thelinuxlink.net

RMS has no problem with you selling your code as long as you pass on the four freedoms to the purchaser that he <RMS> deems important to free software to the person purchasing the software.

Oh no. Don't tell me you beat that dead horse again on last night's show; did you?

Judland wrote:Oh no. Don't tell me you beat that dead horse again on last night's show; did you?

No, I mentioned that RMS visited one of the local colleges over here a couple weeks back. Someone we know kinda confronted him and Stallman told him he was confused:
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=20601
http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/all- ... 2169.story

I think that someone (starts with L and rhymes with pink) is still confused. From the way I understand RMS, he would have no problem with you selling your code to someone for a billion dollars, as long as you granted him the four freedoms to use that code and redistribute it.

Look at Pat Volkerding and Slackware. He sells packaged versions of Slackware on CD and DVD (source + binaries), and makes a living from that. It's completely possible to make money from directly selling free/open source software. It doesn't have to be purely based on selling services.

''Live cheaply,'' he said, offering some free advice. ''Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them.''

Ah, yes. Now there's a lofty goal: Be a self-consumed "Freedom" thumper with no family or car. For every intelligent thing Stallman says, he says two equally ludicrous things. Until you can eat software, wear software, or seek shelter inside software, it doesn't mean shit to me in the larger scheme of things, and it certainly isn't supremely important. I would set my computers on fire and piss on their ashes before I gave up my friends and family in favor of them.

Seriously, he can be quite the jackass sometimes.

chuck wrote:RMS has no problem with you selling your code as long as you pass on the four freedoms to the purchaser that he <RMS> deems important to free software to the person purchasing the software.

greggh wrote:I think that someone (starts with L and rhymes with pink) is still confused. From the way I understand RMS, he would have no problem with you selling your code to someone for a billion dollars, as long as you granted him the four freedoms to use that code and redistribute it.

This is exactly right, in fact, the Free Software Foundation did this back in the early 90', they sold tapes with the, at the time, incomplete GNU system which a user could run on like SunOS and other UNIXes. They used this money to fund their own development and advocacy efforts. I think they're still doing something similar today.
If anyone doesn't believe that Richard Stallman thinks this is perfectly fine, please allow me to give you a snippet of an interview with Richard on The Screen Savers by Leo Laporte:

Richard Stallman: Free Software means you have the freedom to make changes in it, you gotta have the source code ... you gotta be able to get it, if you want it. Freedom to distribute copies to other people, freedom to help your neighbor.

Leo Laporte: Not "free" .. no cost ?

RS: That's irrelevant, price is irrelevant.

LL: So I could charge for free software?

RS: The freedom to sell copies is part of the essential freedom, if you're not allowed to sell copies it's not free software.

If you want to see the interview for yourself, it's on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7300096517
Mind you this is the entire episode (It's from 2000, so nobody cares about it being posted there anyway), the interview is at 41:45.

Patrick wrote:

Judland wrote:Oh no. Don't tell me you beat that dead horse again on last night's show; did you?

No, I mentioned that RMS visited one of the local colleges over here a couple weeks back. Someone we know kinda confronted him and Stallman told him he was confused:
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=20601
http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/all- ... 2169.story

