Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts Free Software 546
bonch writes "Richard Stallman has written an article on the GNU Web site describing the effect the Swedish Pirate Party's platform would have on the free software movement. While he supports general changes to copyright law, he makes a point that many anti-copyright proponents don't realize — the GPL itself is a copyright license that relies on copyright law to protect access to source code. According to Stallman, the Pirate Party's proposal of a five-year limit on copyright would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products. Stallman suggests requiring proprietary software to also release its code within five years to even the balance of power."
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman Says Pirate Party Hurts HIS VERSION OF Free Software
FTFY
Why wait 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
If access to source code is truly a right, shouldn't that right be enshrined in law from day one?
Giants? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Stallman mean by meandering giants? Bill gates couldn't whip me because I have a sling.
Re:Balance of power? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
Do you really want releasing software to become a process for which you have to register and do paperwork with the government at every release?
Honestly, I don't know how any of this is considered "Free" (as in Papers, please.).
Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
You are most correct to point that out and it is my sentiment as well. If a 5-year-old version of some software is worth commercial exploitation, then let them have it. Fair is fair. BSD licensed code is a commonly exploited open source license where people and companies take without returning. Look at Mac OS X as a prime example, but Windows also contains BSD licensed components... or it did... not sure if it does now or not.
He is also correct in pointing out that weakening copyright terms and law in general means that the GPL also becomes weaker. That's fine in my opinion, but as anyone who desires to wield power to further his cause fears losing that power. So of course he doesn't want to lose that power.
Re:Correction (Score:1, Insightful)
Exploited? The BSD license specifically says that anyone can use it for any purpose. That is neither exploitation or taking without giving back. It is simply using the software under the INTENDED terms of the license.
You fucking GPL nutjobs are always trying to twist shit around to suit your idiotic ideals.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates. The comparison seems to be quite a bit inaccurate. He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
RMS had a good idea??? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderful.
Software copyright is the only form where the material has no automatic way to enter the public domain when it should. Some kind of escrow as a requirement for protection would do the trick.
Re:Why wait 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely. I think the pirate party is making a bargain here as to not look like info-anarchists. 5 years is only a compromise between the ideal and what exists today.
Re:Isn't Stallman the one... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Isn't Stallman the one who insists that open source software is inevitably better,
No, you have Stallman confused with open source evangelists. Stallman has always maintained that whether or not free software is "better" is irrelevant; that its being freer is which matters.
Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman makes a good point. One problem with copyright at present and the distribution models is that it actually inhibits the development of knowledge and civilisation by making information more difficult to maintain. I would like to see copyright terms rolled back to what it was originally before it was extended so many times, and also for copyright to expire immediately when the work is no longer being published or being made accessible at the similar cost it was originally offered at. The copyright could be reinstated if the work is offered again by its author for a similar price as it was originally offered. I would like to see an ability to pay scheme introduced that would allow poor/low income persons to access knowledge at a lower cost, and for access to software at reduced cost for hobbyist use. one of the problems with commercial software is it is so often so expensive, the price can sometimes be the same for a revenue producing busienss as a non commercial hobbyist. The development model and source is also closed which retards the improvement of the software, and takes away control of users from being able to understand what the software they paid for and they run on their computer is doing, or offer their own improvements to the software. I would like to see more of a model adopted by companies of an ability to pay price structure, and where they provide source code to those who use the sotware, even if under a proprietary source licence.
Re:Release later? (Score:5, Insightful)
This actually makes a lot of sense.
In the original purpose of copyright law - books and other written material - there is no source code other than the thing that is distributed.
In a sense, companies like MS use copyright not to be a sole distributer of the copyrighted material (the source code), but to prevent all distribution of said material. By withholding the "manuscript", we ("the people") are granting a temporary monopoly on something we don't even really know what it is.
