4 ms·

I'm still not sure, after all these years of almost identical rants and writings, that I fully understand RMS's views. I don't see why freedoms 2 and 3 (distrib

I'm still not sure, after all these years of almost identical rants and writings, that I fully understand RMS's views. I don't see why freedoms 2 and 3 (distribution) have anything to do with freedoms 0 and 1 (control). If you want to know what's happening to your data, all you need to know is what's happening on your computer, which means you need to see the source. That's a cause I agree with 100%. I don't understand why you also need to be able to give a copy to your friend.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
It goes with a moral value that RMS and FSF have been very persistent about: strengthening the community and helping your neighbour. RMS even once gave a talk at one of 2600's HOPE conventions where he said that given a moral dilemma of having to give a copy of a proprietary program to a friend and violate the license versus not giving them a copy and sticking to the license, it would be best to go ahead and violate it. Of course, he later went on to explain that free software would serve to get rid of this moral dilemma and that it would be optimal to not use proprietary software at all. RMS' speeches always highlight the value of the community and the role free software plays in strengthening bonds. I believe he's right, as file sharing in general has become an invaluable part of daily life in the developed world.
- GeneralMayhem 13y ago
  Sure, but again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rhetoric of freedom. It dilutes the message, and it's needlessly antagonistic. It alienates people like me who don't think the model of getting paid for what you build is a bad thing. And of course, his scorched-earth, perfect-or-nothing style of morality doesn't help - open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows, but he never acknowledges it. When you have little enough public support to begin with, focusing on the things that separate you from potential allies isn't a good way to do business. Of course, I'm not anywhere near as successful or accomplished as RMS, and probably never will be, so maybe I shouldn't tell him how to do his job. Maybe he just doesn't give a shit if anything actually changes, so long as he stays pure, and if that's what he needs to sleep at night, then fine. But that doesn't make it look any less counterproductive from where I'm sitting.
  - JDShu 13y ago
    RMS does not think that getting paid for what you wrote is a bad thing. His ideal makes it difficult or impractical for this to happen, but he has stressed repeatedly that being paid is not a problem.
  - emiliobumachar 13y ago
    "open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows, but he never acknowledges it" He does. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e... "Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions."
PeterisP 13y ago
Freedoms 2 and 3 are required so that the first freedoms work in practice. You don't want simply to be able to see and modify the source - you want as much people to see the source so that they as well can find the backdoors for your benefit; you want others to be able to make improvements and distribute them so that the improvements benefit you as well. And given the nature of business, it is critically important that people are allowed to do this even against the wishes of the original creator/distributor, because it is the only way to prevent 'anti-features'. If your software vendor has intentionally inserted a backdoor, you need others to be able to legally distribute a fixed version; if your software vendor has intentionally not included some compatibility you need (say, with your own product file formats), you need to be able to distribute a fixed version of their product to your customers.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

It goes with a moral value that RMS and FSF have been very persistent about: strengthening the community and helping your neighbour. RMS even once gave a talk at one of 2600's HOPE conventions where he said that given a moral dilemma of having to give a copy of a proprietary program to a friend and violate the license versus not giving them a copy and sticking to the license, it would be best to go ahead and violate it. Of course, he later went on to explain that free software would serve to get rid of this moral dilemma and that it would be optimal to not use proprietary software at all. RMS' speeches always highlight the value of the community and the role free software plays in strengthening bonds. I believe he's right, as file sharing in general has become an invaluable part of daily life in the developed world.

GeneralMayhem 13y ago
Sure, but again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rhetoric of freedom. It dilutes the message, and it's needlessly antagonistic. It alienates people like me who don't think the model of getting paid for what you build is a bad thing. And of course, his scorched-earth, perfect-or-nothing style of morality doesn't help - open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows, but he never acknowledges it. When you have little enough public support to begin with, focusing on the things that separate you from potential allies isn't a good way to do business. Of course, I'm not anywhere near as successful or accomplished as RMS, and probably never will be, so maybe I shouldn't tell him how to do his job. Maybe he just doesn't give a shit if anything actually changes, so long as he stays pure, and if that's what he needs to sleep at night, then fine. But that doesn't make it look any less counterproductive from where I'm sitting.
- JDShu 13y ago
  RMS does not think that getting paid for what you wrote is a bad thing. His ideal makes it difficult or impractical for this to happen, but he has stressed repeatedly that being paid is not a problem.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  "open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows, but he never acknowledges it" He does. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e... "Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions."

PeterisP 13y ago

Freedoms 2 and 3 are required so that the first freedoms work in practice. You don't want simply to be able to see and modify the source - you want as much people to see the source so that they as well can find the backdoors for your benefit; you want others to be able to make improvements and distribute them so that the improvements benefit you as well. And given the nature of business, it is critically important that people are allowed to do this even against the wishes of the original creator/distributor, because it is the only way to prevent 'anti-features'. If your software vendor has intentionally inserted a backdoor, you need others to be able to legally distribute a fixed version; if your software vendor has intentionally not included some compatibility you need (say, with your own product file formats), you need to be able to distribute a fixed version of their product to your customers.