this with your DRMd music or ebooks. Furthermore, your software and data were usable even if the authorization server went down. (google play4sure if you are not familiar with a modern counter example ). Furthermore, quaid software's "Copywrite" and central point's option board were able to copy just about everything, and we're legally sold and marketed. French and US 3-strike accusation-based penalty is very much in line with what stallman was describing. copy protection of the 80's isn't. The guy deserves credit for quite accurately predicting a non-trivial future.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. The world will eventually realize this, and get rid of proprietary software for good, in addition to all the other horrors RMS has accurately predicted and warned us about for over three decades. Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical. We are currently seeing where this has lead us, and it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. Sure there is. First good reason: Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. > Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical. I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. If they prefer OSS solutions, that's fine -- they're under no obligation to buy. They want what I'm selling. If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. > ... it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph. Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      >Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. b) "better quality [...] than ever seen from OSS products" is bullcrap, and you know it. There's a few select niche markets where proprietary software is still entrenched (eg, Graphic Design), but this too will change. Also, if you don't like something or you feel like a feature is missing, stop complaining and start contributing. >I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). >If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. Making a decent wage with unethical practices is still evil. The circumstances do not matter. You're essentially saying that the ability to turn a profit somehow excuses wrongdoing. It doesn't. >Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers. Hate us all you want, in the end we are right and we'll eventually win. :)
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Sorry but what authority do you have to speak for the HN readers and to say that "most of us do believe" this or that?
gringomorcego 14y ago
well, it's not like anyone has made a real effort to stop it...
Legion 14y ago
And it's nice to see the FSF expressing the issues thoughtfully here, rather than pulling insipid stunts like harassing Apple Store employees. Maybe it's because this is from FSFE - the European counterpart.

mtgx 14y ago

People who are ahead of their time always get shot down by the majority.

glhaynes 14y ago
And oftentimes so do people who are just kooks. So getting shot down by the majority doesn't really tell us much.
- novalis 14y ago
  So being ahead of their time AND having people trying to shoot them like they are kooks, doesn't make them kooks. I see your point.

cookiecaper 14y ago

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Stallman is cool and everything but he is NOT 100% right. Most of us here, for instance, do not believe it is unethical to create "proprietary software". There is still a lot of basic philosophy on which to contest Stallman.

dredmorbius 14y ago
I'm a fan of specifics. Got any specific predictions of his that haven't panned out / have panned our wrong? Other than HURD / Microkernel architecture.
beagle3 14y ago
You may disagree with Stallman's philosophy (many do, me too). But his predicitions WERE spot on, and they were made more than 30 years ago. He predicted DRM for consumer media, and that DRM violations will carry a harsh punishment. As the laws are written (and occasionally practiced), he was more than spot-on. He predicted being unable to run unapproved software on commodity hardware you own. This has started happening with iPhone/iPad and somewhat with Win7 and (boot locked) Android devices. This post is about it coming to a PC near you in the near future via Win8 UEFI Secure Boot requirements. In the beginning, you'll have to pay more to get hardware that can run anything you fancy, and it some point you might not be able to. I'd say his predictions were right. Philosophy and ethics is never a well defined right or wrong, so I'm not sure what you are arguing with.
- Create 14y ago
  Those were not predictions. Those things were already happening -- to paraphrase, the rest of the world got caught up in the future of 30 years ago. The "F* u nvidia" seems also to catch on slowly in Finland -> "there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented - they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn't yet happened." -- http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html
  - beagle3 14y ago
    Was anything like DRM (sanctioned in law or not) happening in 1985 when Stallman wrote "The right to read"? I'm very interested in the details.
    - maratd 14y ago
      DRM is as old as the floppy. Frequently, bad sectors were created on the original media and the software checked for those bad sectors. If you copied the software, you couldn't copy the bad sectors, so the software wouldn't load.
      - hollerith 14y ago
        Right. It was called "copy protection" back then, not DRM.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        That's a very distant cousin to DRM: if you had two machines, you could just move the floppy or dongle between them (or lend them to a friend, or resell them). You cannot do this with your DRMd music or ebooks. Furthermore, your software and data were usable even if the authorization server went down. (google play4sure if you are not familiar with a modern counter example ). Furthermore, quaid software's "Copywrite" and central point's option board were able to copy just about everything, and we're legally sold and marketed. French and US 3-strike accusation-based penalty is very much in line with what stallman was describing. copy protection of the 80's isn't. The guy deserves credit for quite accurately predicting a non-trivial future.
slowpoke 14y ago
There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. The world will eventually realize this, and get rid of proprietary software for good, in addition to all the other horrors RMS has accurately predicted and warned us about for over three decades. Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical. We are currently seeing where this has lead us, and it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph.
- flatline3 14y ago
  > There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. Sure there is. First good reason: Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. > Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical. I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. If they prefer OSS solutions, that's fine -- they're under no obligation to buy. They want what I'm selling. If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. > ... it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph. Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    >Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products. a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid. b) "better quality [...] than ever seen from OSS products" is bullcrap, and you know it. There's a few select niche markets where proprietary software is still entrenched (eg, Graphic Design), but this too will change. Also, if you don't like something or you feel like a feature is missing, stop complaining and start contributing. >I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech). >If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan. Making a decent wage with unethical practices is still evil. The circumstances do not matter. You're essentially saying that the ability to turn a profit somehow excuses wrongdoing. It doesn't. >Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers. Hate us all you want, in the end we are right and we'll eventually win. :)
ekianjo 14y ago
Sorry but what authority do you have to speak for the HN readers and to say that "most of us do believe" this or that?

gringomorcego 14y ago

well, it's not like anyone has made a real effort to stop it...

Legion 14y ago

And it's nice to see the FSF expressing the issues thoughtfully here, rather than pulling insipid stunts like harassing Apple Store employees. Maybe it's because this is from FSFE - the European counterpart.