Stallman On the State of Free Software 25 Years On 367
TRNick writes "What's the state of free software, 25 years after GNU's birth? TechRadar has an interview with Richard Stallman to find out. Stallman thinks free software is making good progress: 'Nowadays hardware developers are also increasingly likely to publish the interface specs so that we can develop free software that works with the hardware. Perhaps we are turning the corner, but we still have a big fight on our hands before all computer users have freedom.' But how many of us actually run an operating system that Richard Stallman would consider free? Many of the more popular GNU/Linux distributions, including Mandriva and Ubuntu, bundle proprietary code with their free software packages. Perhaps free software has reached a large enough install base that companies are happy to use it for their own gain, but aren't quite so willing to make their own commitments to free software development. How important this is to the success of free software depends on how strong your stance is on freedom is."
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Informative)
The term 'free' is an unfortunate consequence of there being no more specific word in English. The word is meant, to use the well-worn, free-software phrase, to be free as in speech rather than free as in beer.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Mandriva (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html [gnu.org]
I really was not kidding: Stallman does believe that you should demand free media if you are sent entangled or proprietary media.
Re:The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:3, Informative)
Hang on ... you're confusing "freedom in software" with "free software". By "true software freedom", I assume you mean "end users being able to do whatever they like with software". That isn't his mission.
His mission is "free software". You say that true free software "wouldn't be restricted to only people who carry on making it free". Well there you go -- you said it yourself -- free software is, by definition restricted to the set of software which people continue to make free. Otherwise, it stops being free software.
If you want to go into the exact wording of what Stallman has always promised, look at the Four Freedoms [gnu.org]:
Nowhere in his mission statement does he say users should be totally unrestricted in what they can do with the software.
Re:Stallman is a zealot (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Stallman's definition of free is straightforward and intuitive, and it does include BSD, MIT, public domain, etc. What you may find objectionable is that he prefers copyleft. As a practical matter, due to the nature of copyleft, he prefers licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL. Take a look a the FSF's page on licenses [fsf.org] for more information.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:3, Informative)
s/end\ users/distributors/g
The end user can do whatever it wants to the code the GPL does not restrict usage or modification by the end user in anyway. It applies to the distribution of the software. So the code and the user are free, the distributor has restrictions.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:3, Informative)
Grrr... how many times it has to be said:
s/end\ users/distributors/g
There is no restriction on the end user in the GPL, none, nada, zero.
Apple is not a end user, Apple is a distributor of software.
I can't believe this is still not understood by some ./ers.
The third word (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:4, Informative)
1. To run the program as you wish.
2. To study the source code, and change it so the program does what you wish.
3. To redistribute exact copies when you wish.
4. To distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish.
The problem is that he also has an implied:
5. You can't run anything EXCEPT Free Software.
rule, and that's the one everybody disagrees with. I mean, the first four as well and good, especially since I can take and leave them as I please, but that fifth one is a pain in the ass. That's the rule that makes it "wrong" for me to use Ubuntu because some of the drivers have "binary blobs" in them. Or makes me give up my Tivo.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:3, Informative)
End user is a legal term and not something you're meant to redefine on a whim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_user [wikipedia.org]
Read and understand. Then stop failing at communicating.
When you use the code, you're an end user.
When you give the code to someone else, you're a distributor.
It's not complex.
Re:You've come a long way, baby. (Score:2, Informative)
When he contemplated the idea of using Linux in his home office, the main concern I couldn't answer satisfactorily was whether or not it would work with his multifunction fax machine/copier.
Whether a printer or its non-printing features work under Linux is rarely a difficult question. If you know the model number, you can probably find it on OpenPrinting [linuxfoundation.org] (apparently the new name of linuxprinting.org). When I have looked up multifunctions in the past, I have found helpful information on how to get the scanner working.
Re:Compromise (Score:3, Informative)
I'll just let RMS himself answer [marc.info] that one.
I agree with him on this one (I'm sure that will come as a great relief to RMS {/sarcasm}). MP3 is a proprietary codec and is riddled with patent liability (is it Lucent that own most of it now?) and so forth. More and more media players support FLAC and Vorbis and the need to use MP3 is shrinking by the day. If only the Shoutcast mob would stop using it exclusively.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Informative)
You can include MPL or CDDL licensed files in a proprietary application. Instead of the boundary being at the process level, it's at the source file level. If Foo.c is MPL and Bar.c is proprietary, you can include them in the same application; you only have to distribute changes to Foo.c. Sort of like the LGPL in the sense that it's modular, but without the stupid and arbitrary restrictions.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:4, Informative)
the misuse of the word "free" is deliberate on stallman's part i can assure you, just as he insists on calling DRM "Digital Restrictions Management"
Which is what it is.