3 ms·

> In the world RMS wants, Apple would not have the right to develop Swift and make it proprietary. I am glad that you are more clear about this position of his

> In the world RMS wants, Apple would not have the right to develop Swift and make it proprietary. I am glad that you are more clear about this position of his than he is himself. Personally, I would never have guessed it.

hga 12y ago
The utopia he desired circa ... 1988 or so was one where all programmers were paid to do their thing by the government, and all software was his type of free.
- dgreensp 12y ago
  Great, we programmers can quit our jobs and compete for a small number of government grants like the academics! :)
  - hga 12y ago
    Well, it was implied that everyone would be eligible for these grants, but, yeah, in reality, only a few would be allowed to program, and one reason RMS probably didn't think about it is that he's a good enough programmer that he'd qualify. Except, of course, the process would be very political, and he doesn't play that game at all well.
djur 12y ago
"The FSF campaigns for free software adoption and against proprietary software." - fsf.org/about The FSF position is and always has been that the distribution of non-free/proprietary software works against the "freedom of computer users". That last word is important, because the FSF concerns itself with the rights of end users, not programmers or software companies. That's the big philosophical divide between "free software" and "open source": the 'free' side makes an ethical/consumer protection argument concerning end users, while the 'open' side makes a pragmatic argument mostly concerning developers (cathedral vs. bazaar, etc.).
- boomlinde 12y ago
  Yes, but quote me the part where they are against the right to produce proprietary software.
  - djur 12y ago
    If by that you mean advocating the banning of proprietary software, I don't know that they've done so. They do advocate that governments exclusively use and promote free software[1]. Some of their publications also refer to their "goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software", and that distributing proprietary software is "unethical" and "mistreats" users[2]. EDIT: My interpretation of Stallman's politics is that he would happily support legislation to forbid nonfree software, but I think the FSF intentionally avoids the subject for the sake of their libertarian supporters. [1]: https://gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.html [2]: https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important...
    - hga 12y ago
      Indeed, RMS circa the early-mid '80s---like, when we were roommates precisely when he started the GNU project in September 1983---would have been entirely happy to have proprietary software banned. I doubt his position has changed since then. He was a big fan of Hugo Chávez.... He was also, a while after the start (like 1985), very harsh with "Software Hoarders" like myself who then worked on non-copyleft software.

hga 12y ago

The utopia he desired circa ... 1988 or so was one where all programmers were paid to do their thing by the government, and all software was his type of free.

dgreensp 12y ago
Great, we programmers can quit our jobs and compete for a small number of government grants like the academics! :)
- hga 12y ago
  Well, it was implied that everyone would be eligible for these grants, but, yeah, in reality, only a few would be allowed to program, and one reason RMS probably didn't think about it is that he's a good enough programmer that he'd qualify. Except, of course, the process would be very political, and he doesn't play that game at all well.

djur 12y ago

"The FSF campaigns for free software adoption and against proprietary software." - fsf.org/about The FSF position is and always has been that the distribution of non-free/proprietary software works against the "freedom of computer users". That last word is important, because the FSF concerns itself with the rights of end users, not programmers or software companies. That's the big philosophical divide between "free software" and "open source": the 'free' side makes an ethical/consumer protection argument concerning end users, while the 'open' side makes a pragmatic argument mostly concerning developers (cathedral vs. bazaar, etc.).

boomlinde 12y ago
Yes, but quote me the part where they are against the right to produce proprietary software.
- djur 12y ago
  If by that you mean advocating the banning of proprietary software, I don't know that they've done so. They do advocate that governments exclusively use and promote free software[1]. Some of their publications also refer to their "goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software", and that distributing proprietary software is "unethical" and "mistreats" users[2]. EDIT: My interpretation of Stallman's politics is that he would happily support legislation to forbid nonfree software, but I think the FSF intentionally avoids the subject for the sake of their libertarian supporters. [1]: https://gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.html [2]: https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important...
  - hga 12y ago
    Indeed, RMS circa the early-mid '80s---like, when we were roommates precisely when he started the GNU project in September 1983---would have been entirely happy to have proprietary software banned. I doubt his position has changed since then. He was a big fan of Hugo Chávez.... He was also, a while after the start (like 1985), very harsh with "Software Hoarders" like myself who then worked on non-copyleft software.