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."
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/open_source.png [xkcd.com]
Richard S. Raymond && Eric Stallman? (Score:2)
OMG. This is no joke: I thought Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond were the same guy, for the last YEARS! I never thought that there would be two crazy bearded men loving weapons and GNU!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OMG. This is no joke: I thought Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond were the same guy, for the last YEARS! I never thought that there would be two crazy bearded men loving weapons and GNU!
Really? I suspect half the population of /. fits that description (I do). :p
The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:5, Insightful)
What Stallman needs to do is catch up with the biggest development in the computing world of the past 25 years: the growth of computer users who do not know anything about their computers, and do not care to know. Most people do not care about the legal or technical issues surrounding their software, they just want to get online and do stuff. Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a
Disclaimer: I am a big supporter of free software, and I do wish that more people would learn more about their computers so they could at least understand that they have a choice.
Re:The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly right, and that's why the biggest things to happen in free software -- in promoting Stallman's cause -- in the past decade have been the very things he cries out against.
Dell putting Linux on PCs, preinstalled! Fantastic. It works out of the box, and your average user *just might* stumble upon it without having to go out of their way to learn about it. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because it has some non-free software).
Ubuntu happened! Fantastic. Linux for human beings. For the first time, we can give Ubuntu CDs to our grandmas and get some degree of success. It's a Linux distro that's tuned for normal users. It looks great. It can play DVDs and do 3D graphics. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because there are binary blobs).
I'm sure there are more examples. My point is that we aren't going to "win" by mouthing off every Linux-based OS or computer with non-free code in it, or, as you say, by refusing to open Word documents. That's just being stubborn. We're going to win by piece-by-piece showing the world what free or almost-free software can do.
Stallman's approach is desperately needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd respond by notion you have only one issue here, he doesn't like unfree software. Note the question asked, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are championing the cause of the FSF?"
Answer: "Not entirely...."
If the question had been, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are better than notebooks running all commercial software" the answer would have been "yes". Or, "are you excited about how much free software is going on many of the netbooks being distributed..."
In other words he do
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the parent's POV on what Stallman thinks of doc files might be a bit extreme to some people but he has a point. Most people don't care and that won't change until FOSS has marketing like MS or Apple as people don't realise how much of the internet is run on free or open software and how much it has done for them already.
After all good marketing has helped Apple come back from the brink of deat
Re: (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: (Score:2)
His heart is in the right place but we should focus more on getting people using something that uses both document types and then getting them to change to ODF will be easy.
As we know, if everyone uses Word then to the average person Word is as open as they need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the point. Why should people care if they don't need or want to modify code? The only thing most people care about is if the tool does the job it is intended to do. If it can't, they will find a tool that will. If you a
how do I Open Office files with free software? (Score:2)
Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a .doc file, you should refuse to open it and insist that they send you a PDF or ODT file instead.
I don't see what's so important about returning .doc files unopened unless a popular piece of copylefted free software with three O's in the name fails to open it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What Stallman needs to do is catch up with the biggest development in the computing world of the past 25 years.
Not going to happen. This is a man who, by his own admission [lwn.net], doesn't surf the web. He doesn't go into detail, but I feel it's pretty safe to assume he doesn't want to defile himself by viewing a website that might be hosted or created with non-free software.
The man is completely out of touch with today's computer users. Any why wouldn't he be? His legacy has been about holding onto the past. To maintain a world where people like him were the real power users. A lot of people give him far more credit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His crusade was piece by piece to lay the groundwork for a free OS, and then when that happened to piece by piece lay the groundwork for a free application stack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> most people are not even knowledgeable enough
> about their computers to even understand what
> free software is all about, why it matters, and
> why they should care.
To add to this, I think that there are many people who are familiar with free software, but who do not want to go to Stallman's extent of refusing to use or interact with non-free software.
Personally, I view software like I view any other tool in my workshop: I have some tools that I've made myself (on a lathe and all), I have some
Re:The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem with Stallman's approach (Score:4, Insightful)
The BSD license has nothing to do with users at all. It's not an EULA, it's a copyright license. It allows developers to make copies of the source code, under certain conditions, and it restricts the times when that's allowed. That's not freedom, that's "digital rights management" in its worst sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, fail, yes, I meant to GPL >..