Computer programs are quite different from the creative works copyright was intended for, and also quite different from the "machines" and "inventions" patents were intended for. By trying to apply legislation to something quite different than what it was meant for we are creating a lot of problems, including overly broad patents, copyright monopoly on something that isn't distributed at all, unclear definition of derivative work in the face of bundling, linking, and reverse engineering, etc. etc..
Instead of limiting copyright to X years (possibly a very good idea for books, songs etc.), I think we need to think of a way to protect software makers from abuse of the fruits of his/her labour, while giving "the people" something substantive in return for the monopoly, the policing, etc.
This solution could include registering source code but it might be better to protect a "program" or "solution" than to try to protect source code as if it is some kind of literary work, and then extend that to the compiled version of that source code
Re:Lessig Already Proposed this (Score:3, Insightful)
I like this idea too. Copyright was originally conceived of as a balance. People agree to give up their right to copy in exchange for the hopeful encouragement of publishing companies to publish and authors to write.
People who want copyright on their software should have to give something up to get it. There must be a balance for taking away people's right to copy.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates.
He doesn't have the power to do so, but his explicitly stated goal is for people to only use "Free" software, where "Free" refers to his own twisted definition.
Re:Either you agree with copyrights or you don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, having worked in the game industry.... I've found that 'piracy killed our product' is really a cover for 'we don't understand the market well enough, so we will blame something concrete'.
Thus I tend to take management saying that as they are so out of touch with the actual marketplace that they lead the company into it's own black hole but do not want any blame associated with them and thus hurt their chances of moving on to other companies to ruin.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:4, Insightful)
> Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth... Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits.
And what an original, devastating insight.
Actually, no. People have been criticizing Stallman on these grounds since at least the 1980s, even after he's been proven right on issue after issue.
Re:Correction (Score:1, Insightful)
If you ever understood why Richard Stallman takes exactly the stance he takes, you would never make so a silly statement.
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
So Richard Stallman sought a way to make such a code grap impossible by design - by inventing a license that removes all your rights to all the code you were given the moment you try to shield it from other people.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
If you because of your limited experience don't see the point, it's not Richard Stallman's fault.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:5, Insightful)
While Stallman is a zealot, I think you need to re-read his statement, because it's an entirely reasonable explanation of how free/open source software would be affected by a short copyright term. Essentially open source code would be forced into the public domain, while closed source software would not.
Plus, if you follow his argument, reducing the copyright term would actually increase the use of DRM in closed source software.
5 years is just too short, try 15. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the optimal number of years is closer to 15, it should be treated like "classic cars" are in Pennsylvania. This is enough years that publishers have had sufficient time to make profit, that the work has had sufficient opportunity to make and exploit its cultural impact, and is not so many years that the work is lost from lack of preservation.
In terms of software, 15 years is quite a bit of time, enough that software is unlikely to be of significant commercial use, so that copyright-lapsed software shouldn't too seriously affect the sales of modern solutions. Open sourced material lapsed into the public domain wouldn't be as much of a concern as it would be within a 5 year period.
If this was in force today, old versions of the GNU toolkits, the X11 system, and even Linux itself would be in the public domain. That might seem scary, but we're talking really old versions. If someone in 2009 wants to include Linux 0.99 into their embedded product without contributing their changes back, I'm not sure thats really a bad thing.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code.
If you abolish copyright entirely, this doesn't happen. Thus your objection is ridiculous.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
It's true! Actually, without copyright law there is less freedom for the software. As a customer you might get into a position where you can only get binaries. However, that is only a problem for GPL-type licenses, not for BSD-type licenses. Both are Open licenses, and both are arguably Free (depending on your definition.) So while he does have a point, his being forbidden to reuse or publish his own code isn't an argument against abolishing copyright.
Also, I disagree with his premise; the source code would get out, if the penalties for releasing it were to vanish.
