Rant about RMS

[Tsuroerusu]

I don't know about anyone else, but I enjoyed this thread. Even if nobody cared for my posts, just writing them clarified my thoughts on these matters.

I enjoyed it too, before I had not really thought about how free software would fit into a custom software model. Now I think it fits quite well, if "implemented" correctly.

I've figured that I'm probably more in the open source camp than I am in the free software camp, even though I think free software is fantastic and I'd like to contribute more than just a little bit of money to free software some day.

I'm more of free software guy personally, I think I just like it's ideals and all that jazz.

I shouldn't continue the debate, but I will say to Troels that I don't think I misunderstood the meaning when you said the question was forcing them to work with a business model that's incompatible with it. I believe you meant that the question was shoehorning GPL software into the same business model as proprietary software such as the kind Adobe makes. I don't believe any of the questions did that at all. I believe the questions asked about what sort of business model would work with GPL software, though implicit in that question is the insinuated preference that this business model not force so many programmers to find non-programming work to sustain themselves. I didn't notice someone trying to force them to into the proprietary software business model at all. Isn't that what you meant?

I wrote this:

I think that by asking the question in such a traditional sense, you force the free software philosophy to try and work with a business model that it fundamentally is incompatible with. Of course it's weird, and may not work very well, being say Adobe trying to sell Photoshop under the GPL license, because that business model is designed for proprietary software with restrictive licenses!!
The service- and custom software models fit very smoothly with free software, those are the kinds of answers you could give someone asking you "How do I as a programmer make money writing free software?"

The question I refer to in the beginning as being asked "in such as traditional sense" is the question of: How do I as a programmer, make money doing free software?
First of all, I think that question sounds like it was some dude at Adobe asking it, because if you asked me that question, I would get a feeling of you expecting to make money doing free software in the same way (aka utilizing the same business model), that you used to make money doing proprietary software. I realize that both cases involve software, but the ways to monetize the two are very different.

I think that if you wanna produce Free Software (Notice the capital F) and make a living doing so, you need to find the right business model to fit the exact thing you are doing, and you need to figure out how to use the resources that Free Software gives you, to give your customers the freedoms that it offers. I am sure this kind of sounds like something in the area of what Eric Raymond would kind of say, but really, I try to describe this from a Free Software stand point.

If you start out by seeing "making money doing free software" as like trying to sell your own customized version of the Gimp in the same way Adobe sells Photoshop, only with a different license, you wouldn't really get anywhere because as you said, people would proably take your changes upstream anyway.
This is what I mean of trying to force "Free Software" (NOT FREE SOFTWARE PEOPLE) into a business model, with which it is just fundamentally incompatible. Because Free Software is about free redistribution, and that does not work in the kind of "traditinal commercial proprietary software"-way of doing things. It's like trying to use a rifle like you'd use a bow and arrow in my opinion.


The reason I saw you as misunderstanding what I was saying is because you replied to:

I think that by asking the question in such a traditional sense, you force the free software philosophy to try and work with a business model that it fundamentally is incompatible with. Of course it's weird, and may not work very well, being say Adobe trying to sell Photoshop under the GPL license, because that business model is designed for proprietary software with restrictive licenses!!

With this:

No. Nobody is trying to force the free software people to do anything, they're just asking how most programmers can live according to these ideals and not starve. Let's face it, it is terribly easy for people in the FSF to point out their principles and not bother with the consequences, but how is this of any consolation to the programmer who wants to earn a living? A programmer with a spouse and kids isn't likely to go out on a limb and risk getting his family kicked out of their house simply because he would prefer to write free software. I think it's silly to expect everyone who recognizes that these ideals would adversely affect programmers and open source software if they were rigidly followed to simply ignore these ramifications and not ask questions about it.

Right off the bat you start mentioning the Free Software people, whom I did not even mention at that point, not the concept of Free Software, which is what I WAS mentioning.
And then you go into a discussion (rant?) that it is, and I am quoting you now, "terribly easy" for the FSF "to point out their principles and not bother with the consequences" and people not wanting to sacrifice their wives and children for personal morals and ideals etc. etc.
To me it sounds like you think the FSF is blindingly saying things, but in case you didn't know, Richard Stallman answered pretty much all of these "making money in free software" questions over 10 years ago in the GNU Manifesto which you can read here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html


Please note that I don't try to attack you or anything, if my writing seems a little rude or cranky, please let me know, but I have not slept for over 24 hours

[Vogateer]

Then I must simply disagree with you. Someone asking how to make money programming free software is not asking "how do I continue to make money using the current business model," because asking the original question in the first place means they realize that the current business model would not work.