Re: (Score:2)
Users make copies too.
It isn't. DRM artificially removes rights that users had beforehand, such as the rights given under fair use laws. The GPL, as a copyright license, provides the developers and users with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what exactly does the GPL do for users that the MPL or CDDL does not in a more elegant and developer-respecting way?
Re: (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 "wou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Not at all. I can license something under the BSD, and allow anyone to do what they like with my code (as long as they cite me). They are free to extend it and make their extensions closed s
Re: (Score:2)
You make some convincing/interesting points.
But my main rebuttal is that the wording of freedom 3, "release your improvements ... to the public, so that the whole community benefits" -- well arguably (and certainly if you take the statement in the context of the FSF mission), if you release your improvements to the public in a non-free way, the whole community does not benefit.
Still, I can now see where you're coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you're saying, but I think that the GPL is doing more harm than good in this respect. I know several companies (the one I work for included), that will not use GPL code... ever, because it requires that their finished product be opened up.
On the other hand, we do use BSD based projects, and we contribute large amounts of code to them. Arguably, the GPL is stopping lots of good projects ever getting patches from us, and stopping the community from benefiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Well once again, I see your point, and am somewhat convinced (wow this must be the most agreeable discussion I've ever had or read on Slashdot).
I think it's ultimately up to the developer in the first place. If he chooses GPL, that means he values the rec
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the problem for you. The GP points out the problem for the vast majority of users. Personally I lean a bit more toward the GPL ideal over the BSD ideal, but it's fairly immaterial. 99.9% of computer users will look at what I just wrote and say "oh look, letters." They don't care. They don't even know enough to know if they want to care. If the software is cost-free, and it works, they might prefer to something that costs money or doesn't work as well, but that's as far as the analysis goes.
Re: (Score:2)
it's fairly immaterial. 99.9% of computer users will look at what I just wrote and say "oh look, letters." They don't care.
That's absolutely irrelevant. Majorities have never been worried with the very most important issues and often, when presented with choices (from beta-vs-vhs to reelecting Bush) make the most irrational, wrong one. Arguments involving "most people" regarding software are broken from the start... How seriously would you take an argument regarding, say, quantum chromodynamics which is based on what 99.9% of the people have to say on the subject?
Compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst I respect Stallman enormously, I still believe that absolutes and extreme ideals are damaging to any cause. For example, how many of us can say with hand on heart that we don't use an MP3 decoder? A nVidia graphics card? Firmware for the Intel wireless cards? In RMS's eyes we've tainted our freedom, but in reality these compromises allow us MORE freedom of choice, not less.
I'm a great believer in the BSD way of doing things: Here's some code, it's free, use it however you like as long as you don't claim it's yours and we're not going to treat you like a second-class citizen if you install Flash because, quite frankly, you need to make compromises such as this these days. Idealism is all well and good in the abstract, but when you need a piece of information that's hiding inside a Flash-covered web site, freedom should really be the last thing on your mind; making your life more difficult for an ideal is not going to change anyone's minds whilst the majority are accepting the status quo. It just makes you look ridiculous and you end up with rather less freedom, realistically speaking, than you started out with.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the issues here is that most people need to work with others, and as free software remains in the minority, the need to work with others forces us to use proprietary or entangled software. If you asked for a sound sample from someo
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my point, but worded in a far better way. I tend to use FLAC or Vorbis instead of MP3 and I try to choose my hardware with an eye to various HCLs. I use ATi or Intel graphics where possible (sorry, Via, your S3 offerings are simply not compatible enough, although you do try to be open) due to things like GEM and AMD's R6/700 information release. This goes to pieces when purchasing notebooks, naturally.
However, I am in the enviable position of being the final arbiter of what goes into the machines I
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I forget where I read it, but someone once pointed out that if you need a new computer at work you should go in asking for $10,000,000 - then when you get laughed out of the office and come back asking for a ridiculous gaming rig that costs $5000 you might just get it.
It's the same theory, in my view. Realistically he's never going to get what he wants, but just the act of having him there campaigning for it makes 'middle of the road' suggestions more reasonable by comparison.
Except that's not what really happens is it? The guy who asks for the $10,000,000 computer might get the $5000 system in the end or he might get shown the door or otherwise told to shut up and get back to work. Even if he gets it, everyone who had to deal with that guy has silently written him off as a total asshole to be avoided and skipped over for promotions in future.
