Scorbing Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 So what exactly is his problem? He should be glad that Valve is doing this for Linux. No one is forced to pay for anything. If Linux users want to pay for the games, then they will. If they don't, then they don't. I don't see the issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Majesticmerc MVC Posted August 4, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 4, 2012 That simply isn't true. If anything RMS's incessant moralising and absolutist rhetoric "scare off" far more people than it draws in. Eric S. Raymond wrote a brilliant blogpost about RMS here that sums the matter up nicely. I agree entirely that his expression of opinion is off the rails (hell, one need only point to his opinions on paedophilia to see what we mean), but his unwaivering belief in the ideals he stands for is admirable in my opinion. We need fanatics like Stallman around to counter the fanatics like Ballmer that consider free software a cancer, and a man who's equally off the rails when it comes to expressing his opinions. ADDENDUM Any half-smart person should be able to see that most of what he says is hyperbole, but then the people at the other end of the scale try equally as hard to make people close their software to the disadvantage of the consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsYcHoKiLLa Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Aw bless, foot munching, some geeks shouldn't be brought out of the dark dingy computer room, christ alone knows what he gets up to when he's in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Stalman is an idiotic old school communist, no one really pays him any attention, we all live in the real world, unlike him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 So what exactly is his problem? He should be glad that Valve is doing this for Linux. No one is forced to pay for anything. If Linux users want to pay for the games, then they will. If they don't, then they don't. I don't see the issue here. He believes that software should be like human languages. Free for anyone to learn, modify or invent. If you invent a word and it gets notoriety you don't "own" that word as anyone can use it for free, they can modify it, say their modification and show others how to say your word. No royalty, no "word police" telling you that you are unauthorized to use that word without paying a license fee. So when Steam launches on linux and it sells games and locks them behind digital rights management (you need to login to access your games after paying a license fee to play them) it goes against his principles that software should be open and free for modification and redistribution. He is against closed source software from a fundamental freedom paradigm where by he believes all people should have access to the source code of software so that they can learn from it, modify it, improve it, fork it, redistribute it etc I guess he could be described as the ultimate socialist I don't think in his world it is really possible to own a piece of software. I don't agree with his views, I think developers should have the choice to release open or closed software and deserve the right to decide who can and cannot use their software based on any criteria they like including a monetary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl L. Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 That simply isn't true. If anything RMS's incessant moralising and absolutist rhetoric "scare off" far more people than it draws in. Eric S. Raymond wrote a brilliant blogpost about RMS here that sums the matter up nicely. While I don't completely agree with you, I understand your point. That is a common complaint lodged against the FSF in general. Also, I read both the post you linked to and the "Evaluating the hard from closed source" post that it referenced in their entirety. The latter is by far the best and most pragmatic look at the matter of open source versus closed source software that I have ever read. I highly recommend that everyone reading this thread take the time to read it as well. I also agree with the former, and I don't think it conflicts with Majesticmerc's post, as you indicate. It is merely a slightly different vocalization of what is essentially the same opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I agree entirely that his expression of opinion is off the rails (hell, one need only point to his opinions on paedophilia to see what we mean), but his unwaivering belief in the ideals he stands for is admirable in my opinion. We need fanatics like Stallman around to counter the fanatics like Ballmer that consider free software a cancer, and a man who's equally off the rails when it comes to expressing his opinions. ADDENDUM Any half-smart person should be able to see that most of what he says is hyperbole, but then the people at the other end of the scale try equally as hard to make people close their software to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fanaticism is willful ignorance, and does nothing but harm whatever the context. Rationality is what you should respect, not extremism. Men like Stallman should be spurned and rejected, and the sooner the greater OSS community wakes up to this and moves away from his non-free GNU/GPL bile the better. (Something FreeBSD seems to be aiming for already) Freedom is freedom, no conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfish Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 That simply isn't true. If anything RMS's incessant moralising and absolutist rhetoric "scare off" far more people than it draws in. Eric S. Raymond wrote a brilliant blogpost about RMS here that sums the matter up nicely. Re: what Raymond was arguing. I don't think that's the problem with Stallman at all, there's a role for moralizing and sometimes focusing on consequences just leads to people trying to compromise, "bargain with the devil." But, if you are going to moralize, don't overshoot the target and become a zealot. ie. talking about the virtue of modesty is okay, but don't go around shaming people for not covering themselves with burqas. He turns people off not because he moralizes, but he talks like a zealot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Majesticmerc MVC Posted August 4, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 