Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade 609
| Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade | |
| author | Sam Williams |
| pages | 225 |
| publisher | O'Reilly |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Danny Yee |
| ISBN | 0-596-00287-4 |
| summary | Life of Stallman |
Free as in Freedom is a generally sympathetic but far from hagiographic biography of Richard Stallman, inspiration of the free software movement. While much of the material in it will be familiar to anyone actively involved with free software, there are, as Williams claims, "facts and quotes in here that one won't find in any Slashdot story or Google search." It is also an entertaining and accessible study, which I finished within a day of my review copy arriving.
Williams begins with the famous jamming printer and Stallman's encounter with a non-disclosure agreement that prevented him writing reporting software for it. He then jumps forwards to a speech given by Stallman in 2001, responding to attacks by Microsoft on the GNU GPL. Having used these episodes to introduce Stallman and explain the basic idea of free software, the rest of the work continues in a similar vein, mixing historical chapters with ones describing Williams' own meetings with Stallman.
Chapter three describes Stallman's childhood as a prodigy; chapter four his experiences at Harvard and MIT; chapter six the MIT AI Lab and the Emacs "commune"; chapter seven the death of the MIT hacker community and the first announcement of the GNU Project; chapter nine the GNU GPL; chapter ten the appearance of Linux and debates over GNU/Linux; and chapter eleven the coining of the term "open source" and the arguments over that. These contain quotes by everyone from Stallman's mother to the leading lights of free software, as well as plenty by Stallman himself. The narrative never strays too far from its subject, but becomes inextricably interwoven with the broader history and politics of free software and sometimes digresses to cover key figures and events with which Stallman wasn't directly involved.
Williams' first-hand accounts help give Stallman a human face: chapter five recounts a meeting in 1999 LinuxWorld, chapter eight a meeting in Hawaii, and chapter twelve a frustrating car trip with Stallman at the wheel. These give a feel for Stallman's personality and presence, his forthrightness and emotional intensity, his steadfastness and his abrasiveness, and his ability to unsettle. Chapter thirteen attempts to predict Stallman's status "in 100 years," quoting opinions from from Eben Moglen, John Gilmore, Eric Raymond, and Lawrence Lessig; it also suggests that Stallman's personality may be inseparable from his achievements.
Although I was already involved with free software advocacy, my first encounter with Richard Stallman came when he turned up to a rehearsal of my gamelan group; afterwards I tried without much success to explain to my fellow musicians just how important the strange bearded man they'd just met was. I don't think Free as in Freedom would help much with that: it jumps around too much and assumes too much general knowledge of the computer industry to be a good introduction for complete outsiders. Those already interested in the history and politics of free software and hacker culture, however, should relish it.
In an epilogue Williams talks about the writing of Free as in Freedom and the choice of copyright license. Despite the big fuss made about it being released under the GNU Free Documentation License, however, only a sample chapter is available online now and the rest will not, apparently, be put online until June. (This is not a violation of the OFDL, because Williams as copyright holder can allow O'Reilly to distribute the book in any way they like.) So if you don't want to buy a printed copy, you can either wait three months or hope someone OCRs the book sooner.
You can purchase Free as in Freedom from Barnes & Noble, read chapter three online, or check out Danny's 600 other book reviews. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
The basic problem of personality... (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality is that no one person can provide all that we need by way of leadership, yet something in man seems determined to have a singular leader at the apex.
We need to promote "bodies" of people and quit with the personality cults, they are rarely if ever helpful.
broken record? (Score:1, Insightful)
he is to open mindedness and freedom what bill gates is to gluttony and green.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we all like to discover something new and jump on the latest bandwagon but it's a shame that the endless quest for novelty often obscures what is fundamentally important.
Until people (wider population, not just Slashdot) actually hear and understand Stallman's message I think he's perfectly right to continue sending it out.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's not forget that the guy is, to borrow a Bostonism, "wicked smaht." He's MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, the guy frigging invented Emacs, which is a work of twisted genius comperable to the Necronomicon. You may think that his line is boring as dirt, but think how rotten it must be from his perspective - can you imagine spending hours of your time every day trying to convince people that the sky is blue?
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your question answers itself.
