Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."

Oh God,

My mind is screwed. It immediatly thought of RMS wielding a big a big katana running like a madman towards Gates and a legion of MS employees.

nothing "low" or "desparate" about it

Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that heâ(TM)d sink this low?

I don't see any "low sinking" about it. First of all, the money Gates is so charitably donating, is money he acquired from an illegal monopoly, so it is reasonable to follow where it is going.

Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.

Third, why shouldn't Stallman comment on this stuff? He started the Free Software Foundation out of social consciousness and civic concern; of course, he would comment on other social issues and may well take action, even if they have nothing to do with software.

And why should Stallman be "desparate"? Free software is doing better than ever before, while Microsoft just keeps failing in everything they do.

The rest of the NeoSmart files contains more bullshit. For example:

Stallman somehow neglects to mention that â" regardless of whether morally acceptable or not â" Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.

There is no "neglect" about it. It is not at all clear that Gates had that legal right at the time; in a sense, Gates helped establish that right, to the deteriment of us all, according to Stallman's reading.

I don't agree with what Stallman says, but he is at least consistent and logical. NeoSmart is a bunch of bullshit and FUD.

Is Microsoft getting so desperate that they have to step up their bullshit and FUD machine another notch? I guess it's a good sign.

Re:nothing "low" or "desparate" about it

Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.

When I read how charities are a 'tax shelter', I realize how stupid the writer is. And in this case, how dumb the moderators are.

Give away a dollar to save 40 cents. Brilliant strategy. Especially when you consider the wealthy can probably reduce their tax liability to 20 cents or less per dollar.

Tell you what... give me $10,000 and I will give you back $4,000. Then you to can do the same brilliant 'tax shelter' strategy.

Article focus

As someone who doesn't really follow the free software movement, I think he should have focused on promoting the advantages of open-source, rather than bashing those that are free to license their software whichever way they choose.

Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it.

Utter nonsense - and it reflects badly on the FSF. How exactly are you going to persuade these companies to become more open-source friendly, if all you do is bash them?

More of the same from Stallman

Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not important. What we need to change is this system. That's what the free software movement is all about. "Free" refers to freedom: we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify.

In other words, "Do as I tell you, or you are a dumb slave"

Don't get me wrong, I love free software, but more than that I enjoy software that just works. If its free, I'll use that first, but Stallman has always seemed to say that, "Freedom is what I say freedom is, and if you don't do what I tell you to do, then you are not free" Give me a break.....

Wrong summary. Try reading the article next time.

From the article: "To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers."

Gates Foundation not primarily a charity

My look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows it was founded with two primary purposes:

- Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes. By giving it to a charity he controls, he gets additional benefits.
- As PR for Microsoft against the anti-trust investigation.

Bill Gates has been rich since the 1980s, but his Foundation didn't really get any significant money until 1999. And then Bill then realized around 2004 that he could run his Foundation as his "retirement", and so started giving it more focus.

By checking out the contributions provided at www.gatesfoundation.org, you can see (this is complicated by the fact he had two charities, with the primary one now being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation):
- As of 1998, Bill Gates had donated a grand total of $300million to both of his charities. That's not for that year, that's over all previous years combined, with interest/appreciation. This number is embarrassingly low for a person worth $100billion. However, it's probably just about the right amount to maximize his tax savings on a yearly basis. Also, the charity was building an endowment, and not spending all that much money.
- Then suddenly, in 1999, in the middle of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, he gives $15 billion. He gives another $5 billion in 2000.
- Then, once the anti-trust lawsuit effectively ended, in 2001, he gives $0. Yup, check it out yourself. Probably because he took a loss that year due to the stock market drop, didn't need the tax writeoff anymore, and didn't need the PR.
- In 2002, he gives $82.5million, again, back to the tax dodge. He gives $81.9 million in 2003. He's still worth $40-50 billion dollars due to Microsoft stock.
- In 2004, he starts to give his charity a little more notice, and starts donating $700million in 2004, $442 million in 2005, $333million in 2006, and $1.2billion in 2007.

I wouldn't be surprised if the recipients of his money found it had lots of strings attached, but I'm not interested enough to dig up all this dirt. Although it's nice he's giving some of his money away, IMNSHO, it's just about the least he could do (except for the $20billion PR stunt). I also think the expenses for this foundation are quite high, and are probably more of a tax dodge. The foundation also spends considerably less than he has contributed, so it's building a very large endowment. It seems benign. So far.

I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.

Re:Richard Marx Stalin

fucking commie bastard

capitalism forever!

Yeah!! Because lowering barriers-to-entry into the market and encouraging businesses to be competitive are so communistic.

Oh wait...

Re:Too far

We've had articles [slashdot.org] on this before.

Scientists who were once open with their research are now 'locked up in a cartel' and are financially motivated to support other scientists backed by the Foundation. Diversity of views is 'stifled,' dominance is bought, and Foundation views are pushed with 'intense and aggressive opposition.'"

Re:Too far

There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?

Well this is what he said according to TFA:

Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries.

So basically, he being outed as a Charity basher because he is citing the LA times article [latimes.com] that the foundation only spends 10% of its money on actual helping the poor. He doesn't say the organization shouldn't exist... He's pointing out that they aren't doing their best job of giving to the poor because they are investing for a return.

Read the LA Times article and decide for yourself though.

Re:Too far

The point of a charity investing a hunk of its money is so that it can exist beyond its initial contributions. If the charity just blows all of its money, its life will last as long as people contribute to it and die the day that stops. On the other hand, if you dump a shit-ton of money into it, have that money start making a healthy interest rate, and just spend the interest, the charity continues on basically forever with its supply of cash always building, or at least remaining the same.

