20 ms·

The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

472 points by Tloewald 12y ago

skywhopper 12y ago
As much as RMS rubs many people the wrong way (including myself), the GNU project has brought an amazing amount of good to the world, and done much to enable and inspire the various other forms of open source software we enjoy today, which in many ways has driven the development of the Internet in a direction that would have been basically impossible without the software foundation laid by RMS and others who took up the GPL. I'm glad to see the New Yorker covering a massively influential, but often invisible, force behind today's Internet.
- RMarcus 12y ago
  > They would roll their eyes a bit, then hasten to add, as more than one did, “But he’s right about most things.” :)
- nickysielicki 12y ago
  I fear that you, as well as a large portion of the HN community, are prematurely marking GPL software and the GNU movement as an outdated idea that has less of a place moving forward. You look at society today and say, "well, tech has moved so much in the past 25 years, and it's far too developed to become closed now. The point has been made." That's bullshit. We live in a far more closed world than we ever have before. Most people (eg: those not on this website) use their phone as their primary computing device. They access software primarily through closed source app stores. They give their information to servers which are almost certainly closed source. This industry is far too young; the war on general computing is far too powerful, to be able to have this opinion and think it does no harm. We have seen all the good that the GPL has done for us, and we've seen the damage that BSD licensing can do. I'm not saying that BSD licensing doesn't have a place, (I actually use OpenBSD on a daily basis, and I'm aware of many of the difficulties that they face with regards to GPL'd stuff [1]), I'm only saying that it is not superior to the GPL in all cases. [1]: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657
  - me1010 12y ago
    Freedom is an old idea. But somehow it never seems outdated. So, put down the iPhone and pick up the GNU Manifesto and enjoy software freedom -- as good as it is gnu
  - skybrian 12y ago
    The way I think of it is that it's important to have a backup plan. Few people are prepared to give up commercial software today, but we can support the efforts of the activists who do try to live purely, in case we ever need it. Releasing software under GPL-compatible licenses is a way of contributing, even if it's not as strong support as some people would like.
  - skywhopper 12y ago
    Not at all. I agree with you that Free Software is more important than ever and that current trends in computing are dangerous in many more ways than they were when RMS founded GNU. But I reserve the right to find him personally irritating, despite my general support of his cause.
- agumonkey 12y ago
  Let's hope this will revive and push these ideas even further.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- sctb 12y ago
  Thanks, we updated the title.
bcg1 12y ago
Good article, fair, factual. Proper use of the word 'hacker'. Balanced with comments from Tim O'Reilly and accurate distinction made between GPL and BSD/MIT. Good job Maria Bustillos. Can't believe I just wrote that about an article in The New Yorker. :)
- blt 12y ago
  You and me both. I was prepared for an upper crusty profile making fun of his mannerisms or idealism. Instead I got a clear, concise summary of Stallman and the landscape of software licencing. This will be an excellent introduction for the average person.
  - stephencanon 12y ago
    You must not read the New Yorker very often. I don't think I've seen an article that I would describe as "making fun" of anyone in ~25 years of reading.
    - bcg1 12y ago
      True... and to be fair, I also don't watch television, use any of the popular social networks other than Github, I don't have a cell phone, and my default position on anything uttered by a politician is that it is a lie. My comment was more an indictment of mainstream news at large, so if I inappropriately cast aspersions on a good publication, I apologize.
  - finnh 12y ago
    The New Yorker is an amazingly humane publication. Not snarky, not haughty, not what many people (who do not read it) think it is. This piece is a representative sample of their journalism. The New Yorker is like Burning Man - people who've never experienced it have strongly held, fiercely incorrect assumptions about what it is.
    - matthewn 12y ago
      > Not snarky I see you've never read Anthony Lane's film reviews. :)
donjh 12y ago
To those in Chicago, Richard Stallman will be speaking at Loyola tonight. http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html
- davexunit 12y ago
  And to those in the Boston area, RMS will be speaking at LibrePlanet at MIT on Saturday. http://libreplanet.org/2015 http://libreplanet.org/2015
- tjr 12y ago
  I went to hear him at UIUC last night. For as much as I've read his articles and listened to recordings of him online, it was still a very fun and insightful experience to be there in person. Highly recommended if you can make it.
rdtsc 12y ago
We've heard a lot about how inflexible or even terrible GNU/GPL is lately. Whether you agree or not, I think it is important to remember that we would probably be living in a very different world technology-wise if it wasn't for GNU & GPL. In other words, open source in general, even including popularity of other licenses, would not have spread and become so popular if GNU and GPL wasn't there as an extreme, far out example. For those younger here, sharing software by big companies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc) was pretty radical and unheard of back in the day. Now they all share so much of their code which is great.