Why are you asking this question? Why aren't you asking "How exactly is istartedi interesting?". I'll tell you why. It's Because RMS is famous and I'm not.
That's enough, but it sort of begs the question "why is he famous?". The answer to that is long and difficult. Some would argue that he isn't famous, and outside the computing community that's true, but only because those outsideers don't realize what an impact the GNU culture has had (for better or worse) on the devices that impact their daily lives.
You could also ask, "at what point did he cross the threshold and become famous?". Was it when he took vengeance on Symbolics? Was it when the GNU project was announced? If he hadn't been at MIT, would anyone have cared? Did the MacArthur grant make him famous? I think pinpointing the exact moment is difficult.
Love him, hate him, love what he stands for, hate what he stands for. Regardless, I don't think there is any arguing that he is an important figure.
I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial software is not immoral. I have never been able to fathom why making a chair and selling it is a-okay by Stallman, but writing a program and selling it is not. Commercial software makes Free Software possible, since it allows programmers to make money while they sharpen their skills. Yes, there are many awful aspects of commercial software: shrinkwrap licenses, spyware, copy protection, no guaranteed rights for the user, etc. But the whole model of "You give me money and I give you a copy of my software" is never, ever going to go away, and Stallman could make many inroads simply by taking a more pragmatic view and admitting that to himself.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that if not for a few people, Richard would be stil slightly controversial, but pretty globally respected, in the general slashdot community.
Or is it that people bash Stallman because he attacks first? Anyone with a high profile in an important community, who makes statements to the effect of: "It is immoral to do X", where the majority of the people in the community owe their livelihood to X, is bound to be highly controversial, regardless of the opinions of others. Or am I one of the "few people"?
Re:Crusades is appropriate (Score:2, Insightful)
Your description "force people to accept your way of thinking, and if they refuse, than you are not as enlightened as those people" is something every group seems to be guilty of however. Staunch conservatives, especially now, label anybody with even the smallest liberal leanings "treehuggers", or more recently "terrorist sympathizers". Pure liberals label anybody with even slightly conservative leanings "facists". Microsoft has declared anybody who supports the FSF's ideals "Unamerican". It's all rhetoric and spin and the important thing is to learn to recognize it whether you consider yourself a member of the group spouting rhetoric or not.
You're obviously a troll " the only real difference is the RMS has not killed anybody for his crusade(yet) ", but you've hit on a nerve that I had to respond to.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everything in this world can be explained by economics. Economic analysis only works where things can be converted in to a particular 1-dimensional measure (money or its equivalent). Every human activity has some degree of "impedance mismatch" when trying to convert it into simplistic economic models. Economic analysis works well for things such as pork belly futures, but not so well for things like religion.
Most economists probably assume that software is like a commodity. RMS probably assumes that software is like a religion. I suspect that it has aspects of both.
Thus, RMS is qualified to comment about his software area, and economists are qualified to comment about theirs. Neither viewpoint covers the whole picture by itself.
T. Boone Pickens (Score:3, Insightful)
This happens all of the time, when and only when a person with technical skill also has an instinct for business.
In the computing world, Bill Gates is a better example than Ross Perot [perot.org] since Perot was mostly a salesman for IBM before becoming a captain of industry, rather than being a programmer. Thus the Perots of the world support your conclusion, but they are not the only cases.
Yea, I know that mentioning some of these names gives me an automatic karma hit, but they are good examples for this point.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:2, Insightful)
Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose. Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.
The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Re:Not-free as in closed minded. (Score:3, Insightful)
https://agia.fsf.org/ [fsf.org]
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:2, Insightful)
The chair analogy is facetious. There is nothing that prevents you from selling GPL'd software. Stallman's basic argument for free software boils down to this: software has bugs, some of which may be repairable by the user of said software if the source code is available. Unless you are shipping bug free software you should ship the code as well or you are doing a disservice to the end user.
