9 ms·

> Thus, SaaSS is equivalent to running proprietary software with spyware and a universal back door. I actually agreed with the article up to that point, but th

• zifnab06 12y ago
  I've always disliked Richard Stallman's views on software. While open source is great, its a terrible business model. Closed source has its place - and not all of it is inherently evil.
  • fitshipit 12y ago
    Red Hat? Or what about Facebook or Google -- open source is pretty central to their business model.
    • dubcanada 12y ago
      Facebook and Google don't care about open source... Their desire is to get people to use their search/system. That's all they care about, regardless of what pretty bow they wrap it up in. Let's look at Google... Android - Get people to use Google products on mobile. Adsense - Add ads to your site. Analytics - Track how users use stuff to provide better ads. Gmail - Track your email to serve you better ads. Google Search - Serve you ads. Sure they have Dart, Angular, etc which they developed for use internally and then released to the public. But do you honestly think that has anything to do with their business model? They hired smart people, and smart people design things. Those people then released them as open source. But do you honestly believe if Google was to start (theoretically) having money issues, those products would not be the first to go?
      • GeneralMayhem 12y ago
        I'd expect some of the bigger R&D moonshots to go first - Loon, Wing, etc. The open source contributions are good PR with the software development community.
      • xorcist 12y ago
        It everything to do with their business model. Joel Spolsky called it commoditizing your complement (google it).
    • teleclimber 12y ago
      Google? Facebook? Are you kidding? These companies have lots of great open source projects. But the core of their business is certainly not open. Try to find Goog's SERP ranking algorithm on GitHub. Or their Adwords scoring/pricing code. What about Google Doc's text editor? Also, most Google apps on Android are closed.
    • JDShu 12y ago
      Red Hat, by the way, deliberately obscured their kernel code in order to stop Oracle from simply providing support for Red Hat code. Probably the correct business move, but also probably against the spirit of FOSS. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfuscated-source-code-release-1200554.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds...
    • paulhauggis 12y ago
      Two companies that take from the community to save money and then don't give back anything even remotely related to their business model.
      • jacquesm 12y ago
        > don't give back anything even remotely related to their business model. Why should they? It would be nice if they did but they'd be directly enabling their competition. That's not what open source is all about as far as I understand it.
        • fidotron 12y ago
          Indeed. The "Open Source" aspects of those companies are more to do with trying to diminish the value of their competitors. It's a case of "Everything I do is valuable, but everything you do should be free."
  • sarciszewski 12y ago
    > While open source is great, its a terrible business model. Please explain why you believe this is true. Also, don't confuse open source software and free software, there's actually a not-so-subtle difference.
    • teleclimber 12y ago
      > Please explain why you believe this is true. Maybe because when you give people the right to freely copy, use and redistribute your code it's a bit hard to then ask them to pay for it.
      • sarciszewski 12y ago
        Well, I'm sorry you aren't imaginative enough to design a business model which generates revenue from anything other than controlling the supply and charging admission prices. Some ways to milk $ out of free software include: - Being the de-facto expert in your product (hello sweet 6-7 figure consulting contracts when an Enterprise picks it up) - Training - Tech support (hand-holding) - Publish books about the subject The list goes on. If enough people adopt a free software project, that doesn't preclude the person (or persons) who release it from turning a profit. It just ensures they can't do so at the expense of the liberty of their users.
        • grimtrigger 12y ago
          What if you're a coder who has no interest in any of those things? Many people get into SaaS specifically so they don't have to work with bureaucracies any more. Book publishing can sometimes be alternative, but what if your code is so intuitive and easy to understand that no one needs a book about it? Or what if you're a bad communicator and someone else writes a much better book?
        • morgante 12y ago
          Open Source business models exist, but they are nowhere near lucrative enough to sustain all software developers. Who are you supposed to train or publish books to if every developer is somehow trying to eke out a living in this "open source" world?
  • gaius 12y ago
    Stallmans ideas on economics make sense when you factor in his $1m grant from the MacArthur foundation, another $1m from the Takeda foundation, and tenure at MIT. If you have all that sure, give software away for free!
    • alayne 12y ago
      Stallman got $240k from MacArthur in 1990. Pretty sure he's burned through that by now. The Takeda award in 2001 was split three ways so his take was at most $300k.
    • TelmoMenezes 12y ago
      I don't agree with many of Stallman's positions and I think that people should be free to create and profit from proprietary software if they want, but let's try to be rigorous. I don't think Stallman has tenure (or any position) at MIT. Wikipedia says simply: "In February 1984, Stallman quit his job at MIT to work full-time on the GNU project, which he had announced in September 1983." The Takeda foundation award was about $250K: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2001-12/msg00002.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2001-12/msg00002.... The MacArthur fellowship was awarded in 1990, about 6 years after Stallman decided to work full time as a free software activist. I don't think it's fair to claim that he would behave any differently without these awards.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • maxlybbert 12y ago
      I've heard speeches by Stallman where he mentions he has enough money that he no longer has to work, but as others have already said (1) he started working full time on GNU before he received that money (and supported himself by selling free software and prioritizing requests by people who sent him money), and (2) he doesn't live an incredibly opulent life, even factoring in the free travel.