Re:Why wait 5 years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should read what he actually wrote. His argument is very tempered and coherent. I believe the heart of it comes down to this sentence
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users. As soon as a song falls into the public domain (whether 5 years or 100 years) the actual work is out there for others to use, copy, modify, whatever. But with proprietary software, the copyrighted material is kept closed and secret. The thing the users have is a compiled version that can't easily (or sometimes at all) be used in another project or modified or learned from, even once it's in the public domain.
With insanely long copyright terms, proprietary software is protected by the fact that you don't have access to their source code and the law; whereas free software is only protected by the law. Once you take away the force of law after 5 years, proprietary software is still protected by the secrecy, and free software is completely unprotected.
Now if you want to get into a holy war over the GPL vs. BSD, fine, but that's a separate argument. If you care at all about the GPL, then RMSs point about the Pirate Party's goal makes a whole lot of sense.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Any GPL code would lose its protected status, which would apply to most of the free software you use. The whole point of the GPL is to give users access to source indefinitely, and that's why it's amusing when Slashdot's readership adopts all these anti-copyright positions that would end up invalidating the GPL, because the GPL is a license that copyrights the source code. Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.
It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving--ranting about the evils of copyrights in a pro-piracy article (because they want free stuff from P2P networks), and ranting about the evils of commercial corporations in a GPL violation article (because they want free GPL software). You can't have it both ways.
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading TFA, I see there's one thing the P Party says that I don't agree with: the five year copyright term. Yes, copyrights are far too long, but five years is far too short. IINM it was 20 years extendable to thirty in 1900, that seems to me a good length. If you can't make any money off your work after twenty years you're not going to, and if you HAVE made money off of it in twenty years, well, you've made your money, you have been encouraged to do more creating. If the programs I'd registered copyright on had made me a millionaire, I'd be on a beach somewhere with a cold drink in my hand.
Stallman says:
Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it.
I still don't see how clickthrough EULAs can possibly be seen as a "contract". My friend Mike buys a program and since he's not technologically savvy, he has me (or his son) install it for him. He's bought and paid for the copy; he owns that copy. Unlike the dinasaur days when the world only had a few hundred computers, he didn't sign any contract. Now, I or his son installs HIS software on HIS computer, and he doesn't even likely know there IS a contract. How can he be held to that so-called "contract"?
As to DRM, I think if you use DRM your work should not be eligible for copyright at all. That's what copyright is for - to protect the work.
Noncommercial copying should not be against the law, and before the digital age it wasn't.
From TFA:
Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.
This should be illegal. And software can be reverse engineered and a third party patch applied.
Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted
First, Stallman says he would be happy with ten years, I don't agree. But I'm a geezer, 20 years is a lot longer to a 27 year old than it is to a 57 year old*. Secondly, after the original copyright expired, all the parts of the work written after original copyright are still protected by copyright; if GNU's copyright were to run out tomorrow, all enhancements made to GNU would still be under copyright.
I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code
Personally, I don't think you should be able to copyright object code. The purpose of copyright (in the US at least) is to get works into the public domain. The source code should be available to the public, justas details of a patented machine are. After all, the whole idea is to "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences", not to line somebody's pockets.
That said, it's been said that when you're selling something, make the asking price high and you can always come down. Perhaos this is what the PP's "5 years" is about: "Ok, we'll compromise on a 30 year copyright length".
I'd liketo see another reform that Free Software fols disagree on me with: I'd like one to actually have to register a copyright. There should be no registration fee, and registration could be done at your country's copyright office's web site.
*Yes, Im aware that Stalman is a geezer, too.
Re:Correction (Score:1, Insightful)
It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving
"The impression"? That's been the truth around this place for years now. "Copyright is evil" equals "I don't think I should pay for anything", and it always has.
Note that nearly all of Slashdot's current readership are non-programmers and generally non-technical (in the true sense of the word).
