4 ms·

>His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. False dicotomy, he's done more than just that. >What someone in his positio

>His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. False dicotomy, he's done more than just that. >What someone in his position should be doing is talking about how to avoid this dystopian future by promoting standards, accountability, and more transparency. Or, hacking the legal system to create an entire class of intellectual product resistant to the kinds of control he criticizes? Plenty talk, Stallman is one of the few who has done. Honestly, what more could be expected of one person.

astrodust 13y ago
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation may have started this movement, but they haven't been the primary driver for the last decade. First it was Linux, then a multitude of others like RedHat and Debian that built on the Linux foundation. Now there's a robust ecosystem built on and around open-source. Where before The Free Software Foundation and the GPL were important at pushing things forward, they are now holding things back. People want even more freedom than the GPL offers, they'd rather use the MIT or BSD license. In some circles, GPL is the kiss of death, that no matter how good the software is you can't use it. My point is Stallman has done important things, but if he thinks he's still as singularly important as he once was, he's delusional. The movement is much, much bigger than one person taking a stand against proprietary printer software. It's millions of people working together to make software as a whole better. Nobody will ever be at the center of this movement again. If Stallman moved to a tiny island in the Pacific and was never heard from again we'd get by, and many of us wouldn't even notice. He's done his part and left his mark. By way of contrast, when we lose someone like Aaron Schwarz we're diminished. He was someone who was not just opinionated, but motivated to change things. He didn't just write papers or give speeches, he wrote software to further his cause, he went out of his way to challenge the status-quo and force people to to pay attention. We desperately need more people like him.
- dTal 13y ago
  I'm not sure how that's "by contrast". How exactly does "He didn't just write papers or give speeches, he wrote software to further his cause, he went out of his way to challenge the status-quo and force people to to pay attention" not also apply to Stallman? Stallman probably wrote even more code than Aaron Swartz, in addition to writing the first software license that guaranteed the freedom of all future users of the software. All licenses, including proprietary ones, are shunned by some people; the effectiveness of the GPL is evident in the simple fact that it's the most common free software license in use today by a wide margin. So what if Stallman doesn't contribute to software projects much anymore? The whole point of this link was to direct attention, not to his coding skill, but his unusual foresight, which he retains.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "All licenses, including proprietary ones, are shunned by some people; the effectiveness of the GPL is evident in the simple fact that it's the most common free software license in use today by a wide margin." I'd appreciate a source on this - not in a "I doubt it" sense, but "I would find it useful"!
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >People want even more freedom than the GPL offers, they'd rather use the MIT or BSD license. Oh please, stop with 'people' generalisations. First off GPL is the most used open source licence there is, and that doesn't mean it's what the 'people want'. Just as certain as MIT or BSD is also not what 'people want'. The 'people' is a diverse mass of individuals which have different needs and ideologies, some want the source code of modifictions/derivatives as an exchange for their code, others want their name retained in the source code commentary, etc. Also many times developers chose one licence for one type of project and a different one for another type of project. What we typically see is that for full application style projects, copyleft is dominant, while for component/framework style code, permissive licencing is dominant. Copyleft and permissive licences caters for different needs, they fullfill those needs and hence they are used.
- kunai 13y ago
  You can't compare the GPL with the BSD/MIT licenses. They're two different types of free software licenses. The MIT/BSD licenses give the developer freedom, while the GPL is more free if you're talking about the code itself, and not who wrote the code. And, just like Aaron, Stallman has done a lot. He's also written software to further his cause, and he also went out of his way to challenge the status quo and get people to pay attention. Half the software you use now wouldn't be here otherwise.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Given that you can license something MIT/BSD or GPL, I don't see how this is something you can't compare. It's something you should compare. Also, I think developer freedom trumps code freedom in this day and age. GPL served its purpose when code was being threatened by corporate concerns, but now, because of people like Stallman, it's recognized that open-source can be good for business.

astrodust 13y ago

Stallman and the Free Software Foundation may have started this movement, but they haven't been the primary driver for the last decade. First it was Linux, then a multitude of others like RedHat and Debian that built on the Linux foundation. Now there's a robust ecosystem built on and around open-source. Where before The Free Software Foundation and the GPL were important at pushing things forward, they are now holding things back. People want even more freedom than the GPL offers, they'd rather use the MIT or BSD license. In some circles, GPL is the kiss of death, that no matter how good the software is you can't use it. My point is Stallman has done important things, but if he thinks he's still as singularly important as he once was, he's delusional. The movement is much, much bigger than one person taking a stand against proprietary printer software. It's millions of people working together to make software as a whole better. Nobody will ever be at the center of this movement again. If Stallman moved to a tiny island in the Pacific and was never heard from again we'd get by, and many of us wouldn't even notice. He's done his part and left his mark. By way of contrast, when we lose someone like Aaron Schwarz we're diminished. He was someone who was not just opinionated, but motivated to change things. He didn't just write papers or give speeches, he wrote software to further his cause, he went out of his way to challenge the status-quo and force people to to pay attention. We desperately need more people like him.

dTal 13y ago
I'm not sure how that's "by contrast". How exactly does "He didn't just write papers or give speeches, he wrote software to further his cause, he went out of his way to challenge the status-quo and force people to to pay attention" not also apply to Stallman? Stallman probably wrote even more code than Aaron Swartz, in addition to writing the first software license that guaranteed the freedom of all future users of the software. All licenses, including proprietary ones, are shunned by some people; the effectiveness of the GPL is evident in the simple fact that it's the most common free software license in use today by a wide margin. So what if Stallman doesn't contribute to software projects much anymore? The whole point of this link was to direct attention, not to his coding skill, but his unusual foresight, which he retains.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "All licenses, including proprietary ones, are shunned by some people; the effectiveness of the GPL is evident in the simple fact that it's the most common free software license in use today by a wide margin." I'd appreciate a source on this - not in a "I doubt it" sense, but "I would find it useful"!
gillianseed 13y ago
>People want even more freedom than the GPL offers, they'd rather use the MIT or BSD license. Oh please, stop with 'people' generalisations. First off GPL is the most used open source licence there is, and that doesn't mean it's what the 'people want'. Just as certain as MIT or BSD is also not what 'people want'. The 'people' is a diverse mass of individuals which have different needs and ideologies, some want the source code of modifictions/derivatives as an exchange for their code, others want their name retained in the source code commentary, etc. Also many times developers chose one licence for one type of project and a different one for another type of project. What we typically see is that for full application style projects, copyleft is dominant, while for component/framework style code, permissive licencing is dominant. Copyleft and permissive licences caters for different needs, they fullfill those needs and hence they are used.
kunai 13y ago
You can't compare the GPL with the BSD/MIT licenses. They're two different types of free software licenses. The MIT/BSD licenses give the developer freedom, while the GPL is more free if you're talking about the code itself, and not who wrote the code. And, just like Aaron, Stallman has done a lot. He's also written software to further his cause, and he also went out of his way to challenge the status quo and get people to pay attention. Half the software you use now wouldn't be here otherwise.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Given that you can license something MIT/BSD or GPL, I don't see how this is something you can't compare. It's something you should compare. Also, I think developer freedom trumps code freedom in this day and age. GPL served its purpose when code was being threatened by corporate concerns, but now, because of people like Stallman, it's recognized that open-source can be good for business.