I certainly wouldn't call that one sentence a rant, as there was nothing extravagant or wild in its tone. It is very easy to speak of ideals without consequences, which is how Stallman usually presents things. I don't have a problem with that, but if he expects others not to worry about the consequences, then he is even less socially adept than he sounds.

[chuck]

Then I must simply disagree with you. Someone asking how to make money programming free software is not asking "how do I continue to make money using the current business model," because asking the original question in the first place means they realize that the current business model would not work.

The question has been answered but you don't seem to have accepted it. If you want to make Free software and profit from it, the easiest way is to do it as a custom job for a business. Just because you cannot make the same amount programming for end users as businesses is not the fault of Stallman or his principles. However if you work on a project that becomes a prominent piece of software then your earnings potential begins to grow.

There are many projects out there that have started because of one or two people needing some functionality. Linux is the shining example. Samba is a prime example. Some guy even decided that a podcatching client written in Bash would be a good idea for some reason. The thing is, whatever you want to do you'll find a way to do it. Some projects will bring more attention than others.

I think it was on 'The Linux Action Show' that one of the hosts told of a friend that wrote a custom package for the company he was working for at the time. He left that company yet they still needed that app to be developed. So they agreed to release it under the GPL.

There was also the Webmin guy on TLLTS a while ago. He said that due to his work on that project he has landed a job at Google(?) doing something completely different. And as we know, Google's policy has been to allow their employees 1/5th their work week to side projects. Many of them I would assume involved GPL coding.

I certainly wouldn't call that one sentence a rant, as there was nothing extravagant or wild in its tone. It is very easy to speak of ideals without consequences, which is how Stallman usually presents things. I don't have a problem with that, but if he expects others not to worry about the consequences, then he is even less socially adept than he sounds.

I'd say that Stallman has made a living while standing by his principles. That is a choice he has made and I say good for him for standing his ground. You are arguing that it is not possible to do. He has done it. Therefore it can be done and he can only see that it is possible as he has lived that life.

[TankCatNinjaFish]

I've been contemplating how I should release the bioinformatics applications I've written (I'm starting grad school in biochemistry soon, and I can code, so its a fantastic niche for me). Bioinformatics is one of those rare niche fields where Linux is the preferred platforms used (I'd say 80% Linux, 15% Apple).

Richard commented on how adobe's poor job of maintaining a Linux port actually encouraged a free replacement. This comment actually made me want to release my programs under a proprietary license (I was previously leaning towards GPL). His comments imply that if my programs are good enough (and I don't engage in any nastiness like spying on users/etc), I won't really have to deal with open source and free competiters and will only have to stay one step ahead of any commercial competitors. And if I can lock in enough users I'll suddenly I have a viable business model. I won't get rich b/c its a small market, but it could mean the difference between ramen noodles or takeout during grad school. And since I'm an antisocial nihilist, I'll sleep well at night. Richard is a smart man.

[Vogateer]

Then I must simply disagree with you. Someone asking how to make money programming free software is not asking "how do I continue to make money using the current business model," because asking the original question in the first place means they realize that the current business model would not work.

The question has been answered but you don't seem to have accepted it. If you want to make Free software and profit from it, the easiest way is to do it as a custom job for a business. Just because you cannot make the same amount programming for end users as businesses is not the fault of Stallman or his principles. However if you work on a project that becomes a prominent piece of software then your earnings potential begins to grow.

I said at the very first mention that you can make money from custom software. How is that not accepting it? I've said in many posts that some people will be able to make money, there will be a few who can manage, particulary people like Stallman who have no family to support. But a very large percentage of programmers would not. It's the large percentage that I worry about, because that means fewer people could contribute quality code to open source projects. That's what I'm talking about here. To reiterate: 1) You can make money off open source, but 2) not nearly as many people can be full time employees if you choose to live by these values. It's number 2 that I'm talking about.

I said that if you can accept that the impact on free software would be significant and detrimental due to the loss of many full-time programmers, then your principles are based in reality, and that's all I ask. If you try to pretend that this wouldn't impact software programmers, then you're trying to make reality conform to your views, which is ridiculous. That's the sort of thinking that leads you to think that communism can work on the scale of countries. Man it was horrible visiting East Germany...

[hellonorman]

I said that if you can accept that the impact on free software would be significant and detrimental due to the loss of many full-time programmers, then your principles are based in reality, and that's all I ask. If you try to pretend that this wouldn't impact software programmers, then you're trying to make reality conform to your views, which is ridiculous. That's the sort of thinking that leads you to think that communism can work on the scale of countries. Man it was horrible visiting East Germany...

Who's pretending? DRM and software patents are both results of trying to retain the traditional business model in a digital world.

