Please Digg our interview with Richard Stallman

[snarkout]

Actually, I like the sound of ututo, at least from their distrowatch blurb. If I were planning to use it as a desktop, I'd have to add the codecs though. I can live without a lot of things, but multimedia is a must for me.

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ututo

[Linc]

Until someone makes a banana seat copying machine your mountain bike falls below RMS's radar.

To be fair I think linc was going out of his way to push RMS's buttons, and to the degree I understand any of what RMS says, I understood what he was trying to say re hardware versus software. I am, however, far more "open source" than I am "free" by what I understand RMS's definition to be - meaning I think that F/OSS stuff is wonderful, and I'm extremely happy to have it available, but I do not think "Free software" is an essential human right. When you start comparing closed source software to human rights violations in dictator nations, there's something seriously fucked up with your POV.

That, and I'm a greedy dickhead who uses The Bad Codecs.

I don't think that is a fair assessment at all. I was not going out of my way to push his buttons. I had a fair and intelligent question. I believe he was intentionally doing it to me though. My question was "how can a programmer make money with free software" and after a half hour of his bullshit and changing his mind 8 times and telling me "my question was confused", he finally came up with you have to be employed by someone to write the software and they release it as free software (in a nutshell). Now why he had to be rude and arrogant for so long to get there is beyond me.

[snarkout]

I haven't heard that entire part yet, honestly. I was speaking about the hardware question - you had to know that was going to piss him off. I mean, you were essentially calling him a hypocrite in no uncertain terms. I don't think his world view is capable of containing the possibility that he's an over-zealous nutjob. Even to a minor degree.

[coolfrood]

Hey Mr. Admins, can you merge this thread in here? https://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1705

I didn't notice this thread unfortunately and started a new thread.

[CptnObvious999]

The problem I have with Richard is he is too unaccepting. I run the nvidia drivers and I think nvidia does an awesome job with them, I would like them to be free but it's certainly not a requirement of mine. But to RMS you are the most evil person to roam the earth just because you can't see the source code, he expects everyone to just open everything and completely change their current business model or "get a new job". As Allan said afterward, this is the real world and things don't change without compromise most of the time. Also just because people don't feel the same way you do, doesn't mean you should consider them evil. I try to be tolerant of others opinions/views (although I know I am not always but I think I am much better then RMS).

[Patrick]

The story is now on the Digg front page with 51 diggs.

[Gomer_X]

Man, RMS does come across as a jerk sometimes. I can understand if you think a question is loaded and you want to point it out and rephrase it without any assumptions or presuppositions, but telling people they're confused and that their question doesn't make any sense is anything but a diplomatic way of stating that, and asking for an argument instead of a discussion. He comes across as almost mechanical. Passionate, but lacking any sort of social skills or any concept of compromise. His sort of responses makes it pretty difficult for other people to relate to you and your ideas.

I mean, for all the fuss he made about being interrupted and not being allowed to answer a question, he had no problem interrupting Linc multiple times before Linc had a chance to finish or even rephrase the question he was asking, and he interrupted Dann and Pat a couple of times, too. Demanding that people use his own vocabulary in his own way is a bit annoying, too. It reminds me of politically correct people who want to control words in such a way to favor their argument instead of arguing using reason.

To be fair, people interrupt and talk over each other a lot on the show, not just during interviews with RMS. There's usually enough lag that if people don't pause for a bit to make sure the other person is done, there will be collisions. During a heated debate, this turns to chaos because everyone wants to get their point in.

[Gomer_X]

Agreed. As a professional software engineer I can't really buy into his argument regarding non-free programming being morally wrong. I don't want to look for a different profession if I can't be paid to write free software. That is nonsensical IMHO. I mean I'm a big proponent of open source and use it quite a lot in both my personal and professional computing activities, and I respect what the free software movement is trying to achieve, but its far too extreme for my tastes . If someone writes proprietary software for a living because he *is* a programmer and loves it, then more power to him. I personally feel that the open source movement makes a ton of pragmatic and economic sense.

However, many companies have intellectual property tied up in their products and it doesn't make competitive sense to provide a "free" solution. I think RMS was hinting at this type of development as "custom software," but I didn't really follow where he was going on that one.

What he was referring to is the fact that there are essentially 3 types of software:
1) proprietary software - closed software designed to be sold to the public.
2) free software - we know what this is
3) custom software - this is software developed internally at companies for specific, internal use.

Over 90% of software falls into this last category. "Freeness" is largely irrelevant, because the software is developed for a custom purpose and will never be released. We've got custom applications that we develop where I work that would be no good to anyone but us. Most companies are this way.

So the only software RMS considers evil is that which is specifically developed to be sold under a non-free license. There are very, very few people who develop this type of software. He's not saying that if you work for a company writing software for internal use that you are evil and need to get another job. The GPL doesn't effect 90% of the programmers in the world.

[Chess]

So the only software RMS considers evil is that which is specifically developed to be sold under a non-free license. There are very, very few people who develop this type of software. He's not saying that if you work for a company writing software for internal use that you are evil and need to get another job. The GPL doesn't effect 90% of the programmers in the world.