And so it is with Stallman. If (one of) the most vocal advocates of free software is a ranting loony who has no concept of the real world
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Talk sense (for long enough) and people will listen.
You have too much faith in the masses, if you ask me.
The door-in-the-face method is a psychologically proven method of manipulation.
Talking sense? The verdict is still out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Dreaming is all well and good. Practically speaking however, in a world full of more than 3 people, some compromise is necessary if you hope to see any of that dream come to pass. Stallman can dream all he wants about of world of perfectly free software, but in the real world, those of us who wish to eat use the Windows box our company gives us at work. We deal with user that don't know the difference between floppies and CDs (alright, that was years ago, but not that many years), let alone the difference between free and closed OSes. There are three types of people that can afford to be zealots about open source: those who don't need to worry about money, those who never use a computer at work and are pure hobbyists, and FSF employees. As far as I can see everyone else has to make some sacrifices somewhere.
Re:Compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
From "Maxims For Revolutionists" by George Bernard Shaw.
Re: (Score:2)
I forget where I read it, but someone once pointed out that if you need a new computer at work you should go in asking for $10,000,000 - then when you get laughed out of the office and come back asking for a ridiculous gaming rig that costs $5000 you might just get it. It's the same theory, in my view.
In the real world, most companies have a standard desktop/laptop spec. How it works in our office: if you ask for a laptop, you get a choice of 3 different laptops. If you want a desktop: you have a "choice" of 1 model. Each of these costs us less than $2500 (the spending limit before it becomes "capital equipment".)
They're all beefy systems, for what they do: Managers usually get the lightweight laptop with less memory and SSD drive (runs Office, Firefox, email just fine.) Developers who need mobility usua
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins.
So when a developer uses *his* freedom and develops in Flash, he ends up taking away everybody else's freedom because now they must use Flash as well if they want to see this site.
Installing and using Flash is *not* giving yourself more choice, it's taking back the choice that others took away from you. And that shouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you realize how preposterous this is?
Flash is a tool. (Not one I like or even use, but that's because the abuses of Flash are generally worse than the benefits.) You don't have an inherent right to demand that everyone use shit you yourself have vetted as being oh-so-FREE-SOFTWAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE. If you want to view that developer's Flash, then you must descend from your holier-than-thou cloud and use Flash. It's not "losing freedoms," it's playing nice with others. Because you're free not to use their sit
Testing on a free system before publication (Score:2)
So when a developer uses *his* freedom and develops in Flash, he ends up taking away everybody else's freedom because now they must use Flash as well if they want to see this site.
But who loses freedom when a developer uses his freedom and develops in Flash and tests in Gnash? Or when someone writes a document in Microsoft Word and proofreads it in AbiWord or OOo Writer before sending it out?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, while I'm willing to make these compromises (I have nVidia graphics drivers - though personally I was happier with Intel's, and I have an Intel wireless card), I'm a great fan of Stallman. Someone's got to be the extremist for things to change.
Re: (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.
Stallman is a zealot (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but it's true. As such it is no surprise that few people use things he'd consider free. He has a very rigid definition of it, one that many people might disagree with. For example the BSD crowd might say his definition is messed up since it doesn't include the freedom to take something and make it not free.
Regardless, because of his stance on it, most people don't use software that's Stallman Free(tm). We live in a real world, and imperfect world. Most people have to be a bit pragmatic with things. If that means using software that isn't Stallman Free, well then so be it. Ubuntu is concerned with being easily usable and widely adopted, not with idealism.
Also there is still the large unanswered question of how everyone can make money in a free software world. Some software it's not a problem for. For example:
--Software that runs hardware. You are buying the hardware, the software is just something that helps make it go. Thus it isn't a problem to have anyone able to copy and redistribute it. Heck, might even be to your benefit as maybe they make it better. Your money is in the device, so the software needn't be restricted. Embedded devices would be an example.
--Software that needs support. You aren't selling the software here, what you are selling is service on it. The software is complex, and/or is used in a complex nature. Thus people are going to have difficulty doing it without professional help. That's what you sell, is the expertise to make it all work as they want. The software is free, the service isn't. Enterprise Linux would be an example.