If you're referring to Richard Cichelli, who is mentioned in the article you you posted a link to, well I gotta ask, is it really entirely wrong?
Richard Stallman believes that the four freedoms are essential as something that everybody ought to have, and that taking it away is wrong. You could compare these views of his, to my views on freedom of speech ('ey, especially after that whole cartoons/paintings in Jyllandsposten, a Danish newspaper, right?). I believe that what China and North Korea, just to name a few common ones, does is morally wrong (Like deliberately preventing their citizens from knowing the truth about the world we live in), but that's just me, I'm sure Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, Kim Jong-Il have other ideas of what's essential. But anyway, if you come at Richard Stallman with arguments against free software that has to do with things such as the amount of money you'll make from doing XY and Z, or how something is going to be impractical or inconvenient, he'll just shake his head. The reason for this is that from his stand point of the four freedoms being essential, money will always be a second thought.
For example, during that whole cartoon debacle, a lot of Muslims in the middleeast boycotted Danish dairy products, some to protest against the fact that we didn't extradite the painters to like Pakistan (Where the fundamentalists demanded execution) or similar places. One Danish politician, who has been accused of being a racist (Although I would call her a little harash, I wouldn't say racist), said (I don't remember the exact quote, which is in Danish anyway) that Denmark would never sacrifice freedom of speech for sales of milk or cheese in the middleeast.
Now please mind you that I am not equating the sale of proprietary software to extraditing people for execution in another country! I am sure some people would argue that I am (You know who you are), please know that I am not! However what the Danish politician, Pia Kjærsgaard is her name if you must know (Look her up on Wikipedia, if you want to know her political position), said is somewhat similar to what Richard Stallman tries to say about software freedom.
So if Stallman actually told Mr. Cichelli that he was "confused", I think what he means is that he's confused about the ideals/philosophies that Richard Stallman caries with him.
When free software people, like Richard Stallman and I guess Theo de Raadt, argue various things (Now with regards to Theo, I agree that he could be a lot nicer about things at times! ) a lot of people will say "It's just a darn computer" etc. etc. Well, understand to Richard Stallman, computing seems to be more than just a machine of metal, that's designed to serve you, to RMS I think you could say that computing (Even the pure use of it) is a collaborative process. Kind of like security is a process and not a product, I think to RMS using computers is a process in which you collaborate. This is what it was like back in the universities in the 60', 70' and early 80', MIT in Richard Stallman's case, and this is where the whole free software movement (And to some extent the open source movement as well, if you want to, visibly, separate them) originates. Richard Stallman was the last MIT hacker who didn't get hired by a proprietary software maker, he thought what was happening was wrong so he set about to change things. So when people say "Why are these guys trying to get us to do XYZ in these new ways?" when talking about the FSF advocating free software, they have clearly spent less time on Wikipedia than I have!
Free software development, is basically computer development as it was, some people believe that the change has been bad, and try to do something about it.
Even though I don't really like FLOSS "Weekly" all that much, I think the latest episode with Jon "maddog" Hall is really good, the describes the environment I just described in the 60' and 70' during the interview.

Oh a whole different note Pat, I'm sure that you and another guy who shall remain semi-nameless (Right, chuck? ), took offense in Richard saying you were confused. Mind you, I think Richard could have put it a bit nicer, during that interview with him back in November, but I don't get why you guys don't let it go already. I have been told that I was a mongol child, abnormal (Referring to my skin and hair color) or actual dirt because I didn't do XY and Z, like getting piss drunk and having sex with three 15 year old girls every Friday night, by people my age. Although I am not a native English speaker, I seriously doubt being told that "you're confused" about a computer philosophy topic, could be anywhere near as offending.
Also, if you wanted to have a more insightful discussion with Richard with regards to "proprietary hardware" all you had to do was mention a single four letter word, that has been around since the early 1980'. The word is "BIOS". Richard Stallman's laptop I think is still an old ThinkPad, it uses a proprietary BIOS, because IBM don't tell people how to get LinuxBIOS working on ThinkPads.

Anyway, I've been meaning to say this for a while, please don't be mad at me for doing so!
And 'ey, if you are, know that I still have my blog running, it's not like I have thrown away the password just because I havn't posted on there for a while (Isn't it, Allan? ).
... Just kidding.

Wally Balljacker wrote:Look at Pat Volkerding and Slackware. He sells packaged versions of Slackware on CD and DVD (source + binaries), and makes a living from that. It's completely possible to make money from directly selling free/open source software. It doesn't have to be purely based on selling services.

Even though they do it a little differently (In a way I don't quite agree with, see this for more details: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO), you could put OpenBSD in pretty much the same boat, their entire development project is funded my sales of CD sets and donations.

TankCatNinjaFish wrote: -- IMAGE STRIPPED OUT FOR FORUM READABILITY PURPOSES --

Dude that's awesome!

''Live cheaply,'' he said, offering some free advice. ''Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them.''

That has to be one of most idiotic statements I've ever heard. Maybe it was better I wasn't at the talk because I think I would of burst out laughing.

Tsuroerusu wrote: Oh a whole different note Pat, I'm sure that you and another guy who shall remain semi-nameless (Right, chuck? ), took offense in Richard saying you were confused. Mind you, I think Richard could have put it a bit nicer, during that interview with him back in November, but I don't get why you guys don't let it go already.

We can't joke about things? To be honest I was not offended. I was simply repeating a listener's question regarding compatibility between GPLv2 & GPLv3 code. Was that listener(who shall remain semi-nameless) offended?

Tsuroerusu wrote: I have been told that I was a mongol child, abnormal (Referring to my skin and hair color) or actual dirt because I didn't do XY and Z....

That's awful that someone would say that to you. ASSHOLES ARE EVERYWHERE. You think humanity would get past racism by now.

Tsuroerusu wrote: Also, if you wanted to have a more insightful discussion with Richard with regards to "proprietary hardware" all you had to do was mention a single four letter word, that has been around since the early 1980'. The word is "BIOS". Richard Stallman's laptop I think is still an old ThinkPad, it uses a proprietary BIOS, because IBM don't tell people how to get LinuxBIOS working on ThinkPads.

That might me a good discussion topic if he ever comes back on. I would be willing to have him on again but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. If he does come back on the show I will not hesitate in calling bullshit at his idiotic statements.

''Live cheaply,'' he said, offering some free advice. ''Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them.''

I'm guessing that was a joke. Listening to some of his other speeches, that sounds like his idea of dry humor. Of course, it's hard to tell since it's just written on the web page, and it doesn't help matters that this description is pretty much the way he lives his life. I'm sure you "had to be there" to get a good idea of whether it was a joke or not. Obviously free software is the most important thing to RMS, though, and since no people means no free software, he has to be in favor of at least some procreation.

Patrick wrote: That might me a good discussion topic if he ever comes back on. I would be willing to have him on again but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. If he does come back on the show I will not hesitate in calling bullshit at his idiotic statements.

You could get Poul-Henning Kamp from the freebsd project on the show and talk about his beerware license

/*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
* this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/

if licenses were that simple

me and Troels were having a good chat about enforcing licenses, if someone were to take zyz code on gpl , how could you force them to honour your license, especially when there half way across the world? Maybe you could invite someone from the gpl violations group http://gpl-violations.org/ , if you have not already.

Vogateer wrote:

''Live cheaply,'' he said, offering some free advice. ''Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them.''

I'm guessing that was a joke. Listening to some of his other speeches, that sounds like his idea of dry humor. Of course, it's hard to tell since it's just written on the web page, and it doesn't help matters that this description is pretty much the way he lives his life. I'm sure you "had to be there" to get a good idea of whether it was a joke or not. Obviously free software is the most important thing to RMS, though, and since no people means no free software, he has to be in favor of at least some procreation.

Quite possibly, and you're entirely correct that he should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case. I just consider that he has done things like protest ATI at media gatherings because they only give linux users a blob instead of a FOSS driver. It just seems like he will never understand that being a dickhead to a company that is probably barely willing to do what it's already doing for linux is not the best way to get them on his side. We need someone like Steve Jobs on our side - someone who is pushy but charismatic, and can speak the language. We do *not* need to demonstrate to companies that cooperating with linux in any way but complete submission is a recipe for an idealistic (and bizarrely at that) weird beard showing up at your publicity gigs with picket signs in hand. At this point, I claim that people like RMS are doing harm to FOSS as a whole.

I agree that RMS doesn't present a great "image" for Linux. He's unkempt, eccentric, and difficult to relate to. Obviously most of us respect him for many of his ideas and his devotion to users' freedom, but it would probably be more helpful if he presented it as "This is how computing ought to be, this is the ideal, and it works better than anything else out there" as opposed to "Proprietary software is immoral."

I understand his view on proprietary software, though his bluntness and lact of tact can result in conversations that are more combative than constructive.

/me grabs a stick and joins the dead-horse beating

Vogateer wrote:

''Live cheaply,'' he said, offering some free advice. ''Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them.''

I'm guessing that was a joke. Listening to some of his other speeches, that sounds like his idea of dry humor.

It's not a joke. I've been to two of his talks and his basic stance is that he thinks everyone should live like a starving graduate student. At least he practices what he preaches, unlike most other left wingers in the US.