To make the chair analogy more apropos, imagine getting on of those wonderful particle boards in a box assemblies from IKEA without any instructions for assembly. IKEA can claim to have sent you the requested piece of furniture but without a guide for assembly it is useless to the user. Granted for simpler pieces a sufficiently motivated person may be able to assemble it anyway, but for any furniture with a significant number of hidden supports that is not the case. As with all analogies this breaks down upon close examination, but then again, that was my original point: software is not equivalent to a finished manufactured good
Incidentally, a better analogy may be other complex systems delivered to an end user such as a nuclear power plant. The handholding and training that the manufacterer (usually Westinghouse or Siemens) has to give to the user (your local utility) is roughly equivalent to providing the source code.
Finally, the "grab a tie" argument has little legitimacy either. If I have a problem with my Linux Kernel, I can hop on the boards (and admitedly absorb some abuse from a few socially underdeveloped board lurkers) and get an answer from the actual software developer themself. Compare this to my officemate who is navigating the "customer support" network of his network card driver manufacterer in an attempt to find the linux drivers the manufacterer claims exist (on thier webpage) but do not provide in any obvious form. He is grabbing lots of ties, but so far the only result is an intense desire to turn them into hangman's nooses.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would immediately beat him to death, since he would have just destroyed (among other things) computer and console gaming. No Grand Theft Auto 3 for you, punk! It's commercial software, and therefore evil!
Who would pay people to write software?
Like today, most software would be written on demand, for a specific purpose.
I would dispute that factoid. But even if it's correct, it doesn't mean that there's no market for general-purpose software. Quite the opposite!
Without the shrink-wrapped software, this category would increase a lot. We'd probably see great development in ventures like Collabnet. Then there would be all the hardware manufacturers that, like today, need software written to be able to sell their products. The world would still need software and with that demand, somebody will make money by supplying it.
And now we're back to nebulousness. Make money HOW? Feed my kids HOW? The truth is, if Stallman could snap his fingers and destroy commercial software, we would simply build it back up as fast as we could, because it works. Doesn't work perfectly, or even well sometimes, but it does work.
The software business would not go away, it would just be different.
Different how? Details! Tell me HOW I WILL GET PAID!
Here is the truth of it. If Stallman could somehow decree that No One Can Ever Sell Software Again, then 90% of programmers would find themselves out of work, and demand would trickle almost to a stop. People would still keep programming, but on their own time as a hobby. Technical advancement in the industry would grind to a halt. Sales of computers to private individuals would slow since (among other things) there wouldn't be any more commercial-quality software (especially games) to use.
This is the world Stallman apparently wants. But I don't, and I don't think you do either. Think for just a minute. Think about what a Free-Software-only world would be like. Imagine if every single program took as long to get good and usable as Linux did. Or KDE or Gnome. Or Apache.
Re:Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. If you don't want to share your code with me, then don't license it under a Free software license.
Or are you talking about the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL? (i.e., you may not use my GPL'd code in your program unless yours is GPL'd too). Sorry, you have it exactly backwards. *You* have no right (moral or otherwise) to use *my* code, unless you agree to my license.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my 20+ year career, I've worked mostly in integration and support. I guess there have been times when something I've written has gone into a product that has been sold, but overwhelmingly, I've produced custom changes for a specific organization's use, I've done integration of software into a specific environment or I performed technical support of systems in use.
I don't think that I've ever supported myself or my family on commercial software. So, I don't feel very threatened by Free Software. In fact, I think my opportunities for integration, custom modifications and support would improve if Free Software were more prevalent.
YMMV, of course.
It certainly is possible (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial software is not immoral. I have never been able to fathom why making a chair and selling it is a-okay by Stallman, but writing a program and selling it is not. the whole model of "You give me money and I give you a copy of my software" is never, ever going to go away, and Stallman could make many inroads simply by taking a more pragmatic view and admitting that to himself.
No one said that the speculative manufacturing model was the only way to make money off software. Its perfectly valid to work on a contract basis, where you get paid as you go for the work you are doing. In fact thats what most programmers do.
Think of programming as service sector rather than manufacturing sector. Stallman is never going to admit that hoarding information using force is moral, which you seem to want him to do. Software is a commodity, deal with it. You certainly arent paying royalties for every bit of knowledge in your head, why should others?