4, 2012 Fanaticism is willful ignorance, and does nothing but harm whatever the context. Rationality is what you should respect, not extremism. Men like Stallman should be spurned and rejected, and the sooner the greater OSS community wakes up to this and moves away from his non-free GNU/GPL bile the better. (Something FreeBSD seems to be aiming for already) Freedom is freedom, no conditions. Equally so people like Ballmer and Ellison should be spurned and rejected, but that won't happen any time soon... Respecting rationality is a given, and Fanatacism isn't good by any stretch, but sometimes extremism needs to be fought with extremism. People like RMS need to exist lest the world start listening too much to the proprietary bile that spews from the mouths of the likes of Ballmer and Ellison. What I'm trying to say is that people should reject both extremes (both complete freedom and complete closed-ness are detrimental to software development) and find a middle ground by rejecting the parts of the extremes that they dislike, or at the very least form their own opinion of what constitutes software freedom. Rationality prevailing in a world full of fanatics is nothing more than a fantasy. The key here is to allow people to form their own opinions. RMS serves to represent the extreme end of software freedom and hacker culture (something which I find contradictory, since the GPL supports both and is actually quite restrictive as a software license) in the face of a world out to make $$$ by restricting our freedom use our software as we see fit. Like I said, the problem with RMS isn't his belief system, it's the way he expresses it. Which is what ESR was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfish Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Equally so people like Ballmer and Ellison should be spurned and rejected, but that won't happen any time soon... Does that mean you equally appreciate Ballmer and Ellison as much as Stallman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Majesticmerc MVC Posted August 5, 2012 MVC Share Posted August 5, 2012 Does that mean you equally appreciate Ballmer and Ellison as much as Stallman Perhaps not as much, being a FOSS preferrer myself, but yes. Ideally none would exist, and rationality would prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted August 5, 2012 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2012 If RMS was to say "Well, I'm normally against DRM restrictions, but in Valves case I'll let it slide because they make good games", the free software movement has lost. The free software movement maintains unreasonable ideals because at the end of the day, even if the majority of software only manages to be 50% free according to RMS' beliefs, it's a victory for free software and consumer rights.I disagree with the notion that someone needs to push an idea to the point of absurdity for others to follow it in moderation. I think Stallman causes more harm than good to free software by making it look like some kind of utopia instead of the very useful development and publishing model that it can be it certain cases. Athernar, Duffydemon and Max Norris 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Under FOSS licenses it's very hard for developers to be rewarded for their talents and time. Sure, a lot of people contribute for free and that's great but there's nothing wrong with developers being compensated for the utilisation of their time and talents. They deserve freedom as much as users do. Duffydemon and Phouchg 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Equally so people like Ballmer and Ellison should be spurned and rejected, but that won't happen any time soon... Respecting rationality is a given, and Fanatacism isn't good by any stretch, but sometimes extremism needs to be fought with extremism. People like RMS need to exist lest the world start listening too much to the proprietary bile that spews from the mouths of the likes of Ballmer and Ellison. What I'm trying to say is that people should reject both extremes (both complete freedom and complete closed-ness are detrimental to software development) and find a middle ground by rejecting the parts of the extremes that they dislike, or at the very least form their own opinion of what constitutes software freedom. Rationality prevailing in a world full of fanatics is nothing more than a fantasy. The key here is to allow people to form their own opinions. RMS serves to represent the extreme end of software freedom and hacker culture (something which I find contradictory, since the GPL supports both and is actually quite restrictive as a software license) in the face of a world out to make $$$ by restricting our freedom use our software as we see fit. Like I said, the problem with RMS isn't his belief system, it's the way he expresses it. Which is what ESR was referring to. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Extremists alienate people, that is their purpose. Steve Ballmer is OSS's biggest supporter, and RMS is it's biggest enemy. Likewise, RMS is a great asset for the likes of Apple and Microsoft, his rhetoric only ensures that developers like myself, who sit on the border between closed and open, only move further to the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 stallman can go lick the crud off the floor in my kitchen and bathroom and my entryway for his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted August 5, 2012 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2012 The level of maturity and reading comprehension here is above the charts... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 RMS's software is unethical. His licenses force users to abide by terms. That isn't freedom. That is slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 The level of maturity and reading comprehension here is above the charts... :rolleyes: So you decide to contribute by posting a useless comment? Step down off your pedestal to consort with mere mortals much? RMS's software is unethical. His licenses force users to abide by terms. That isn't freedom. That is slavery. Exactly! How on earth he can stand up there and claim he advocates "Freedom" when the GPL is a long document full of restrictions is hilarious. There are no conditions on freedom. Max Norris, ZakO, remixedcat and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted August 5, 2012 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2012 So you decide to contribute by posting a useless comment? Step down off your pedestal to consort with mere mortals much? Stop kidding yourself, no one is really contributing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 RMS's software is unethical. His licenses force users to abide by terms. That isn't freedom. That is slavery. I don't think you have ever read the GPL license since it imposes absolutely nothing on users, the terms only affect distributors. The point is that if you redistribute GPL code (either the original software or a derivated work) you must do so with the same license so recipients can take advantage of it in the same way you did. If you don't want to release GPL code then don't base your work on GPL code, as simple as that. You can agree or disagree with the convenience of the license, but at least get it right before talking about slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Well, he's Stallman.He's my hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Exactly! How on earth he can stand up there and claim he advocates "Freedom" when the GPL is a long document full of restrictions is hilarious. There are no conditions on freedom. You just don't understand the reasoning behind the GPL. Developers already have freedom: they are free to choose whatever license they want. What GPL does is provide a mean for developers to stick conditions to redistribution of their software to ensure that both their original code and all the derivative works will be distributed under the same license, and hence everyone will be able to access the code. It's not about freedom for developers since developers are free already to do whatever they want, but about ensuring that software derivated from free software will also remain free. Some people here seem to be under the weird assumption that GPL is somehow enforced on developers restricting their freedom, when reality is that it's the devs choice to go with the GPL or choose a whole different license. If you don't want people to be able to access your source then don't release as GPL and don't use GPL code in your projects. Maybe BSD is more "free" in that it doesn't impose any redistribution requirements, but then depending on what you want your software to be, GPL has it's advantages over BSD. Say you are IBM. You find out that you can expand your business by offering Linux as an alternative to you own proprietary OS on your servers, and since you can access and modify the source you can improve it so it works better on your hardware. Now enter Oracle. They are in the business of selling a proprietary DB, and they realize they can just release their own Linux (Unbreakable Linux) optimized to run their product. How fun would it be for IBM if Oracle took all their work and released a proprietary product that competed with their own? Just because Linux is GPL, companies can contribute knowing that the product will always be a collaborative project where all contributors get the same benefits from every other contributor's work. Long story short: GPL is useful if you want to release open source software that freeloaders can't take advantage of without contributing back. Actually the exact oposite of that "slavery" that someone was talking about. Lirodon and Karl L. 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 > 2012 > still need to explain GPL > mfw I admire your patience, ichi-sama. Lirodon 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You just don't understand the reasoning behind the GPL. Developers already have freedom: they are free to choose whatever license they want. What GPL does is provide a mean for developers to stick conditions to redistribution of their software to ensure that both their original code and all the derivative works will be distributed under the same license, and hence everyone will be able to access the code. It's not about freedom for developers since developers are free already to do whatever they want, but about ensuring that software derivated from free software will also remain free. Some people here seem to be under the weird assumption that GPL is somehow enforced on developers restricting their freedom, when reality is that it's the devs choice to go with the GPL or choose a whole different license. If you don't want people to be able to access your source then don't release as GPL and don't use GPL code in your projects. Maybe BSD is more "free" in that it doesn't impose any redistribution requirements, but then depending on what you want your software to be, GPL has it's advantages over BSD. Say you are IBM. You find out that you can expand your business by offering Linux as an alternative to you own proprietary OS on your servers, and since you can access and modify the source you can improve it so it works better on your hardware. Now enter Oracle. They are in the business of selling a proprietary DB, and they realize they can just release their own Linux (Unbreakable Linux) optimized to run their product. How fun would it be for IBM if Oracle took all their work and released a proprietary product that competed with their own? Just because Linux is GPL, companies can contribute knowing that the product will always be a collaborative project where all contributors get the same benefits from every other contributor's work. Long story short: GPL is useful if you want to release open source software that freeloaders can't take advantage of without contributing back. Actually the exact oposite of that "slavery" that someone was talking about. And that isn't freedom. The GPL has terms. Terms are restrictions. Restrictions are counter to freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 And that isn't freedom. The GPL has terms. Terms are restrictions. Restrictions are counter to freedom. /facepalm The GPL is about keeping both the GPL licensed code and it's derivative works free. That's the freedom Stallman is talking about, not your freedom to take code you didn't wrote and do with it as you please (eg. redistributing it as proprietary software). That's why it's called Free Software and not Free Developers. The only restriction is that the code can't be made non free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts