Stallman Calls Valve Games on Linux

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

The GPL is the most free software license there is from the point of the software. The GPL ensures that the CODE remains free, regardless of a developers wishes. This however (as Athernar point out) makes it technically non-free from the point of view of the developer.

So yes, the GPL ensures freedom, for the SOFTWARE, not for the developer. That's why Stallman called his group the Free Software foundation, not the Free Software Developer Foundation. The GPL ensures that code remains open and free, albeit at the cost of the developer's freedom. It depends entirely on whether or not you want to call that a free license. Personally I'd prefer to license my code under the BSD or Creative Commons Attribution license, since I prefer developer freedom over code freedom, but YMMV.

[Athernar]

Of course the GPL is restrictive, I've clearly stated it above. All licenses impose restrictions, else you wouldn't need a license at all.

Your point was, though, that Stallman was trying to redefine "freedom", and that's where I disagree with you because you and Stallman are talking about freedom for a different set of subjets.

And no, BSD isn't "free for everyone" as the code can become non free, which you might consider irrelevant but that's actually the exact topic Stallman cares about.

Yes, I'm talking about freedom for everyone. Stallman claims he seeks "freedom", when he only provides it to certain entities. Thus, it's not freedom.

BSD is free for everyone, because authorial freedom takes precedence due to the fact the end-user is free to make a choice regarding their own usage.

Stallman wants freedom through slavery. That isn't freedom, merely the illusion of it.

But I'm glad you finally agree the GPL is restrictive, now all you need to do is stop calling it free. Open? sure. Free? nope.

Concede what point? You are free to release you own original code written from scratch under whatever license you want, same as you are free to make whatever arrangement you want with anyone that comes to live in your house.

Have I ever claimed otherwise?

Yes, by inferring that freedom includes the ability for person A to impose themselves upon person B at B's expense to preserve A's so-called "freedom", when person A has other freedoms they can use that allow both parties to retain freedom.

[sanctified Veteran]

No, I think plenty of people have contributed their opinions. Just because they don't align with your does not disqualify them.

No, opinions get disqualified when they are based on misunderstanding, incomprehension, lack of knowledge and sheer ignorance.

What you all fail to see is that Stallman is an activist, hyperbole is his business because an activist MUST base his discourse in rhetoric.

What you all fail to see is that THERE IS NO REAL FREEDOM, just concepts of freedom. Stallman is proposing the concept of Freedom that can grant more liberty to the user.

What you all fail to see is that we already have the option of closed software but we're yet to have the option of free (In the GNU sense) software. Stallman has the right to strive for that option. It's easy to accuse someone of stealing your freedom of choice when you're the one with more freedom to lose.

What you all fail to see is that Stallman's opposition exists not because he's crazy, but because every activist has one. Because activists make us question our lifestyle. It's human nature to react violently against all that dare us to change.

So yes, you all can have your opinions, but these are reactionary.

[Noir Angel]

My opinion isn't valid because I disagree with you? that's a rather arrogant viewpoint. As i've repeatedly said, I fully understand how FOSS works I just disagree with Stallman's rhetoric.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

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.

Perhaps unreasonable was a bad word to use. In my opinion most of the ideals that the free software foundation put forward are valid from an idealistic perspective, but in many cases unachievable for a software company (Redhat is the only OSS developer that is able to break the billion dollar turnover point, and that's not made from the software itself since CentOS exists). That doesn't make them absurd though, it just means that they're unlikely to be followed for people looking to make money from their software.

The only reason RMS is bad for the FOSS movement is because he's socially inept. He never seems to go a day without saying the wrong thing. But that doesn't make the things he stands for a bad thing. He seems to be the only person that stands behind them entirely. Even the likes of Torvalds compromise their beliefs to make things work, but Stallman being the representative (and founder) of the free software movement isn't afforded the opportunity to make such compromises (feel free to add your own variation of the "Those who compromise a little freedom to have a little security deserve neither" mantra here). The only problem free software suffers is that it's inherently an unprofitable model for companies that make a living from developing it, so in a capitalist world, compromises are made, but from the perspective of an end user, free (beer and speech) software is a perfect model.

[Athernar]

an activist MUST base his discourse in rhetoric.

Prove it.

I like how you avoid the matter of RMS's rhetoric having been proven to alienate people and push them away from using open-source too.

Or is this all pointless because, I'm not allowed an opinion, herr ?bermensch?

[Noir Angel]

Stallman's rhetoric fails because as much as he'd like to you cannot separate the process of developing software with the process of actually using it, the 2 need each other to work. And asking that all developers give up their time without reward is unfair.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

RMS's rhetoric having been proven to alienate people and push them away from using open-source too.

Their ignorance is their loss. If they're moving away from FOSS based solely on their opinions of one man, rather than listening to what he's actually saying and drawing their own conclusions, they're beyond help.

Stallman's rhetoric fails because as much as he'd like to you cannot separate the process of developing software with the process of actually using it, the 2 need each other to work. And asking that all developers give up their time without reward is unfair.

RMS has never asked anyone to work without pay, even he wouldn't say that as far as I am aware. What he wants is that developers release the code with their software so that, if the user so chooses, they can modify the application they purchased or otherwise obtained to suit their own ends. Much the same way we can rip the insides out of a car and take it to the demolition derby. Companies like Facebook, Redhat and even Microsoft open-source a great deal of code but the developers still get paid for their work. The problem with releasing code is that vendor lock-in is eliminated, which can severely impact profits (would Windows be nearly as profitable if Linux was binary compatible?) and trade secrets are potentially exposed. Both of these things are necessary evils for highly profitable software companies, and are the reason you'll never see Steve Ballmer or Larry Ellison singing the praises of open-source software.

[Noir Angel]

But you must admit though that if a developer released the code to their product it would make it a lot less commercially viable, someone else could simply compile the code and release a free version. I'm not saying all software should be proprietary of course, I use and like some bits of open source software. I do prefer Windows (apart from 8 xD) but I'm not the kind of MS user that blindly hates FOSS, I appreciate it's value, I just realise that all the evangelising in the world isn't going to make proprietary software go away.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

But you must admit though that if a developer released the code to their product it would make it a lot less commercially viable, someone else could simply compile the code and release a free version. I'm not saying all software should be proprietary of course, I use and like some bits of open source software. I do prefer Windows (apart from 8 xD) but I'm not the kind of MS user that blindly hates FOSS, I appreciate it's value, I just realise that all the evangelising in the world isn't going to make proprietary software go away.

I absolutely agree. I make the stuff I write (when I get round to writing it) open source because I have no desire to keep it to myself, but then I go to work for a company that makes strictly proprietary software, a company that would be crippled and bankrupted if it open-sourced it's code, so it's all about picking the option that works for you.

Open-source is no holy grail, the same way that fully-closed software isn't, but it is worthwhile having people that represent both ends of the spectrum to allow us to make more informed decisions. At least in my opinion.

[Noir Angel]

Agreed, it's nice to have people fighting for the rights of us users, too many people side with the content creation industries these days.

[sanctified Veteran]

Prove it.

I dont need to prove it, the base of rhetoric is hyperbole. I recommend you to read a book about social studies... any book.

Any rhetoric indeed alienates people. Or do you believe in a happy-sappy world for everyone? The point of rhetoric is to change paradigms. The only way to do that is to question stablished paradigms and propose an inverse alternative.

You're allowed to your opinion. This does not mean the base of your opinion is right. Again, it's reactionary.

[Athernar]

Their ignorance is their loss. If they're moving away from FOSS based solely on their opinions of one man, rather than listening to what he's actually saying and drawing their own conclusions, they're beyond help.

Even if it had anything to do with ignorance (which it doesn't), that's not the point. You should be seeking to bring as many people as possible to the cause, not alienating them with hateful psuedo-religious rhetoric - especially when your cause is in minority.

This arrogance is precisely why OSS is so marginalised, viewed as something only for inept shut-ins with food-encrusted neckbeards.

I dont need to prove it, the base of rhetoric is hyperbole. I recommend you to read a book about social studies... any book.

Any rhetoric indeed alienates people. Or do you believe in a happy-sappy world for everyone?

You're allowed to your opinion. This does not mean the base of your opinion is right. Again, it's reactionary.

No, prove that activism requires rhetoric.

Happy-sappy world? No, I just don't believe that extremism and demagoguery is the sensible way to convince people to join your cause. Unless you're a terrorist that is.

Frankly, the fact you do makes me pity you.

[sanctified Veteran]

No, prove that activism requires rhetoric.

Seriously? :s

Activism is pure joint effort of pathos and ethos... do you know what are the ingredients of rhetoric, right?

Again, activism strives for a change of paradigm. How can you change a paradigm if not with hyperbole? This is basic stuff man. You can disguise your hyperbole with political correctness and politeness, but is still hyperbole since you NEED to turn around an active system, if you don't need to, then it's not activism.

What you call extremism is, simply, politics. Is your defensiveness that makes you call it as extreme and to link it (Quite reactionary, again, I'm getting tired you fail to understand this) to something like terrorism... Talk about extremist.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

Even if it had anything to do with ignorance (which it doesn't), that's not the point. You should be seeking to bring as many people as possible to the cause, not alienating them with hateful psuedo-religious rhetoric - especially when your cause is in minority.

This arrogance is precisely why OSS is so marginalised, viewed as something only for inept shut-ins with food-encrusted neckbeards.

Ignoring valid information because of the appearance of the person stating it is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

How exactly am I being arrogant? If people judge a book by its cover, that's their problem, not mine. There are plenty of cool open source developers, just because one activist chooses to look the way he does doesn't make his ideas any less important.

And let's not fool ourselves into thinking that neckbeards are exclusive to OSS developers. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Notch and Gabe Newell are all examples of successful proprietary software representatives who aren't exactly photogenic. Appearance isn't a FOSS problem, its a software problem in general.

[Noir Angel]

He thinks all proprietary software is evil, and has no concern for the vast amounts of time developers put into their work

He certainly sounds like an extremist to me.

[sanctified Veteran]

He thinks all proprietary software is evil, and has no concern for the vast amounts of time developers put into their work

He certainly sounds like an extremist to me.

He has concerns. The GNU and the FSF license addresses ways developers can gain profit without being closed. It works. Ask Red Hat.

[sanctified Veteran]

Just to contextualize. Ways developers can turn profit from open source projects:

App support

Code support (It's just wrong to asume that every user will know how to handle and compile the code just because it's available).

Forking support

Enterprise support and patching

Large scale projects royalties

Besides very shallow reasons to criticize Stallman (Is really "he looks like a hippie" a reason?), what is wrong about free software?

That's how you implement standards. With open models.

[Athernar]

Again, activism strives for a change of paradigm. How can you change a paradigm if not with hyperbole?

Gee, I don't know. A calm and well reasoned argument that encourages people to consider their position without patronising them or alienating them?

Rhetoric exists because religions lack the proof to back up their claims.

What you call extremism is, simply, politics. Is your defensiveness that makes you call it as extreme and to link it (Quite reactionary, again, I'm getting tired you fail to understand this) to something like terrorism... Talk about extremist.

Extremism is extremism.

Ignoring valid information because of the appearance of the person stating it is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

How exactly am I being arrogant? If people judge a book by its cover, that's their problem, not mine. There are plenty of cool open source developers, just because one activist chooses to look the way he does doesn't make his ideas any less important.

If someone on the street is running around with a megaphone yelling about how the illuminati are putting microchips in people's brains, you're just going to ignore them as being crazy. But at the same time, they may also have some really valid, well-reasoned points.

If people see a crazy man on the internet going around calling them evil because of their choice of software licensing, they're not going to be open to listening further to that person. Get it?

[sanctified Veteran]

Gee, I don't know. A calm and well reasoned argument that encourages people to consider their position without patronising them or alienating them?

That's Stallman. Read the guy, he is well reasoned when you listen to him without prejudge.

About the alienating point, please, cite an example of a non-alienating activist.

Nice going about totally ignoring my "ethos & pathos" and "reactionary" points.

[Noir Angel]

I don't see him as being reasoned, I see him as being another one of those "Everyone who doesn't do what I think is for the best is evil" provocative activists.

Proprietary software is still used vastly more than open source software so the argument that he's changing attitudes doesn't hold water. He's just another my way or the highway extremist that wants to try and impose his morals onto others. If you want to get through to people you educate them, not browbeat them.

[sanctified Veteran]

He's just another my way or the highway extremist that wants to try and impose his morals onto others.

How's that any different with how you criticize him and fs proponents?

I think that after all his books, free conferences and papers he is very well educating more than we do.

[Noir Angel]

I don't have a problem with all FOSS proponents just those that constantly blather on about the evils of Microsoft and proprietary software. I support the ideas behind FOSS. It would probably pay to ask my opinion or read my posts properly before jumping to assumptions. I think Stallman is an idiot but I don't have a problem with FOSS

[Athernar]

That's Stallman. Read the guy, he is well reasoned when you listen to him without prejudge.

About the alienating point, please, cite an example of a non-alienating activist.

Nice going about totally ignoring my "ethos & pathos" and "reactionary" points.

I'm sure he does have actual reasoning, it's just a shame he has to resort to using rhetoric.

An activist sans the rhetoric? Did you bother to read the thread fully?

Your other "point" has no relevance, I'm not debating the definition of rhetoric. So spare me the pseudo-intellectual bluster.

[sanctified Veteran]

I don't have a problem with all FOSS proponents just those that constantly blather on about the evils of Microsoft and proprietary software. I support the ideas behind FOSS. It would probably pay to ask my opinion or read my posts properly before jumping to assumptions. I think Stallman is an idiot but I don't have a problem with FOSS

However Stallman is the FOSS. Or at least the backbone.

While it might seem extremist we need to remember that Stallman experienced firsthand the days where MS was a true monopoly forcing its way in the industry (Sometimes doing very nasty things, like the Compaq fiasco). I think it's good that we have a vocal thinker that will never allow us to forget that.

I admire how he rejects convenience by following his ideals: His working machine is CRAP. However he uses it because it allows him to use free software down to bios level. Proof that is doable and noble.