--Software for a service. You offer a service, like hosting or something. You have software to make that possible and to interact with it. This works as free because people aren't paying you for it, people are paying for your service.
There are probably more too. However there are some major categories that don't work like that. The biggest would be a lot of consumer applications, like games and such. If you design the app well, with good tutorials and intuitive interfaces, people don't need anything else to make it work. Thus if you make it free software, where they are free to simply give it away, then they've no need to pay you for it.
Well this doesn't work if you want software to be made as anything more than a hobby. For someone to do something professionally, as in to devote most of their time to it, that thing has to pay. People have to eat, they have to pay rent, they have to buy things they need. That means they need a job that pays. So if there's no way to make money off their software, well then they can't have a job making it. It can be a hobby, but not a job.
For example I have a hobby redoing soundtrack from old games. It amuses me, and others seem to enjoy it. However it isn't my job, and can't be. For legal and practical reasons, I can't make money on it, certainly not near enough to support myself. Thus it gets relegated to hobby status. I work on it when I like, when I've free time. Ends up taking a long time for that reason. What takes me a year I could easily do in a couple weeks if I were being paid to do it and directing all my efforts at that. However I'm not, so it happens on my terms. I do only projects I like, only when I like to do them.
So unless we want to see large classes of software relegated to that sort of status, we either have to allow for non-free software, or to figure out a way that people can make money on all free software. Also please not by "make money" I don't mean "make a token amount of cash through a few donations." I mean "Make enough money to support themselves and their family in a manner befitting of their skill and education." A hobby can't become a job just because people toss you a couple hundred dollars now and again. It's got to be something you can support yourself on.
Thus far, I've heard no solutions and can't come up with any myself. So we have to deal with the reality that not all software can be free software.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting issue in the free software world, that is difficult to approach fairly. It is becoming increasingly common to use programmabl
Penguin on the box as a bullet point? (Score:2)
That means that for the hardware to run, there must be firmware available, either on a flash cell (which increases the cost of the hardware) or in the driver (which now has a free software complication).
I've seen 2 GB USB memory cards for 5 USD retail, and I'd imagine that FPGA firmware would fit in a much smaller, cheaper flash chip. So aren't there specialty hardware makers willing to increase MSRP of a peripheral by $5 to cover the cost of proudly putting a penguin on the box?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I mean, seriously, you can just pay the copyright violation settlement costs if you want, and stop distributing someone else's code.
I've never understood how you can w
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that different from "Software as a service - to your employer" ?
What if you find yourself working in an environment where you code, script or otherwise hack all your own tools to accomplish your assigned task. The masses aren't capable of it now, but then they've
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's true. As such it is no surprise that few people use things he'd consider free. He has a very rigid definition of it, one that many people might disagree with.
The really funny part is that "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)" is bounded by edict (it has apparently been judged that people do not benefit from having a Tivo) rather than something sane like assuming that anyone who wants a copy probably does benefit from having it.
Mandriva (Score:5, Informative)
Linux Torvalds? (Score:4, Interesting)
"While Linux Torvalds gets most of the plaudits nowadays for the Linux kernel, it was Stallman who originally posted plans for a new, and free, operating system."
The term "Free Software" (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is always so adamant that we call it "Free Software" and not "Open Source Software". Problem is, whether Free Software is a better name for it or not, it's got hideous problems. The main one being this (from TFA):
You just can't use the term "free software" around normal people - they don't get it. They use the term "free software" themselves all the time, to mean Internet Explorer and Stupid Window Theme Pack For Windows 30 Day Trial and other garbage. Like it or not, the term is overloaded, and RMS's definition is not the default.
I prefer the term "open source". It's far less ambiguous (the ambiguity between "open source" and RMS-free is a much more subtle distinction than the ambiguity between "free software" and RMS-free). People either know what it means, or don't know what it means (and I can explain). Much better than people assuming it means something it doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is always so adamant that we call it "Free Software" and not "Open Source Software".
You know, that's probably because those are very different things.
You've come a long way, baby. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing that GNU is 25 years old now. In 1984 I was using a TRS-80, and the latest thing I knew about proprietary versus nonproprietary software was that Radio Shack had given up on the idea that customers would only be able to buy software from Radio Shack -- they had finally come around to the point of view that it was OK for third-party software houses to sell applications that would run on their OS. How many people are as far ahead of their time as Stallman was in 1984?