That's exactly how I understand it too, Gomer_X. It's my understanding that as a free software developer, one must give the "user" the 4 freedoms. If your "user" is Company ABC that hired you to write a custom app, and if you give that "user" the 4 freedoms, then you're OK by RMS standards. The fact that Company ABC then decides to never give out the code to anyone else is irrelevant.

[chuck]

I don't think that is a fair assessment at all. I was not going out of my way to push his buttons. I had a fair and intelligent question. I believe he was intentionally doing it to me though. My question was "how can a programmer make money with free software" and after a half hour of his bullshit and changing his mind 8 times and telling me "my question was confused", he finally came up with you have to be employed by someone to write the software and they release it as free software (in a nutshell). Now why he had to be rude and arrogant for so long to get there is beyond me.

I think it was a fair assessment to say that you were pushing his buttons. However I think it was unintended. You kept pounding the same questions without RMS giving a full answer, no matter if you liked where it was going or not. And with the lag that is typical of the shows communication, you cannot have a debate in the way that you seemed to be aiming for. That is why your questions came off so poorly, especially to those new to the show unaware of shows apparent philosophy of 'We're just doing this for us so the quality is what it is and if you don't like it leave'.

I think by the time he finished answering the programming/earn a living question you had a good solid answer that was lost in the lag. That answer came across to me as 'As long as you don't sell closed source software to the end user, you are developing Free Software".

[Tsuroerusu]

So the only software RMS considers evil is that which is specifically developed to be sold under a non-free license. There are very, very few people who develop this type of software. He's not saying that if you work for a company writing software for internal use that you are evil and need to get another job. The GPL doesn't effect 90% of the programmers in the world.

If the custom software that a company pays to have developed for them is under a free software license, Richard has no problem with it. But if the company does not get the sourcecode, or can't get it, then Richard has a problem with it.

If no consulting firm develop free software for their clients, I could see a good business opportunity for people doing that, because say that a company wants to have some software developed, and they go to a consulting firm to have it done, but do not like the result, they could just go somewhere else, or if the original consulting firm goes out of business they are not screwed up the ass OR if they wanna move to a different desktop operating system. No vendor lock-in, etc. etc.

[Gomer_X]

If the custom software that a company pays to have developed for them is under a free software license, Richard has no problem with it. But if the company does not get the sourcecode, or can't get it, then Richard has a problem with it.

No. This software is never released. Therefore license is irrelevant.

I never heard Stallman say that software developed for internal use needs to be free. In fact I thought he said just the opposite.

EDIT: To clarify, if you pay a consult to develop a program for you, that's not "custom software" as defined above. That is commercial software. What I mean by custom software is software developed internally for internal use, whether by a vendor or a company's programmers. If that software is developed for you then distributed to someone else, it's no longer "custom software" and needs a license.

[Tsuroerusu]

If the custom software that a company pays to have developed for them is under a free software license, Richard has no problem with it. But if the company does not get the sourcecode, or can't get it, then Richard has a problem with it.

No. This software is never released. Therefore license is irrelevant.

I never heard Stallman say that software developed for internal use needs to be free. In fact I thought he said just the opposite.

I heard him say that he has no problem with custom software as long as that software respects the user's freedom, and given that Stallman is coming from the premise of the four freedoms being essential, he means that that software should be under a free software license.

[Gomer_X]

I heard him say that he has no problem with custom software as long as that software respects the user's freedom, and given that Stallman is coming from the premise of the four freedoms being essential, he means that that software should be under a free software license.

But you don't need to license software you don't distribute.

[Tsuroerusu]

I heard him say that he has no problem with custom software as long as that software respects the user's freedom, and given that Stallman is coming from the premise of the four freedoms being essential, he means that that software should be under a free software license.

But you don't need to license software you don't distribute.

I am not talking about distribution. OK, let me restate a part of my suggestion for a good custom free software business model.

Say I need a program that does X, Y and Z, so I go a custom software firm (CSF) and pay them to make me a program that does X, Y and Z.
When they have finalized the "product" I am handed something. For this to be ethical in RMS opinion, I have to get sources and the four freedoms with that. If I only get the binaries, I can run the program as I see fit, that's freedom 0. But already with freedom 1 I run into a roadblock if you go by the FSF's Free Software definition (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html) because I can't study the program and modify it because I don't have the sources. Since I paid for the program I could probably redistribute it, that's freedom 2. But with freedom 3, I again run into a huge roadblock, because I can surely publish the version of the program that I am using, but I can't publish a modified version, because I don't have the sources.

RMS doesn't really care about if the user has the ability to utilize those freedoms or not, the point is that he or she has that freedom. RMS has in the past compared it to freedom of the press, not everybody writes articles for publication, but it's essential for everybody to be able to do it, aka have that freedom. And with the internet, I think it's gold to have that freedom. Back when I was still using Windows I didn't think twice about publishing my opinions and ideas, but having been a part of a community, where I meet people and wanna get to know people who may wanna get to know me, all of a sudden the freedom to write stuff and publish it freely and not having to worry about some government not liking it is just so amazingly useful.
If you want a real life example, go to my blog, troelsjust.dk, and you'll find a pretty long post on my opinion on the whole Novell-Microsoft (?? Microvell ??) saga.