Re:A compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while I like the spirit of your idea, I think it is misguided due to the unfortunate consequences such a law would bring. With your proposal, any work not submitted in full to the copyright office would not be given copyright protections. With dynamic works such as software, this would be a disaster! It would require that either all changes to GPL works are first processed by the copyright office, or worse, those works fall into the public domain! It would kill all open source licenses and open source development. Even if applied to non-software works, this could arguably affect art that is dynamic in form, such as some installations.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
The idea is that FOSS exists by default, and the GPL was created to prevent FOSS from being copyrighted as well as promoting others to contribute to FOSS. So copyright laws aren't required for FOSS to exist, just the GPL couldn't be used to promote FOSS anymore.
FWIW Mr. Stallman would gladly welcome the change. I went to a talk by him on copyright at the Cordozo School of Law(IANAL) not long ago and he said as much.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does that bother you?
He would like all computer users to enjoy the same freedom that users of GPL software enjoy. Born again Christians would like everyone to accept Jesus as their savior. Obama would like everyone to buy a domestic car. I would like developed nations to work together to improve the standard of living in underdeveloped nations. You would probably like to change the world to bring it more in line with your own ideals if you could.
Other people working to achieve their goals doesn't impact you in any way unless they are able to force you to toe their line. Since you've stated that Stallman is not able to force you to do anything, why do you have a problem with him working to further his goals?
And while we're at it, what exactly is "twisted" about the FSF's definition of free software? Ensuring the user has complete control over their own property seems like a pretty good definition of freedom to me. If you don't agree with Stallman's definition - and assuming you are not just trolling on behalf of Microsoft - I would really like to know what exactly it is that you object to. Is the very existence of the FSF in some way harming you?
Why I *really* hate RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
Because his "no-compromise" attitude has been proven right for many years. I envy him for being consistent thru all these years. Unfortunately, it is more confortable to live in a grey area, because it gives more benefits in the short term. Even if you think he is wrong, he has been holding his opinion for many years. That fact by itself deserves recognition and respect...
Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. Not to Stallman. "Free" has nothing to do with "cost" in his world.
"Free as in speech" is not a metaphor.
Re:Release later? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, especially on Slashdot. Criticizing RMS on slashdot is not exactly an example of pioneering courage.
Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, so now I am an MS troll. For you reference, my two desktop machines are Linux, and my laptop is a Mac. I do have a Win 98 netbook, mostly because Apple doesn't build anything that small, and Linux sucks on laptops (yeah, I've tried, but we can have that discussion elsewhere).
It doesn't bother me that RMS has his own opinion, just as it doesn't bother me that born again christians have their opinions. What DOES bother me is when either of them are striving to extend their political influence, because in either case it is clear that this will result in a loss of freedom to everyone else (*). That is the time to stand up and oppose them.
(*) As Enderandrew has succinctly said about RMS in this thread (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1314321&cid=28811105): "He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free. Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen."
That statement is dead on as far as I am concerned.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.
And we could do whatever we wanted with theirs.
I'm okay with that tradeoff.
The GPL is a weapon (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD-style is a waste of talent and resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman gives everyone perspective.
He's the the guy you point to and say, "See that guy over there? That guy's the alternative." Makes anything you say seem moderate and rational in comparison.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:2, Insightful)
This is how software is different from other copyright-able works. With a song or book, the copyrighted thing is the end result and what is distributed to users.
That isn't correct. Other stuff has "source" in one form or another too. Books have their TeX/Quark/Framemarker/PDF/... source, music has unmixed tracks, images exist in some uncompressed and unresized RAW version somewhere or Photoshop files, movies have tons of material that never made it into the final result. And all of those would be extremely valuable for making derived works. There really isn't a clear cut between software and other stuff, especially when considering that a binary isn't all that uneditable either, as can be seen in numerous cracks, hacks and mods out there, it sure would be easier with real source code, but assembler is quite modifiable as well, just harder.