- wz1000 12y ago
  Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. Someone spends time and energy making something, and releases it for free, and for everyone to use. That person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. The GPL only ensures that anyone who uses and modifies the software has to give back to the community that spawned it in the first place.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    Not even give back to the community... just give back to the next person they decide to give their modified version to, paying it forward. They're not under any obligation to give their modifications to everyone.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      Good point. That is often one of the most misunderstood aspects of GPL. You have to provide the source code to the user you are selling the product to. It doesn't mean you have to necessarily give it to the whole world or even the original writer of the code.
      - JetSpiegel 12y ago
        But the people you give the source to can redistribute it, so it's almost a meaningless distinction.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
"Richard's sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of 'Thou shalt not,' and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, 'Love your neighbor; make value for the world. Let the people do with it what they will!'" Such a dud on O'Reilly's part. The analogy is totally confused from a theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion It doesn't treat them as being mutually exclusive or essentially opposed, it treats them as different areas of potential focus within the same overarching tradition where focus on one vs. focus on the other produces a very different "feel" even when the overall values aren't all that different. > and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament", but its clear from your preceding complaint that you got the intent, which was that "Christian" here stood in for "New Testament" and that both alternatives were, in your words, "in the Christian religion". So your first criticism makes your second seem disingenuous, as the two criticisms require different readings of the text. FWIW, as a lifelong Christian, I've seen this kind of "New Testament" vs. "Old Testament" focus distinction -- one that aligns with detailed proscription based vs. a more personal and situational approach -- made frequently by Christians, and by Christians whose personal preference is on either side (ones who criticize the other side of the relative focus divide for focusing too much on the NT without critical OT context, and those who criticize others for focusing too much on the OT without attention to how the NT should inform the application of the OT.) So I don't think that analogy is inappropriate or poorly chosen, even if the precise wording ("Christian" vs. "New Testament") is less than ideal.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    > I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament" On what grounds? Neither the Old or New Testament aligns with modern Christianity particularly well, but the New Testament definitely aligns more closely.
arca_vorago 12y ago
It's nice to see GNU Manifesto get some love. I have a hard time seeing the ideals of RMS and Free software get run over in conversation so easily, even on HN, while almost every experience I have reinforces the idea that GPLv3 is the future. For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV. Now I have a TV with a quad core ARM in it but I can't put my own distro on it because even though they are running Linux and hence GPLv2, Samsung has made recent patches likely to brick the TV with any attempts to install your own OS... I think too many people have bought into the idea that GPL code makes for complicated legal issues that isn't worth the trouble, but I don't think that's the case at all. Neither is it the case that you can't profit from GPL code. All you have to do is provide source! Anyway, I'm just saying I think RMS is a man ahead of his time even today, and as corporations and governments extend their tentacles of power into the digital world the last bastion of freedom for hackers is going to be GPLv3+ and not BSD (which enables putting users in prisons, eg Apple).
- jordigh 12y ago
  > For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV. Is that one of those TVs that spy on your conversations as if 1984 were a fucking manual to be followed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-is-spying-on-you_n_6647762.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-is-...
  - philh 12y ago
    Only the conversations that you have while holding down the button on the remote control that tells it to start listening to you.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      That's not what this sounds like, but it doesn't say which brand they bought: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv...
philangist 12y ago
Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy) speaks about his usage of GNU/Linux - https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY
- cromulent 12y ago
  Of all the things Stephen Fry is known for, I was surprised to see you cite Top Gear :)
- Ianvdl 12y ago
  Thanks for sharing, I can't believe I've never seen this before.
- AceJohnny2 12y ago
  > Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy) As others have mentioned, I'm surprised you'd associate him with Top Gear of all things. He's better known as the host of the british quiz/comedy show QI (Quite Interesting) [1], and before that one half of the comedy duo behind "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" [2], the other half better known in the US as the actor who played Dr House. Fry also played Jeeves in a television adaptation of P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster series, and dare I say incarnated the perfect humble and effective butler, again alongside Laurie as Wooster. [3] He's one of the top living british comedians, which is why him outing himself as a geek and explaining the importance of the GPL has so much weight. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    I feel like Philangist is probably showing his US roots here: the most popular of Fry's works on this side of the pond is Top Gear. As an American, the only reason I ever came across A Bit of Fry and Laurie is because of a British friend, and I hadn't heard of QI or Jeeves and Wooster. And I've some exposure to British culture (I've watched Doctor Who, Allo Allo, Black Adder, Black Books, Orphan Black, Black Mirror (you guys like your black names!), Monty Python, and others that don't immediately spring to mind). I'm somewhat surprised to find what didn't make it over to the UK from here, though. Someone recently asked me why Americans call her "Willis" and ask what she's talking about, for example.
cromulent 12y ago
Every couple of years I make the same comment here: He's a curious character, but history will treat Stallman kindly.
rando3826 12y ago
> he found himself unable to adapt a new Xerox printer with a program he’d created to alert users to paper jams And still I can't go to an average computer store, buy a printer which is powered by free software so I could customize it like this. We have a long way to go. First to mind: the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more hardware.
- c22 12y ago
  I just used a web interface from my phone to set up my HP printer to send me an email when it encounters a paper jam. Although I can't recall it ever encountering a paper jam...
- davexunit 12y ago
  >the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more hardware. Yes, we'd like to do that. If you know anyone producing hardware, please encourage them to seek RYF certification. We may not have a regular printer certified, but at least we have two 3D printers. ;)
rian 12y ago
The GPL is a hack on copyright law. If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. The GPL is only as powerful as current copyright law allows it to be. Don't hate on the GPL, it's satire. Hate on the last century of corporate-lobbied legislation that has granted unprecedented levels of power to copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Major_amendments_to_federal_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta.... E.g. Mickey Mouse still isn't in the public domain!
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. Its quite possible to believe that existing copyright law represents exactly what government should do to manage IP in that domain and not believe that the GPL represents a choice people should make about how to use the rights provided under copyright law. (Note: I am not saying, in this post that I hold either part of that opinion, only that it is not inconsistent.) So I disagree with your claim "If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law." Believing that government should permit something is different than supporting the choice to actually use that permission in any particular way.
  - rian 12y ago
    It's possible but it's not logical! If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. If you think the author is abusing power, then that means the current copyright law is too broad, and if it's too broad you ultimately don't agree with the law.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > It's possible but it's not logical! If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. No, if one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that it is legal for any particular author to wield that power within those bounds. That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded, just as one's support for the freedom of speech from government censorship doesn't mean one supports every utterance that is outside the scope of what government may prohibit given that freedom. If one's support for the government policy is on a utilitarian basis (as one example of a framework of support that might apply), one can support the government policy while opposing an action it allows simply because one believes any policy which would effectively constrain the action which one does not prefer would have other harms which outweigh the benefits of preventing the action at issue.
hasenj 12y ago
I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users. All the new walled gardens wouldn't have been possible without open source. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter .. you name it.
- davexunit 12y ago
  >I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users. And that's why copyleft is still important! We, as developers, have an abundance of awesome free software to build applications with, but rarely do those freedoms make it all the way to the user. Open Source gives developers freedom. Free Software gives users freedom, too. Consider using the (A)GPLv3 for your next project.
gerardin 12y ago
Damn it is younger than me :(....
ayberkt 12y ago
As a side note: it was Stallman's birthday yesterday, who turned 61 himself.