The ranks of rms detractors are heavily stocked with the short sighted affiliates of manufacturing sector software companies. They want to make money by oppressing others, using patents, copyrights, and other tools of force. They dont understand that sharing an infinite resource makes noone poorer. If everyone shared, we would all be much richer for it.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:5, Insightful)
But once I've purchased the chair, I'm free to reverse engineer it, modify it, hire someone else to modify it, resell it, lease it, rent it. I'm not able to with most commericial software.
I might be able to make exact copies of the chair I purchased, the only restriction would be copyright law (and perhaps patent law). I suspect Stallman would be very unhappy with being unable to make copies (possibly modified) of a chair he really liked and giving them to his friends and neighbors. It simply hasn't become a real issue yet because making copies of a physical objects is slow and expensive. At some point humanity may create technology making it easy to make copies of chairs, cars, and other physical objects and we're going to have this entire argument again.
Stallman isn't against commericial software. He's against software which restricts the freedom of users. Freedoms we take for granted with physical objects. Does his point of view make it very hard to support a commercial industry in software? Perhaps. Perhaps the industry will adapt. (After all, most software is developed for internal use in a company only.) But if you really believe that something is immoral, you need to fight it even at the potential cost of an industry.
most interesting? (Score:2, Insightful)
He's an uncompromising fanatic, and that makes him interesting in the same way that religious zealots are interesting. What is more interesting is the cult-following that he has managed to achieve. He's managed to convince a group of otherwise bright people to focus solely on the gospel of the GPL.
Weird, I started out writing this to show that Stallman isn't interesting at all, but the more I think about it, the more I realize he is. I may not like the way he or his minions behave, but it's definitely interesting...
Interesting ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um..yeah. If you spent 12 years sleeping on the floor
of your office, under your desk, you'd be interesting too. As well as mad as a hatter, and without a girlfriend.
Respect and all that...but he is a freak.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:2, Insightful)
IANRMS (I Am Not RMS) but from what I've heard him say, his view is that programs are no different from speach and ideas. He believes that the use of ideas cannot be limited through barter and trade. Comparing a chair with... oh say... the first ammendment of the US Constitution is pure nonsense! You cannot require that someone only be allowed to make use of the first ammendment only if that person has purchased it from a qualified retailer.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Opinion noted.
Still try and apply this to air. We all agree that the ability to breath air should be granted to everyone without some sort of licensing requirement. Any such industry that builds up around the selling of air, and that sues people who breathe air without paying is just plain wrong. Our laws should not support that kind of thing. Our society should not applaud those industry leaders. That entire industry would be, if it existed, in the wrong! People working in it, should find another career because they're supporting something that is wrong.
Switch air and software, and you get RMS's point of view. To RMS, software is *supposed* to be as free as air. Anyone who supports such an industry and justifies their support of it because they've based their livlihood on it, well, that's just tough.
If you believed that software was supposed to be free, you'd probably do and say the same things that RMS does and says. Think about how you'd feel about an industry that licensed you the right to use air, and you get an idea of how RMS thinks about the software industry.
Now you may disagree with RMS about his basic belief as to whether or not software should be free. But that's a whole site different than saying that he's behaving badly. He's behaving exactly like I would behave if I really believed the same things he believed. Which means that if I want to change his behavior, I've got to address the the belief, not the actions that result from it.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Switch air and software, and you get RMS's point of view.
But nobody has to make air. It's just there, and without it you die, so of course it would be illegal and immoral to try to limit people's access to it. So his analogy is flawed on a fundamental level, but because he's got tenure and sycophants surrounding him, he never has to face up to that truth.
Stallman's legal accomplishments (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL, which is a legal concept, is Stallman's great innovation. It will be remembered long after his code is forgotten.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because copyright is a tradeoff with society. It is not a 'natural' right (if you even believe in such things). The purpose of copyright is to provide incentive for creative works. Society demands benefit in return for providing a protectionist monopoly. Where the balance should lie is the subject of a wonderful book, "The Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig.
The poster brings up another important point. What if we do develop replicators? I certainly don't morally restricted from buying a shirt from K-mart and then replicating it. Perhaps a balance could be struck in preventing the replicator from being used for commercial purposes, but I don't see a problem in giving copies of the shirt to anyone for no profit.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the key. The idea of Free Softare has no problem with you selling software. Just don't restrict the customer in his ability to manipulate that software to his liking, and redistribute it.