I think a law that requires source code would be awful, it might look nice from far away, but it would add a ton of bureaucracy and cost to anything that is created. It would also be very hard to specify source code in a way that is completly unambiguous. Should people get sued because they have compressed Javascript in their webpage and lost the source code of that specific version? I don't think so.
The real answer to this mess should simply be to purge EULAs from the face of the earth.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
A copy of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program. snip.. However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software distribution becomes a powerful disincentive. snip... Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I am paid. snip... This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one will want to program.
He does believe that Software should be able to be distributed free of cost though he always avers that Free means libre and not zero price. The major flaw is his reasoning is that he thinks that since the marginal cost of producing an extra copy of software is zero, the price should be zero. But what about the sunk cost? If it costs $200 million for Adobe to make Photoshop, the first copy would cost $250 million and the rest would be free. Adobe folds after that and a magical group of hackers appear and work on it's code to produce the next version for free like they do for Gimp and OpenOffice now? Give me a break.There's some aspects of software development(like extensive testing, making it user friendly etc.) which is NOT fun and shouldn't be outlawed in the name of Freedom.
WTF Spin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you count all the spin doctors using this to smear RMS as pushing "His (as in only his) Twisted (yes, ppl are using this word) Version of Free".
Essentially what RMS want us to avoid is a world where computers don't obey their owners.
Imagine a world where everybody can install a 5 years old version of Windows 7 that none the less, refuses to install VLC, puts secret IDs in your MSOffice documents, callbacks the RIAA to request permission every time you launch your Windows Media Player. etc.
And he has no legislative power, he doesn't act thought coercion but rather leads by example. His vocal because people need to be educated about software freedom, just like feminists need to educate people about gender inequality, just like ambientalists needed to educate the public about contamination before people started to demand changes.
Re:Anyone Give A Shit What That Clown Says? Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
25 years is way too long for software copyrights. Here's a challenge: name one piece of commercially distributed software that still works *without modification* on modern hardware after 25 years and is still useful in some way.... Bear in mind that 25 years ago, the state of the art included the Apple IIc, the 128k Mac, the IBM PC AT, etc. This was several years before the first personal computer with a paged memory management unit. I've seen modern wristwatches with more powerful CPUs. Apart from arcade game nostalgia and a few legacy financial systems, I think it's safe to say that there is basically nothing of value in code from that far back. Everything of value had to be updated, massively reworked, or rewritten hundreds of times since then to remain useful.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creation of new works and to expire after a period of time to enrich the public domain. Copyright durations of 25+ years on software do neither. They don't contribute to the public domain because the software is useless by the time the end of the copyright period is reached, and they don't encourage creation of new software because companies are allowed to rest on their laurels, not creating anything until their copyright runs out or until changes to the underlying OS/hardware force them to update their software to keep selling it.
Remember that, at least in the U.S., derivative works are also protected by copyright, so the version 2.0 can still be protected by copyright after the copyright on version 1.0 expires. There's no benefit to having copyright on older versions of software unless the new versions don't offer enough advantage to be worth buying, in which case they don't deserve protection anyway. I strongly feel the policy should be, "Innovate or die." If you aren't improving the state of technology---if you're just making money off something you created decades ago---then you are no longer contributing to society and don't deserve to be rewarded for your lack of contribution.
Five years after first release is long enough. Ten years is barely acceptable. Twenty-five years is obscene. The current 120 years is outright grand larceny from the public domain.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to love the Stallman haters. Must be the definition of not having a life.
"He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free. Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen."
"Stallman helped to start a movement that empowers developers by creating a new category of licenses to use for their code, empowers users by granting them express permissions and effectively locks out embrace and extend."
There, I fixed it for ya. Once you wash the smell of B.S. from the original statement it looks quite different.
BTW, every troll who says something stupid when taking a position against Free Software then defends themselves with the argument that they obviously logical and impartial because they 'run linux'.
That is analogous to making ignorant racist remarks and then defending your position by claiming that you "have a black friend".