There are plenty of obstacles remaining, but I think it's impressive as hell how much you can do with free software today, and how easy it is to do it. My mother in law, who's in her 80s, installed Ubuntu on her computer this year, with just a little help from me over the phone. She actually had more trouble installing java (which she needed for her favorite online Scrabble app) than she did installing the OS. My neighbor came over for a beer yesterday and asked to see my Linux box. His main reaction to Gnome was, "Wow, I didn't expect anything so professional looking." 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. So, okay, no, he probably won't run Linux in the foreseeable future. But it's amazing to me that the big obstacles are now confined to issues as peripheral as that. Heck, you'd probably have a lot of the same concerns if you were contemplating switching to MacOS from Windows.
Intellectually, I think Stallman was very clever with his invention of the GPL framework. No matter how many BSD-versus-GPL flamewars there are on slashdot, I think any impartial observer has to admit that the general approach (using copyright for a purpose diametrically opposed to most people's idea of the purpose of copyright) was pretty novel in 1984, and it's been wildly successful, even in other contexts. Wikipedia is a good example. The fact that WP is GFDL licensed is what makes people comfortable contributing to it.
Re: (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.
Where Have I Heard This Before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman reminds me a lot of George Bush; if you disagree with his position on something, you're accused of being against freedom.
Stallman's vision (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone that grew up with computers, I can understand Stallman's vision. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. He would like to think there are 1.5 kinds of people in the world: those that write code and those that haven't gotten around to writing code. His sense of "freedom" is important to both parts of that, assuming that is all there is to humanity.
I think it is much closer to say there are three groups: those that write code, those that should not be writing code but are trying and those that will never, ever write code. Call the last group "users". What RMS misses completely is the last group is probably the most important. They are utterly at the mercy of the first two groups, and they are continually being disappointed by the second.
The ability to design computer software is an art and it is not one that is easily taught to people that just don't get it. Writing clear, functional, concise code that implements a design is much easier to teach but in the world of open source and free software these two roles are usually combined. And, from looking at a lot of code in the open source world, much of it is from the folks that aren't doing a good job of design and probably shouldn't be writing code either.
The future is not one where everyone is a programmer. The world is bigger than that. There are a lot of people that have no desire to ever be anything more than a user and for them being handed a piece of software that is intuitively easy to use, relatively bug-free and gets the job done for them is what they want. From both proprietary and open source software development users are continually handed non-intuitive, buggy software that accomplishes something less than 100% of the job. And, collectively speaking, our users deserve better than that.
Probably the biggest problem I see with open source is the lack of critical review. Without this someone that turns out garbage code will continue to do so forever. Unless they stumble upon their own code and have to maintain it for years. Even then, it takes a stern taskmaster to reinforce the idea that if it isn't maintainable, it wasn't worth writing in the first place. And that if all the users can't use it how they want to, it isn't doing the job either. Yes, I do mean all the users and all of what they want it to do.
Where is the professional society that builds up talented but rudderless newcomers? Where does someone that wants to be turning out a "professional" quality product go for help? Universities? No, I don't think so. Most commercial establishments are just as driven to produce something "good enough" that they just have a hope of maintainability and usability. Sometimes they get lucky, but most of the time they do not. And we wonder why software development gets a bad reputation?
RMS would like us to each be able to fix the bugs we find and extend usability to take something that does 50% of the job we need done and fix it so it does 100% for us. Nice idea, but it comes from a flawed premise - a sort of universality of programming ability. The reality is major talent will be always rare and it is up to these folks to help out and guide those with ability but undeveloped talent. And then there are the users. These will always be in the majority and they cannot help but rely on the people with ability and talent to do what they cannot do. I do not think the mantle of this responsibility can so easily be passed off on the users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably the biggest problem I see with open source is the lack of critical review. Without this someone that turns out garbage code will continue to do so forever.
Isn't this more a problem with closed source software? Quality of code seems more important for an open source project that wishes to attract volunteers than a closed source project where the developers are paid.
Cooperation, not freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Free and open source software - hell, ANYTHING open source and free - is not about "freedom" per se. It's about cooperation rather than competition. It's about that dirty economic word socialism versus Mother Nature's status quo capitalism.