472 points by Tloewald 12y ago

As much as RMS rubs many people the wrong way (including myself), the GNU project has brought an amazing amount of good to the world, and done much to enable and inspire the various other forms of open source software we enjoy today, which in many ways has driven the development of the Internet in a direction that would have been basically impossible without the software foundation laid by RMS and others who took up the GPL. I'm glad to see the New Yorker covering a massively influential, but often invisible, force behind today's Internet.

RMarcus 12y ago
> They would roll their eyes a bit, then hasten to add, as more than one did, “But he’s right about most things.” :)
nickysielicki 12y ago
I fear that you, as well as a large portion of the HN community, are prematurely marking GPL software and the GNU movement as an outdated idea that has less of a place moving forward. You look at society today and say, "well, tech has moved so much in the past 25 years, and it's far too developed to become closed now. The point has been made." That's bullshit. We live in a far more closed world than we ever have before. Most people (eg: those not on this website) use their phone as their primary computing device. They access software primarily through closed source app stores. They give their information to servers which are almost certainly closed source. This industry is far too young; the war on general computing is far too powerful, to be able to have this opinion and think it does no harm. We have seen all the good that the GPL has done for us, and we've seen the damage that BSD licensing can do. I'm not saying that BSD licensing doesn't have a place, (I actually use OpenBSD on a daily basis, and I'm aware of many of the difficulties that they face with regards to GPL'd stuff [1]), I'm only saying that it is not superior to the GPL in all cases. [1]: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657
- me1010 12y ago
  Freedom is an old idea. But somehow it never seems outdated. So, put down the iPhone and pick up the GNU Manifesto and enjoy software freedom -- as good as it is gnu
- skybrian 12y ago
  The way I think of it is that it's important to have a backup plan. Few people are prepared to give up commercial software today, but we can support the efforts of the activists who do try to live purely, in case we ever need it. Releasing software under GPL-compatible licenses is a way of contributing, even if it's not as strong support as some people would like.
- skywhopper 12y ago
  Not at all. I agree with you that Free Software is more important than ever and that current trends in computing are dangerous in many more ways than they were when RMS founded GNU. But I reserve the right to find him personally irritating, despite my general support of his cause.
agumonkey 12y ago
Let's hope this will revive and push these ideas even further.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sctb 12y ago
Thanks, we updated the title.

bcg1 12y ago

Good article, fair, factual. Proper use of the word 'hacker'. Balanced with comments from Tim O'Reilly and accurate distinction made between GPL and BSD/MIT. Good job Maria Bustillos. Can't believe I just wrote that about an article in The New Yorker. :)

blt 12y ago
You and me both. I was prepared for an upper crusty profile making fun of his mannerisms or idealism. Instead I got a clear, concise summary of Stallman and the landscape of software licencing. This will be an excellent introduction for the average person.
- stephencanon 12y ago
  You must not read the New Yorker very often. I don't think I've seen an article that I would describe as "making fun" of anyone in ~25 years of reading.
  - bcg1 12y ago
    True... and to be fair, I also don't watch television, use any of the popular social networks other than Github, I don't have a cell phone, and my default position on anything uttered by a politician is that it is a lie. My comment was more an indictment of mainstream news at large, so if I inappropriately cast aspersions on a good publication, I apologize.
- finnh 12y ago
  The New Yorker is an amazingly humane publication. Not snarky, not haughty, not what many people (who do not read it) think it is. This piece is a representative sample of their journalism. The New Yorker is like Burning Man - people who've never experienced it have strongly held, fiercely incorrect assumptions about what it is.
  - matthewn 12y ago
    > Not snarky I see you've never read Anthony Lane's film reviews. :)

donjh 12y ago

To those in Chicago, Richard Stallman will be speaking at Loyola tonight. http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html

davexunit 12y ago
And to those in the Boston area, RMS will be speaking at LibrePlanet at MIT on Saturday. http://libreplanet.org/2015 http://libreplanet.org/2015
tjr 12y ago
I went to hear him at UIUC last night. For as much as I've read his articles and listened to recordings of him online, it was still a very fun and insightful experience to be there in person. Highly recommended if you can make it.