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the "freedom means no restrictions at all" argument plenty of times here at Slashdot, and it makes me wonder whether we truly are a community of intelligent, reasoning geeks. Simply put, if we define "freedom" as "lack of any restriction whatsoever", freedom contradicts itself.
Its easy to see why if we modify the Liar's Paradox a little: do you have the freedom to take away others' freedoms? if so, then people can be restricted, therefore there is no freedom, but if not, you're restricted from doing so and, therefore, there's no freedom.
If, however, we define "freedom" as "the sum of potential actions for each individual", its easy to see how restricting one's freedom to take away others' freedoms would, in the end, result in a higher freedom except in the case where nobody would use said freedom, in which case such restriction is irrelevant.
The latter seems to be Stallman's definition of "freedom", and is one that I agree with. But if you have another potential definition that does not fall prey to the same paradox, I'll be glad to hear it and consider it. And honestly, I think the same goes for RMS.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Which begs the question: Isn't BSD License more "free" than the GPL ? I always had problems with "enforced freedom". If it is enforced, how can it be freedom ? If it is truly free, people should be able to do anything they want, including using it on a commercial closed-source product.
I always released stuff under the BSD license, except for a few contributions I did to already existing software.
And yeah, I like the GPL, and am glad for it (Linux, WRT software, gcc etc). But I would never call it a tool of software "freedom".
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
There is always a tension between different freedoms. Most people realize this, and strive for a reasonable balance. Zealots like RMS emphasize one right at the expense of all others.
Personally, I think a creator's right to decide what parts of his creations he wants to reveal, and at what terms, trumps somebody else's right to know how exactly how he created (in fact I think the latter is barely a "right" at all, even if it may be desirable under some circumstances). Do you think you have a (moral or legal) right to the Coke recipe just because Coca Cola offers the final product for sale? No? Then you don't have a "right" to the source code of computer software either. You DO have the right to decide for yourself if you want to use software for which the source isn't available to you, but you DO NOT have the right to compel others to tell you something they don't want to. Freedom of speech in particular includes the right to not speak at all.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a country that gives you the freedom to keep slaves more free than a country that doesn't?
If you repackage my software and are better at marketing it than me, but you build vendor lock in into the code and a million people end up beholden to you as a consequence, did my code help bring people freedom?
Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?
Releasing source should be required. It's a public safety concern that it is not.
Re:Stallman hurts free software (Score:3, Insightful)
You're posting AC and calling me out on trolling?
A troll wouldn't praise Stallman for positive contributions. A troll wouldn't say that Stallman is correct in this specific instance (which he is).
I've made level-headed logical statements. I haven't made personal attacks at any posters here. And I haven't responded to bait to incite arguments.
Where is there any indication here that I'm trolling?
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
Is a country that allows you the freedom to choose being a slave more free than a country that stops you from doing so ?
Nope. Your software didn't affect their freedom in any way (either positive or negative).
Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.
What part of a text only (Notepad, for example) editor affect public safety ?
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that statement is about as far from the truth as it can get. GPL is nothing about the developers' freedoms. It's all about the users' freedom. It's a bill of rights for the users. It guarantees users' freedoms at the expense of developers' freedoms, in much the same way a bill of rights guarantees citizens' freedoms at the expense of the goverment's.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
The major flaw is his reasoning is that he thinks that since the marginal cost of producing an extra copy of software is zero, the price should be zero. But what about the sunk cost? If it costs $200 million for Adobe to make Photoshop, the first copy would cost $250 million and the rest would be free.
Your own major flaw in reasoning is that you think software has to be built by the model companies like Adobe use.
There's some aspects of software development(like extensive testing, making it user friendly etc.) which is NOT fun and shouldn't be outlawed in the name of Freedom.
Now wait a second, making software user friendly IS fun! So I certainly do agree it shouldn't be outlawed - now why on earth does Stallman suggest that? Oh, wait, he doesn't...