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)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
In Germany, we have 3 different words for "free" when used as in beer, and a law defining what each word means, when used in business. There is "gratis", "kostenlos" (no cost), and some other term I forgot. Then of course there is the word "frei" (free) too. I noticed, that translating to German, and then translating all terms back to English, (both with dict.leo.org) gives me a pretty nice thesaurus. :)
The third word (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "Umsonst" is the word that I meant. Danke! :)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Funny)
In Germany ... free ... beer ?!
Sign me up!
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Funny)
That might have been true 25 years ago, but today you can just call it "freedom software".
(with the added bonus that if it's not freedom software it's terrorist software -- a pretty good description of the crap a convicted monopolist pushes).
Re: (Score:2)
RMS is equivocating on purpose. Whenever confronted he claims the gratis interpretation of free, but when you read his speeches, he often hints at gratis, which is why he has never fixed the name of his foundation.
In contrast the OSS movement started by removing this ambiguity.
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.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, the concept of 'Free Software' has nothing to do with 'being able to have a thing or service for free'.
(btw, it says so on the second sentence of the second paragraph of the FA)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Indeed. And we are equally permitted to choose our preferred "degrees of freedom".
Which is why there is nothing shameful about using proprietary drivers from nVidia (to use a particularly useful and pertinent example) on our Linux or BSD machines, since they are simply providing commercial support for a truly "free" platform. If one wants to sit on a high horse and pontificate about the purit
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Please provide an example of this happening. The end user is under no obligation to "accept the terms" of the GPL (despite the fact that many software distributors stupidly force users to do just that when installing GPL software). Freedom 0 specifically grants the user unlimited freedom to use the software as (s)he sees fit. Any restrictions placed on the use of GPL software is a direct violation of the GPL.
The GPL governs the distribution of software, and prevents developers and distributors from restricting the way a person uses the software. Claims that the GPL restricts use is the great straw man of the proprietary vendors' anti-free software FUD campaign.
The fact that your nVidea drivers might break the next time you do a kernel update is beyond the control of those who provide the free components of your system. If nVidea wants their hardware to work with anybody's hardware or software, they need to either release working drivers themselves, or release the specifications so others may develop them. I can't imagine how you arrived at the conclusion that the FSF is in some way placing "every possible roadblock in place to the end user making use of software that does not meet their standards of free."
That's what they've been doing for 25 years. Any lack of interoperability you've been experiencing is likely due to a lack of published specifications for that proprietary hardware and software you just referred to.
So you slag the people who provide free software and blame them of the lack of interoperability you experience when you mix it with closed-source propriety hardware and software, and you also don't pay for the proprietary stuff, violating the terms of their user agreements (which, unlike the GPL, do restrict your right to use the software).
Why are you complaining again?
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus seems like a strange choice to hold up as an example of someone limiting your rights in the name of free software. He always struck me as the ultimate pragmatist, someone who favours using the best tool for the job, regardless of whether it is proprietary or free software.
Never the less, do you have to apply every kernel patch? I can see security updates and bug fixes, but changes to the driver API? Especially if they break your nVidia drivers. Wouldn't you look at what the patch does, see that it is incompatible with your hardware and choose not to run it?
Really, it goes back to where the problem actually lies, and that is with the proprietary nVidia drivers. Complain to them. You gave them money for their graphics card. Have you ever given a penny to Linus or any of the other kernel developers?
They are doing nothing to curtail your freedom to use the software they so generously provided any way you see fit, and if it doesn't suit your exact needs, you can pay someone to change it.
That's freedom.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
if I give you the ability to do *anything* with my code and you turn around and tell your end users *you can't do all that much* who exactly is the one that is free here?
it's voluntary, no one's holding a gun to your head telling you that you must use the code, the only thing is that if you choose to use that code and distribute it to others, you can't turn around and weaken their ability to do the same as you. keeping the code in house without distributing it O.T.O.H you can do whatever you like with it.
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the code that is free, not the user.
I assume you're contrasting BSD or similarly permissive licenses with the GPL. BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
You can have it both ways. That's why the CDDL and MPL exist. "Return your changes to our code, but you can use it with anything you like under any license.