Re:Too far

The reason they 'only spend 10%' is because they have a endowment to maintain.

I'm not sure anyone is criticising the foundation's financial model, but the LA Times has questioned the nature of the investments that the foundation makes to sustain itself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines [latimes.com]

I believe the assertion being made is that the foundation's charitable efforts are being sabotaged by its unethical investments.

Re:Too far

Have a read of this article from the LA times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines [latimes.com]

I think that's what Stallman is referring to.

Don't know how much is true, but it makes depressing reading.

Re:Too far

As well as on numerous occasions (esp. during M$ antitrust trial) it was revelead that Bill & Melinda Gates foundation was used to funnel money into "independent" entities who were FUDing against Open Source and other M$ competitors. Also there were many reports of donations filled with freebies like M$Wind0ze and M$Office "for millions dollars." Hardly a charity.

Check that too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms [wikipedia.org]

They might be doing something good - for a change - but essentially the B&MGF is business and nothing else.

Re:Too far

So you propose some sort of tax on free software to pay to the poor? Or, Microsoft keeps charging for Windows but makes it GPL and gives whatever money they get to the poor?

How does your proposal work - specifically, how does the money get to the poor, and from whom?

I'm not a MS fan at all, but given we can all use free software if we choose to and donate money to the poor, unless your plan calls for mandating Microsoft give money to charity, that company has nothing to do with the aims you espouse.

PS - The Gates foundation may only give 'a fraction' of what it 'robs' (how does one rob by soliciting donations, again?) from the rich to the poor, but it is still donating more than you or I ever will, and therefore, has done more good than you or I will likely do in this context.

B&M Gates smoke curtain....

Ahem, ahem...

I am not really impressed by B&M gates foundation... and the use they have given to it:

e-Mexico [infoworld.com].

Which was about to be kickstarted with Open Source (with the backup of HP, IBM, Sun, etc)... until Bill Gates went to Mexico to speak with Presidente Fox... aaaaand, guess what:

Microsoft has pledged $60 million in software and training to help fund Internet kiosks that are being built in remote communities. The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's VAMOS MEXICO program to be used to move the country's libraries online.

Ohh, Vamos Mexico... the foundation from Fox's wife which has been investigated for allegued corruption practices. [nytimes.com]

Oh yes, B&M Gates foundation are God's messengers.

Re:Too far

giving away of billions in charity is all a ruse to solidify his ill-gotten position of power.

So you're saying, that it isn't? [informatio...house.info]

Citations. Desperately. Needed.

Re:Too far

William. Shatner. Sighted.

Re:You see, there's this thing called economics

The economics issue extends to the operations of Bill and Melinda's "charitable" giving as well. You see, the foundation actively opposes generic drugs. I'm not one to suggest Bill is malicious. He really truly believes that the free market doesn't work, that government must establish artificial monopolies on ideas, and his foundation would like to apply the same principles that enabled Microsoft to dominate the US software market to the world pharmaceutical market.

People disagree. Others believe that the market should be left to its own devices and find its own equilibrium. Some would say that denying access to generic drugs by pressuring governments to avoid doing business with companies that produce them, and by also pressuring them to establish, practice and enforce US laws establishing artificial monopolies over ideas on their soil (this is ironically called "free trade"), is causing great harm to the world's poor. Yes, even killing them.

The debate about the usefulness of artificially concentrating great wealth in the hands of the very few so that these superior intellects may shower the rest of us with their munificence extends beyond the world of software. It's entirely appropriate that RMS would be discussing these issues as they relate to the Gates' "charitable" foundation, which invests in the very pharmaceutical companies who's profits are tied to squashing competition from generic drug manufacturers. Thank god someone is doing it, because heaven knows we can't count on our self-interested media conglomerates to provide any kind of balanced perspective.

Re:Too far

If RMS is high on your list of respected people, you have never actually listened to what he says.

Please. What do you suggest as the reason why someone would respect RMS? His good looks? His impeccable cleanliness? His tact? His unmatched skill at singing and songwriting?

RMS is respect-worthy for two reasons: What he says, and perhaps more importantly, what he has done. RMS pretty much single-handedly and deliberately created the free software ecosystem. Like it or not, without RMS, Linux would never have been anything but a 386 assembly-language pet project, the Mozilla project would never have happened, "Open Source" would never have happened, and Microsoft might even have a full-blown monopoly on web technologies by now.

Agree or disagree with him, if you can't imagine why anyone would respect RMS, then you need to research what's happened over the last 25 years.

RMG contributed a LOT.

"Free software existed fine without RMS."

No, it didn't.

Yes, a software package that was already written and finished and made public would of course continue to exist. But there were literally thousands of companies and people who would take advantage of someone else's work and give nothing in return.

More about Richard Matthew Stallman

More:

Quotes [junauza.com] from Richard Matthew Stallman:

"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, that you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone."

"Fighting software patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria."

"Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."

More quotes [stallman.org]:

"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that."

"Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind the human shield of their believers' feelings."

"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral." (Slashdot interview, 1 May 2000)

Richard Matthew Stallman: Author of the GPL.

Richard Matthew Stallman [wikipedia.org] designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.

I dunno

There's also this story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story [latimes.com]

Re:"Anonymous reader"

You know what thought just occurred to me? What if RMS is really just another twitter sockpuppet?