rdtsc 12y ago

We've heard a lot about how inflexible or even terrible GNU/GPL is lately. Whether you agree or not, I think it is important to remember that we would probably be living in a very different world technology-wise if it wasn't for GNU & GPL. In other words, open source in general, even including popularity of other licenses, would not have spread and become so popular if GNU and GPL wasn't there as an extreme, far out example. For those younger here, sharing software by big companies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc) was pretty radical and unheard of back in the day. Now they all share so much of their code which is great.

wz1000 12y ago
Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. Someone spends time and energy making something, and releases it for free, and for everyone to use. That person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. The GPL only ensures that anyone who uses and modifies the software has to give back to the community that spawned it in the first place.
- jordigh 12y ago
  Not even give back to the community... just give back to the next person they decide to give their modified version to, paying it forward. They're not under any obligation to give their modifications to everyone.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Good point. That is often one of the most misunderstood aspects of GPL. You have to provide the source code to the user you are selling the product to. It doesn't mean you have to necessarily give it to the whole world or even the original writer of the code.
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      But the people you give the source to can redistribute it, so it's almost a meaningless distinction.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

"Richard's sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of 'Thou shalt not,' and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, 'Love your neighbor; make value for the world. Let the people do with it what they will!'" Such a dud on O'Reilly's part. The analogy is totally confused from a theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion It doesn't treat them as being mutually exclusive or essentially opposed, it treats them as different areas of potential focus within the same overarching tradition where focus on one vs. focus on the other produces a very different "feel" even when the overall values aren't all that different. > and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament", but its clear from your preceding complaint that you got the intent, which was that "Christian" here stood in for "New Testament" and that both alternatives were, in your words, "in the Christian religion". So your first criticism makes your second seem disingenuous, as the two criticisms require different readings of the text. FWIW, as a lifelong Christian, I've seen this kind of "New Testament" vs. "Old Testament" focus distinction -- one that aligns with detailed proscription based vs. a more personal and situational approach -- made frequently by Christians, and by Christians whose personal preference is on either side (ones who criticize the other side of the relative focus divide for focusing too much on the NT without critical OT context, and those who criticize others for focusing too much on the OT without attention to how the NT should inform the application of the OT.) So I don't think that analogy is inappropriate or poorly chosen, even if the precise wording ("Christian" vs. "New Testament") is less than ideal.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament" On what grounds? Neither the Old or New Testament aligns with modern Christianity particularly well, but the New Testament definitely aligns more closely.

arca_vorago 12y ago

It's nice to see GNU Manifesto get some love. I have a hard time seeing the ideals of RMS and Free software get run over in conversation so easily, even on HN, while almost every experience I have reinforces the idea that GPLv3 is the future. For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV. Now I have a TV with a quad core ARM in it but I can't put my own distro on it because even though they are running Linux and hence GPLv2, Samsung has made recent patches likely to brick the TV with any attempts to install your own OS... I think too many people have bought into the idea that GPL code makes for complicated legal issues that isn't worth the trouble, but I don't think that's the case at all. Neither is it the case that you can't profit from GPL code. All you have to do is provide source! Anyway, I'm just saying I think RMS is a man ahead of his time even today, and as corporations and governments extend their tentacles of power into the digital world the last bastion of freedom for hackers is going to be GPLv3+ and not BSD (which enables putting users in prisons, eg Apple).

jordigh 12y ago
> For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV. Is that one of those TVs that spy on your conversations as if 1984 were a fucking manual to be followed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-is-spying-on-you_n_6647762.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-is-...
- philh 12y ago
  Only the conversations that you have while holding down the button on the remote control that tells it to start listening to you.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    That's not what this sounds like, but it doesn't say which brand they bought: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv...