They are, as far as I'm concerned, the best OSS licenses out there.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
you're saying that the first developers on that code are end users but the people who use that code and software after them [Mac for example] are not and that is a mistake. Mac as an example is based largely on BSD'ed code- it can not be altered nor improved by anyone other than Apple- they are in effect much freer to do with that code than you. You are *not free* to build upon that code as Apple has done, if Apple's code has a flaw you can not fix it, you can not alter its behavior- it belongs to them th
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's more or less my (unstated) point. What I said was that BSD makes the end user free, while GPL makes the code free.
The problem with the BSD model is that each end user is free to make the code non-free, and spoil it for everyone else downstream (which is the situation you describe).
The GPL model forces the code to be free forever. The users' freedoms take a back-seat - specifically those users who want to proprietarise the code, but also the users who want to port to BSD model lose out, as collat
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your point, and I fully understand the issues. I'm just using terminology differently than you. I'm deciding to continue using the term "end user" as a blanket term encompassing all recipients of the software.
Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms.
If you have a better term...? (Perhaps "recipient" is a better bla
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm the same guy you explained it to last time..."
hehe, sorry about that.
You say:
"Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms."
and then say that user and distributor are not the right terms?
"I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it"
Distribution is not usage. The GPL does not regulate at all the use of
Re: (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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
s/end\ users/distributors/g
I can't believe this is still not understood by some ./ers.
Maybe that's because all you're typing is a series of random punctuation and a couple words, some nonsense from some programming language or editor I don't know.
Have you thought about, hm, ENGLISH? Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
I posted a more verbose explanation twice.
It;s the first time i use the s/xxx/xxx/g syntax in a post but I saw it used often here so I assumed it was understood by most.
But as they say:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
It means: replace "end users" by "distributors" in the parent post.
and ./ers means slashdoters :)
Re:Free NOT EQUAL TO freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).
You can't make BSD code "non-free". You can add your own code, and make the resultant product "non-free", but the original BSD-licensed code, will remain BSD licensed.
The big difference between the BSD and GPL, is with the BSD you're stating what you want to do with your code, but with the GPL you're stating what you want to do with other pe
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
"You've managed to eloquently summarize what has been bouncing around in my brain for a while"
To bad because he is wrong.
Here's my reply to his post.
"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:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes. But the third part, even if voluntary and completely in the libertarian sense, is what brings government involvement to any degree. It's the entity that enforces contracts (a product of some voluntary associations) and also via copyright and patents which are abstract concepts in the Constition.
So, even by that definition, Stallman's concept is giving you more freedom by a) having less or no EULAs and b) less copyright concerns. I believe in this sense, the term "Freedom" is in context of being unencumbered of restrictive obligations of running code. I know when I install Ubuntu without seeing 100 Eulas pop up or asking me for my CD key plus various other nag screen I feel a little more unencumbered by BS. For the developer, it frees them from, well, developing the wheel over and over again. Seeing that all sides of the Open Source equation is a completely voluntary system, and not some communist dictatorship giving property to the masses, it works perfectly fine within the term freedom.
Freedom also allows you sell yourself into indentured servitude (perhaps called car/home/student loans today). However, if a spiritual philosophy came along, shunning pure materialism, converting people voluntarily to its way of thinking and they ended up happier: wouldn't it, too, fit into the freedom paradigm. Couldn't we judge one way of life in some ways ultimately freer than the other?
Anyway, fortunately for us and FTA, Stallman, as always, defined his freedom specifically:
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.
I will grant the GNU license isn't free in itself, but one is free to take it (or not).
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:5, Insightful)
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
Well gee, the guy who's spent the last twenty-five years leading the Free Software movement has some politics that you disagree with.
It's not like anybody is actually forcing you to stop using proprietary software. The only person who might stop you from using Ubuntu because of binary blobs are the owners of said blobs. They could sue Ubuntu for massive statutory damages for wilful infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is pretty much what free software is all about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not GIVE the English language a term for free-libre eg. "liber". Languages are fluid things... and "liber" fits :
liber
liberate
liberation
Yes, liber has some (uncommon) meanings in English already, but plenty of other words have multiple meanings eg. the word "free" itself! It's certainly not a step backwards, and there's a chance it could add something valuable to English in the longer term.
Re:Cardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad you can't eat postcards or deposit them in your bank account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)