Of course, the catch is the problem of your potential customers getting the software from your first customer. I haven't entirely resolved this issue, but the once-removed customer certainly does not get support from you. This is key to RedHat's business model.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this is that it's like asking an ideological champion of democracy to concede that democracy is only one of many good ways to organize a society, and that some non-democratic models are good too. RMS is not the pragmatist that ESR is. He's as interested in the means as he is the end.
Stallman has not and never will adequately address the issue of how we'll feed our kids in an all-Free-Software world. You cannot make money selling software if you're also freely giving it away.
Stallman would probably say that's not his problem, and that you must learn how to earn a living within the confines of a just and moral society, rather than sacrifice basic principles so that you can earn a living the way you want.
In other words, I suspect that RMS would tell you that you have a right to earn a living selling software if you can find a way to do so within a millieu where the free exchange of ideas and information is guaranteed. If you cannot do this, then you must find some other way to earn a living.
RMS is making an argument which is as much moral as it is practical. He's easy enough to criticize on pragmatic grounds; his ideas push too far too fast to be adopted wholesale, at least in the forseeable future. But he is talking about more than just what leads to the best software in the short run. He is also taking a moral position on how we ought to conduct ourselves as human beings. I believe he is on record as saying that he would choose free software of marginal quality over proprietary software of good quality, and that he will not use proprietary software of any kind unless there is no suitable free software alternative at all.
Commercial software is not immoral . I have never been able to fathom why making a chair and selling it is a-okay by Stallman, but writing a program and selling it is not.
I have never seen anything by RMS that suggests this. His thesis is that it is that sharing information freely is more beneficial to society as a whole than hiding it behind copyright, patents, and obfuscation.
There is a crucial difference between proprietary and commercial software. To the best of my knowledge, RMS has never spoken out against commercial software (software that is developed commercially and sold), just proprietary software (software that is closed-source and/or is licensed under terms that prohibit or linmit copying, modification, or redistribution). It is true that most commercial software is also proprietary, but Stallman would argue that "we do it this way now" is not justification for continuing to do so in the future. He probably wouldn't have too much sympathy for anyone who wasn't prepared to try to come up with innovative ways to run a commercial business within the confines of an IP-free society.
But that is just my understanding of him. He has written a lot of essays (see gnu.org) which make his position pretty clear. That would be a good place to start if you really want to understand what he's arguing.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:2, Insightful)
So? I'm not a mechanic, but I still expect my car to come equipped with an openable hood, just in case something goes wrong and I need to either attempt to figure out how to fix it, or at least take it to a shop -- any shop, not just the manufacturer themselves -- to be repaired.
The idea is to give the consumer the opportunity to poke around "under the hood". If they never do, that's fine. The point is, they can.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody whines that there's no market for ice now that everyone can afford a freezer. (There used to be a thriving market in selling large blocks of ice for homeowners to use basically as a refrigerator.) It could be that selling software has only temporarily been a means to make a ton of money. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
There isn't much precedent in the world for intangible goods. Even art used to take a master to forge, and if an identical copy was made people would still value the original more simply because of its status as an original.
Now we have software though, which can be copied essentially for free, and which has no special original that people want. Any copy is the same as any other. Why should we expect a market based around this to work like other markets?
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be replying to somebody else. I didn't say that any kind of software was invalidated. I said that I felt unthreatened by the rise of Free Software and that it actually might increase my opportunities.
So many people act like the sky is falling and that they won't be able to feed their families if Free Software keeps advancing. I don't see it.
Does the rise of Free Software "invalidate or necessity of external-use software"? Last I checked, Free Software is all (or almost all) in the "external-use" category. Seems like Free Software actually validates and fills the need for "external-use" software.
Is your argument that "external-use" software will suffer if it's not supported by licenses and commercial organizations? Well then, if this is the case, then I would think that the Free Software alternatives won't compete very well and the commercial organizations selling licensed software have nothing to fear.
There's a lot of FUD spread around about the Free Software movement. One of the worst is that it will lead to starving programmers. I've not seen a shred of evidence to support this.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't steal Microsoft's code because they'd sue you and have every right to do that. They want there code keep secret. They don't want others taking their code and making derivate work from it. The FSF wants software free/libre and wants to maintain that same model on all derived code. And they are trying to push that model because to them it makes the most sense.