philangist 12y ago

Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy) speaks about his usage of GNU/Linux - https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY

cromulent 12y ago
Of all the things Stephen Fry is known for, I was surprised to see you cite Top Gear :)
Ianvdl 12y ago
Thanks for sharing, I can't believe I've never seen this before.
AceJohnny2 12y ago
> Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy) As others have mentioned, I'm surprised you'd associate him with Top Gear of all things. He's better known as the host of the british quiz/comedy show QI (Quite Interesting) [1], and before that one half of the comedy duo behind "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" [2], the other half better known in the US as the actor who played Dr House. Fry also played Jeeves in a television adaptation of P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster series, and dare I say incarnated the perfect humble and effective butler, again alongside Laurie as Wooster. [3] He's one of the top living british comedians, which is why him outing himself as a geek and explaining the importance of the GPL has so much weight. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  I feel like Philangist is probably showing his US roots here: the most popular of Fry's works on this side of the pond is Top Gear. As an American, the only reason I ever came across A Bit of Fry and Laurie is because of a British friend, and I hadn't heard of QI or Jeeves and Wooster. And I've some exposure to British culture (I've watched Doctor Who, Allo Allo, Black Adder, Black Books, Orphan Black, Black Mirror (you guys like your black names!), Monty Python, and others that don't immediately spring to mind). I'm somewhat surprised to find what didn't make it over to the UK from here, though. Someone recently asked me why Americans call her "Willis" and ask what she's talking about, for example.

cromulent 12y ago

Every couple of years I make the same comment here: He's a curious character, but history will treat Stallman kindly.

rando3826 12y ago

> he found himself unable to adapt a new Xerox printer with a program he’d created to alert users to paper jams And still I can't go to an average computer store, buy a printer which is powered by free software so I could customize it like this. We have a long way to go. First to mind: the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more hardware.

c22 12y ago
I just used a web interface from my phone to set up my HP printer to send me an email when it encounters a paper jam. Although I can't recall it ever encountering a paper jam...
davexunit 12y ago
>the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more hardware. Yes, we'd like to do that. If you know anyone producing hardware, please encourage them to seek RYF certification. We may not have a regular printer certified, but at least we have two 3D printers. ;)

rian 12y ago

The GPL is a hack on copyright law. If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. The GPL is only as powerful as current copyright law allows it to be. Don't hate on the GPL, it's satire. Hate on the last century of corporate-lobbied legislation that has granted unprecedented levels of power to copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Major_amendments_to_federal_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta.... E.g. Mickey Mouse still isn't in the public domain!

dragonwriter 12y ago
> If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. Its quite possible to believe that existing copyright law represents exactly what government should do to manage IP in that domain and not believe that the GPL represents a choice people should make about how to use the rights provided under copyright law. (Note: I am not saying, in this post that I hold either part of that opinion, only that it is not inconsistent.) So I disagree with your claim "If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law." Believing that government should permit something is different than supporting the choice to actually use that permission in any particular way.
- rian 12y ago
  It's possible but it's not logical! If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. If you think the author is abusing power, then that means the current copyright law is too broad, and if it's too broad you ultimately don't agree with the law.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > It's possible but it's not logical! If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. No, if one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that it is legal for any particular author to wield that power within those bounds. That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded, just as one's support for the freedom of speech from government censorship doesn't mean one supports every utterance that is outside the scope of what government may prohibit given that freedom. If one's support for the government policy is on a utilitarian basis (as one example of a framework of support that might apply), one can support the government policy while opposing an action it allows simply because one believes any policy which would effectively constrain the action which one does not prefer would have other harms which outweigh the benefits of preventing the action at issue.

hasenj 12y ago

I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users. All the new walled gardens wouldn't have been possible without open source. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter .. you name it.

davexunit 12y ago
>I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users. And that's why copyleft is still important! We, as developers, have an abundance of awesome free software to build applications with, but rarely do those freedoms make it all the way to the user. Open Source gives developers freedom. Free Software gives users freedom, too. Consider using the (A)GPLv3 for your next project.

gerardin 12y ago

Damn it is younger than me :(....

ayberkt 12y ago

As a side note: it was Stallman's birthday yesterday, who turned 61 himself.