Here's a question. How are people in the music industry supposed to make a living if their product can simply be copied ad infinitum for pennies? Do they come up with patents and lawsuits and drm or should they adapt their business model to the digital world? This community has clearly spoken that they think the business model should change.

The Free software movement is about more global issues than what the economics are for a programmer. RMS is simply saying that programmers may have to adapt and change.

[chuck]

I've been contemplating how I should release the bioinformatics applications I've written (I'm starting grad school in biochemistry soon, and I can code, so its a fantastic niche for me). Bioinformatics is one of those rare niche fields where Linux is the preferred platforms used (I'd say 80% Linux, 15% Apple).

Richard commented on how adobe's poor job of maintaining a Linux port actually encouraged a free replacement. This comment actually made me want to release my programs under a proprietary license (I was previously leaning towards GPL). His comments imply that if my programs are good enough (and I don't engage in any nastiness like spying on users/etc), I won't really have to deal with open source and free competiters and will only have to stay one step ahead of any commercial competitors. And if I can lock in enough users I'll suddenly I have a viable business model. I won't get rich b/c its a small market, but it could mean the difference between ramen noodles or takeout during grad school. And since I'm an antisocial nihilist, I'll sleep well at night. Richard is a smart man.

I can only hope that you're being sarcastic here....

[chuck]

I said at the very first mention that you can make money from custom software. How is that not accepting it? I've said in many posts that some people will be able to make money, there will be a few who can manage, particulary people like Stallman who have no family to support. But a very large percentage of programmers would not. It's the large percentage that I worry about, because that means fewer people could contribute quality code to open source projects. That's what I'm talking about here. To reiterate: 1) You can make money off open source, but 2) not nearly as many people can be full time employees if you choose to live by these values. It's number 2 that I'm talking about.

I said that if you can accept that the impact on free software would be significant and detrimental due to the loss of many full-time programmers, then your principles are based in reality, and that's all I ask. If you try to pretend that this wouldn't impact software programmers, then you're trying to make reality conform to your views, which is ridiculous. That's the sort of thinking that leads you to think that communism can work on the scale of countries. Man it was horrible visiting East Germany...

Well it seems to me that you are under the assumption that being 'an employee' in your field of choice is a right. That if you decide 'I want to be a programmer when I grow up' that there will be a job waiting for you at some company just because you want it to be so. That is not the case. That is why there are so many independent contractors out there. There are many people who cannot find a job doing what they love to do. It's a shame but true.

Yet there are those that make a decision and will do what it takes to earn a living doing what they enjoy. And F/OSS is a great way to get into the programming world. You have numerous projects that you can chose from or start your own. You have work that you can put on a resume. If you're a quality programmer you'll rise in the 'ranks' of your project and garner a name for yourself.

If you really want to be a full time programmer, you have to make a choice. If you believe in the Free Software system for the ethical reasons of the 'four freedoms' that Stallman presents, you cannot work for a closed source company. If you fall into the Open Source group you have some more avenues of income. If you just want to program and don't care if the end user has more than the binaries you present then you can do as you wish.

However if you believe in something and stand your ground then what happens after that is up to you on where you can compromise your principles to make your life more convenient. If you decide that this system cannot work for the majority of programmers then you might as well give up on the whole F/OSS system and go back to Windows or OSX and wait for Uncle Billy and Uncle Steve to give you the software they think you should be allowed.

[Vogateer]

For the first post, DRM and patents are used by proprietary software. This discussion began with people wanting to be able to make money writing Free Software, and does not concern proprietary companies attempting to preserve their current business model, but people who'd like to earn a living writing free software looking for a new business model.

People in the music industry can make money, but it has to be done more through concerts, where the artists usually make a lot of their money, too. Also, it seems obvious that iTunes has proven that people are willing to pay to download from their store over trying to search the Internet. Since downloading music for free is perceived to be a copyright violation, and most people do want to obey the law, you just need to make it convenient for them to do so to make money from it. When people buy a CD and it has DRM, it's more convenient to download the tracks from a P2P network so you can listen on your music player.

I certainly don't believe that anyone has a right to a job just because they want to work in a certain field. In fact, I'm about as far from believing that as you can get. Besides, it wouldn't be a right at all, it would be an entitlement. Did you not pick up on my distaste for communism in the last post?

I disagree with RMS's values in principle. I've pointed out why I wouldn't want them to be accepted by everyone, because I believe the outcome would be that programmers would find less work and the quality of open source and free software would suffer. My only problem is if you think that all programmers should only write free software, and you think that this will not force programmers to find other work. You seem willing to accept that programmers would have to do something like this, so to me your beliefs are consistent.