Just like other companies keep their code to themselves, because it makes the most sense (at least financially) to do so.
One of the big differences that seems to anger some people - or at least they don't understand and this cause frustration - is that because they can see the GPL'ed code, they want to use it anyway they seem fit, despite the licensing. Regardless of the fact that they could immerse themselves in code that is completely free to use however they seem fit. In their own commerical product or as toilet paper.
But, I have seen relatively few objective takes on this. The views mostly seem to either slander the GPL or herald as the best thing since Christ. However, it is merely another model for code. If you like it, use it and tell others. If you don't, fine, pick something else and tell others of your choice. Just stay objective, otherwise you start becoming the type of people you are complaining against.
Stallman just likes his code and wants to see all work derivate from GPL'ed code to remain in the public domain.
And in typical Slashdot style:
they try to get people to buy their products (that is what the companies are REALLY about, after all) just because they require that everyone should think that consumerism is the only way of life.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:4, Insightful)
This may sound like a decent statement, but you have to remember that copyright isn't supposed to protect you from all potential losses, but rather to simply provide enough incentive so that a decent amount of creative work gets created. Copyright is certainly not meant to be 'perfect' it is meant to be 'porous'. Society has a great interest in seeing copyrighted works fall out of protection, as it allows for more works to be built on older ones.
Personally I'd like to see ideas similar to Lawrence Lessig's concering copyright in his "The Future of Ideas". Copyrighted works must be registered, and terms last for 5 years, renewable X times (he suggests 15 times, I'd go for 4). Software works that wish to be protected under copyright must have their source provided to the copyright office, and their term is 5 years, renewable once. The reason the term for software should be shorter is because the effective lifespan of software is much shorter than that of a written work. I can still read Shakespeare, but I can't do much with software written in the '80s.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
This is going to sound harsh. Understand that I'm a software engineer as well. I've so far worked exclusively on commercial (and proprietary) software. What I'm going to say applies to me as well.
How you and I get paid is irrelevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how we're going to make money. We're not talking about what is good for the economy.
We're talking about ethics. We're talking about what is best for society. (And society does not necessarily mean the economy.) If society decides that a given behavior pattern is harmful, the loss of an industry associated with it is an acceptable loss. A particular business practice may make money today, but society is under no commitment to ensure that it makes money tomorrow.
Maybe you believe that proprietary software is completely ethical. Fine. However, arguing that it's ethical because you'll put people out of work and destroy an industry is silly. Societies have destroyed industries that society felt were unethical before. In just the United States we've destroyed industries based on slavery, opium, heroin, marijuana, prostitution, animal fighting, and alcohol (briefly). Instead, argue that proprietary software is ethical for other reasons.
As a software engineer, I certainly hope that I'll still be able to work in the field. Unlikely though it is, I have to accept the possibility that society as a whole will decide what I do is unethical. If I don't, I'm just a hypocrite who should not be supporting restrictions on any of the industries in the "laundry list of evil" above.
Re:I would like Stallman more... (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is your crippling inability: the inability to realize that to outlaw proprietary software is to outlaw commercial software, because if you cannot control the distribution of your software, then you cannot get paid for it. Period. End of disussion. Full fucking stop.
I want to write computer games. Who is going to pay me for my game when they can download a copy for free?
Free Software is not a panacea! It is not a valid model for every aspect of this business, and I wish you people would stop saying that we should simply give up and "trust the Force" here. Anybody with a brain can see that it won't work!
Internal Slam in Book? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who remembers the live interview with RMS where it was being broadcast using Real Audio Server (or whatever the proper name of it is)? Remember how Richard told them to stop the broadcast because he refused to be used (through the broadcast of his interview) to encourage people to use proprietary software (RealPlayer)? Well, this isn't exactly the same because the book isn't directly making people use proprietary programs to read the text... but since it was made with proprietary software... I'd think he would discourage it. I guess TeX, LaTeX, etc weren't good enough?!? ...not that I know how to use any of those. :)
Just food for thought.
Re:How exactly is Stallman interesting? (Score:2, Insightful)