4 ms·

Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just couldn't read his latest post on javascript without getting a bit hot under the collar.

Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just couldn't read his latest post on javascript without getting a bit hot under the collar. His position is, in my mind, completely untenable. He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. It's not enough for him that a Google Docs javascript file be free (gratis) – he objects that the file is not easy to read and has no comments. The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. What is this guy on? I have in mind a special device for Stallman, Raymond and the other gratis software nutters. It consists of a big plastic bag that envelops their heads and into which is pumped the aroma of roasted coffee beans. It is required that they use this apparatus until such a time as their eyes light up and they utter the required phrase. Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality. In the recent past it was easy to find some chump to lend you all the money required to buy that house/car/tv you really couldn't afford, or finance your startup based on a 10 page deck and the words “web 2.0”. But things have changed. And perhaps for the better. The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. Hacker kudos doesn't pay the fucking rent. I want to know whether all the people writing iPhone or Facebook apps would have tried so hard if they knew their expected return would be exactly $0? Somehow I don't think so. We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). If you use it and can afford to pay for it then why should I give it to you for free? Note: I'm not arguing against open-source, I'm arguing against working for free. If I spend a great deal of time writing a funky database application and big_multi_national dumps Oracle in favor of my code and saves itself $20million in the process, why shouldn't I get my sniff? There's nothing wrong with making an honest dime... If the same code is used by some charity or someone's personal website then I'm happy to tip my hat and say 'glad to be of service', but not if they're Coca Cola, or Hertz, or... (you name it). If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developers then I believe the whole sector would explode with a level of commitment and energy that would dwarf the already impressive achievements seen by the community. That time has come. It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place. David Semeria Milan, Italy

omouse 18y ago
>The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. You can still provide a link to the full, unobfuscated source code. That isn't difficult to do. Just put the link in an HTML comment where the source is loaded, or at the top of the source file. You're another one of those so-called pragmatists who only thinks about the short-term, ja? Just think, 20+ years ago there wasn't very much free software (nor very much open source software). Now look how much there is! It is now expected that developers release the source code of their projects. True that they are mostly side-projects but there are many serious businesses that are built using Free Software. >It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place. That was tried a number of years ago with the Open Source movement. Their philosophy is to never really talk about freedom, just talk about the benefits, mainly economic. Has it succeeded? Yes, but only as a marketing slogan, with companies co-opting it and the consumer never really knowing exactly what it means for software to be free. >We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). You're allowed to charge money for any Free Software. The only catch is that you can't keep the source code closed or forbid the user from re-distributing it. Which basically means that when you charge money for Free Software, you're a redistribution fee, not a license-to-use fee.
jodrellblank 18y ago
Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality Politician speak alert! If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developer Buy their software. And with it, get the source code and the freedom to do whatever you like with it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
azanar 18y ago
He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-specs. We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious tautology. It is that economic reality that gave rise to the GPL and the Free Software Movement. These were market instruments made to route around other market instruments perceived as damaging or inefficient. That there is so much under the GPL right now suggests that there was real market damage or inefficiency being routed around. Just because there isn't money involved in this doesn't mean there isn't a market involved. This market just happens to trade in something other than money; you seem to see something wrong with that. I think I see why, as well. These people, who will work on software for free -- for hacker kudos -- are perceived as a threat to those who would work on that same software for money. They are not forced, they chose to, but it still means market forces threaten to drive the salary of a developer down. You think this will drive hackers into economic poverty. If anything, it has had the opposite effect. The software people release for free earns them a reputation that allows them to later release other software for a very handsome profit. The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. The movement is very little apart from the developers, so this reduces down to the developers caring more about the users than they do about themselves. Are they being too altruistic? I don't know. If they are, they'll soon find themselves being less altruistic out of need. If not, I don't see why we need to cast aspersions their way. They choose to work this way. As for threatening the livelihood of programming work-for-pay, it isn't. There are still problems out there that you would need to pay people to work on, partly because they haven't forgotten about their rent in all of this, and partly because there just isn't that intrinsic motivation for some of the software people need written.

omouse 18y ago

>The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. You can still provide a link to the full, unobfuscated source code. That isn't difficult to do. Just put the link in an HTML comment where the source is loaded, or at the top of the source file. You're another one of those so-called pragmatists who only thinks about the short-term, ja? Just think, 20+ years ago there wasn't very much free software (nor very much open source software). Now look how much there is! It is now expected that developers release the source code of their projects. True that they are mostly side-projects but there are many serious businesses that are built using Free Software. >It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place. That was tried a number of years ago with the Open Source movement. Their philosophy is to never really talk about freedom, just talk about the benefits, mainly economic. Has it succeeded? Yes, but only as a marketing slogan, with companies co-opting it and the consumer never really knowing exactly what it means for software to be free. >We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). You're allowed to charge money for any Free Software. The only catch is that you can't keep the source code closed or forbid the user from re-distributing it. Which basically means that when you charge money for Free Software, you're a redistribution fee, not a license-to-use fee.

jodrellblank 18y ago

Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality Politician speak alert! If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developer Buy their software. And with it, get the source code and the freedom to do whatever you like with it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

azanar 18y ago

He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-specs. We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious tautology. It is that economic reality that gave rise to the GPL and the Free Software Movement. These were market instruments made to route around other market instruments perceived as damaging or inefficient. That there is so much under the GPL right now suggests that there was real market damage or inefficiency being routed around. Just because there isn't money involved in this doesn't mean there isn't a market involved. This market just happens to trade in something other than money; you seem to see something wrong with that. I think I see why, as well. These people, who will work on software for free -- for hacker kudos -- are perceived as a threat to those who would work on that same software for money. They are not forced, they chose to, but it still means market forces threaten to drive the salary of a developer down. You think this will drive hackers into economic poverty. If anything, it has had the opposite effect. The software people release for free earns them a reputation that allows them to later release other software for a very handsome profit. The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. The movement is very little apart from the developers, so this reduces down to the developers caring more about the users than they do about themselves. Are they being too altruistic? I don't know. If they are, they'll soon find themselves being less altruistic out of need. If not, I don't see why we need to cast aspersions their way. They choose to work this way. As for threatening the livelihood of programming work-for-pay, it isn't. There are still problems out there that you would need to pay people to work on, partly because they haven't forgotten about their rent in all of this, and partly because there just isn't that intrinsic motivation for some of the software people need written.