I don't have a problem with proprietary software. If someone makes a good program and I accept their terms and pay for it and don't get to see the source code, I see nothing wrong there. We both entered into a mutually beneficial agreement. My values and principles are not compromised.

If you want to live by the Free Software Foundation's values, I haven't a problem with that at all. I simply disagree with them.

[TankCatNinjaFish]

I can only hope that you're being sarcastic here....

I'm not being sarcastic at all. The more I think about it the more ripe the idea becomes. For example, the bioinformatics field tends to have hundreds of (textual) file formats for all sorts of data, and at least 2 dozen for the sequence data my programs deal with. I can imagine it now: use a closed binary format for saving files, and don't give an option of saving in a common format unless they have the "pro" version.

[schotty]

It was very clear that Linc was being aggressive and trying to frame questions in such a way to make RMS seem a lunatic and a hypocrit. I can't blame RMS for simply not putting up with that. He also made perfect sense in his answer about programmers being paid for code.

Balogna. I was quite ill and didn't have time to prepare questions in order to make RMS look like an ass. He did that all by himself. I had very *SIMPLE* questions that he took GREAT pains to avoid answering. Not everyone has to have some alterior motive for asking a question, some of us just want a straight forward and logical answer. Not to mention he was rude, condescending and arrogant.
Apparently you don't know me or listen to the show very often. If I believe someone is a hypocrite or a lunatic, I will just tell them. I am not one to beat around the bush what so ever.

I just finished listening to the ep yesterday (dinally have time to add my 2 cents in now).

Linc, I agree with both your Q and follow ups. The thing I got from RMS is that he thought it was an obvious answer. So the fuck what? Is it guarnteed that all listeners would agree? No. The arrogant and rude one is not you, Linc, but rather RMS. He does this to all of his hosts and why people keep bringing the jerk back is beyond me. If you dont agree with him he berates and mocks you in the RMS way. I am tired of his responses in which he is apparently too godlike to realize that he is doing an interview not having a 1-1 convo.

It took him 10 minutes of arguing to let loose what he really felt ??!!? WTF is the logic there?

/me done on this one.

[schotty]

While he may come off as cold and brash, at no point do I think RMS intended to insult anyone. When he stated I was confused, I felt he meant that my line of questioning had no place in his philosophy so why bother asking at all? If my question poses a violation to any of the 4 freedoms th what other way can he answer than pointing out my question is ethically wrong?

Actually, the guy could explain where and why your thought violated one of those 4 aforementioned freedoms. How can you learn to do the right thing when you arent being taught properly? Thats why I cannot see him having much respect towards others. If you respect me, or vice verse - I respect you, then when one of us screws up, the other will let that person know and inform them why when its apparent as night and day that an explanation is needed.

[greggh]

Mark Shuttleworth praises RMS on his blog today...

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/67

Richard Stallman is the man I admire most in the free software world. Nobody else has so clearly articulated, so beautifully argued for the freedom to change your own software and the freedom to share it. I’m absolutely convinced it is free source, not “open” source, which is at the heart of the innovation that will carry free software to ubiquity. Developers are inspired and motivated to climb in and make Gnome or KDE better *because* they have the right to do so, and they know their work will form part of something big and beautiful.

[Wally Balljacker]

Mark Shuttleworth praises RMS on his blog today...

Funny, because RMS won't even use or advocate use of Ubuntu, since it isn't completely "free".

[Tsuroerusu]

Mark Shuttleworth praises RMS on his blog today...

Funny, because RMS won't even use or advocate use of Ubuntu, since it isn't completely "free".

One thing I have never understood is why people criticize Richard Stallman for not recommending distros that include a few proprietary drivers. Please remember who we're talking about here. We're talking about Richard Matthew Stallman, you know the guy who had a certain incident with a printer driver that was proprietary, and from that incident came motivation to create the free software movement, the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying that RMS is beyond everyone else (Like some people think priests are), but why should he, after all the work he has done in trying to fight the closing of software, which I'd assume he sees as a collaborative process kind of like science (Software that is), indirectly recommend non-Free software? If people wanna be less insisting on things having to be Free, then feel free to do so, but why turn around and bash the guy that started most of this, for not liking a change that reflects the things he decided to fight in the first place.

People often argue that the FSF are zealots and I don't know what, I view it differently though. The name of the organization says it all for crying out loud, the Free Software Foundation, it was created to promote Free software, not to promote non-Free software, that's what Microsoft and Apple are for.

And if anyone think that Ubuntu is only non-Free by a margin, take a look at this, they include a pretty huge collection of non-Free, or very close to non-Free drivers: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/sear ... &arch=i386