      • pmoriarty 12y ago
        It doesn't take long for "free" travel to become more of a burden than a benefit, even if you don't consider the hassles of going through customs, immigration, and security lines at airports.
  • elwin 12y ago
    > While open source is great, its a terrible business model. I think this is a necessary trade-off. Great business models often lead to monopoly and stagnation.
  • navait 12y ago
    I don't know if Mr. Stallman is exactly a socialist, but he's not pro-capitalism either. So I don't think he really concerns himself with actually getting people to pay software developers. To him, that's an afterthought. This makes him a revolutionary. Unfortunately, when the mainstream absorbs the revolution, what does the revolutionary do? Basically try to get them to adopt the ideas that aren't very good because all the good ones have been taken. The best thing we could do is just say he was a great contributor to software, and ignore whatever drivel he writes now, much like we do with ESR.
    • hga 12y ago
      As of the mid-1980s or so he believed that the government should pay programmers to do their thing. I seem to remember he supported Hugo Chávez.
    • vipstarry 12y ago
      >So I don't think he really concerns himself with actually getting people to pay software developers. To him, that's an afterthought. This is a strawman argument as Stallman does not advocate this at all. Stallman encourages for programmers to get paid for programming work and to sell software at any price that the customer will burden. Stallman is happy for everybody to do business and profit when the business does not hurt people. In the business model of selling proprietary software and selling SAAS, users are harmed of four specific freedoms of free software so Stallman will condemn any business (or any other non-business organization) that does this.
  • vipstarry 12y ago
    If you ever attribute "open source software" to Stallman, you are confused. Stallman wants nothing to do with the idea of OSS, Stallman is advocating for a different idea. Stallman is advocating for the ethical solution to the inherent evil cause by proprietary software. People who have a business model by distributing proprietary software are contributing to this inherent evil. All proprietary software is evil because it causes various social and political problems that result in society who live helpless and socially divided. People who write and distribute proprietary software wield an unjust power over the users who choose to submit to the policy of proprietary software. The ethical solution to this political problem is free software; i.e. software that respects the users' freedom.
  • wtbob 12y ago
    > While open source is great, its a terrible business model. I don't think that RMS cares about business models: he argues that proprietary software is unethical, not that it's bad business. One could probably make a decent sum of money as a hit man, but it would be unethical. Open source advocates argue pragmatically that open source software can be better (many eyes make all bugs shallow) or that it can be a competitive advantage to comnmoditise one's complements; free software advocates don't necessarily disagree, but don't particular care: they believe that proprietary software is fundamentally wrong. You may dislike it, but do you disagree? Can you refute the plethora of ethical arguments RMS has been making over the last several decades?
• Spearchucker 12y ago
  As someone who's ambivalent about free and open source software (put mildly), this is the first one of his articles I really agree with. When I read that bit about universal back doors I smiled, knowing who he is and where he comes from. I still agree with his point. Is it even worth pointing out such trivial things that might well end up hijacking the top thread here? Richard's message, in its entirety, makes an important point. Let's rather discuss that.
  • spion 12y ago
    I point it out because I've noticed this in his writings regularly. I think its really important because I believe it alienates a lot more people than he'd like. When making an argument, the last thing you want to do is sound deliberately dishonest.
• fapjacks 12y ago
  I read it as speaking specifically about the computing you are offloading onto the remote machine, not necessarily all computing that you do on any machine. For example, Microsoft's backdoor is universal on that machine, but doesn't apply to non-Windows hosts outside of that computer. That's what I read, anyways.
• throwawayaway 12y ago
  Did you mean weasel?
• hirsin 12y ago
  This one actually struck me the opposite way. I agree with his stance on SaaSS - you have no control over your data (spyware) which is being given up, and the operator can change literally anything on the system because they own it and have final say (universal backdoor). Microsoft's "universal backdoor" is Windows Update I'm pretty sure. And our telemetry is the spyware. And yes, you could likely attempt to alter a copy of Adobe Reader through Windows Update, but so could any installer under the sun. It's a weak, inflammatory argument to call updates a backdoor. Indeed, the argument against updates will boil down to "well it's not free so how do you know it's not doing x". Which becomes the argument that all nonfree software is/can be backdoored.
  • spion 12y ago
    Thats precisely my point, its not universal. They only change their service (e.g. google docs). The other services you use remain unaffected. Its not a weak and inflammatory argument to call Windows Update a backdoor. If push comes to shove and its very profitable for MS (or they're threatened by the NSA, or any other "really good" reason), they can and very likely will automatically install something on your system that you don't want. Or replace the default search engine with Bing. Or uninstall something. Or make your machine unusable. We've already seen mild examples of this (see U2's album) SaaS (especially web-based) doesn't have that kind of power over your machine (or over other services you use)
    • Xenmen 12y ago
      Yes, 'universal within the defined scope'. Everything within that service. Microsoft Windows doesn't have a backdoor to data on your android phone, but its backdoor is still universal within the scope of your your Windows installation'. Do you have a more appropriate term he could've used? I'm not familiar with one offhand, if you know one I'd appreciate you sharing it.
      • spion 12y ago
        How about just "backdoor" then. "Within a defined scope" != "applicable to all cases" which is the definition of universal. Precise, honest wording is important.