Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A short critique of Stallmanism

jancorazza.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#171

Post by jcora »

wanderingjew wrote: post #51
angry-hacker wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it was taken without permission? Are you the artist?

Author of the Hackaday post. I would know if this were taken with permission. The artist (joe kim) can be found here: http://theartofjoekim.tumblr.com/ In case anyone's wondering, we (hackaday) probably would have allowed the author to use this art, provided we get a link back to the post or some credit to Joe. In the absence of that, we're just going to point and laugh at this guy for clearly demonstrating he doesn'…

Hi, I'm the author of this, and I'm very sorry, I honestly just wanted a nice pic of Stallman and found it through Google without thinking much. I've added the credits at the end of the article now, both to Hackaday and Joe with links, please check if it's correct. If you want I'll remove the image, no problem!

Also, this article isn't about copyright law, it's about politics.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#172

Post by jprzybyl »

bonoboTP wrote: post #155
jprzybyl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally like free software. (My personal stance lines up the most with the Debian Social Contract.) However, OpenBSD (my second choice of system) does not , and they've been vocal in the past. https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43 It's pretty simple - freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes in a proprietary environment. That includes whatever you want it to includ…

What are you talking about? You can use the software however you wish. Even "in a proprietary environment" (like you can run LibreOffice in Windows). What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses. Copyleft means that you cannot redistribute the software and its derivatives unless you give the freedoms down the road to your clients/users as well. However, there are free…

> What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses.

Yep, that's what I meant! Sorry, wrote that one late last night...

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#173

Post by trav4225 »

icebraining wrote: post #31
throwaway729 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many criticisms of the various freedoms embodied by Stallmanism's notion of free software (to borrow a term from the article). A thorough rebuttal of the entire viewpoint requires, IMO: 1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property. 2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology. You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD)…

I don't think (2) is necessary to rebut Stallmanism - development methodology was never really a part of Free Software - but I don't agree that (1) is enough. One can defend capitalism and (physical) private property without defending copyright and patents †. In fact, it could be argued that they're anti -private-property, by preventing one from using one's stuff as one sees fit. † https://mises.org/library/against-i…

I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly what you have said, but I think it should be pointed out that GPL absolutely depends on and hangs off of copyright law. It's just as much an expression of the ownership of thought as proprietary software is.

-2¢

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#174

Post by trav4225 »

spangry wrote: post #110
throwaway729 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many criticisms of the various freedoms embodied by Stallmanism's notion of free software (to borrow a term from the article). A thorough rebuttal of the entire viewpoint requires, IMO: 1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property. 2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology. You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD)…

Why would (1) be necessary? GPL software is not consigned to the public domain or ownership automatically transferred to the FSF. It is still the property of the original developer, who are simply distributing and licensing its use only to those who comply with a certain set of conditions. Proprietary licences will sometimes prohibit resale or modification, for instance. Licences like the GPL do the exact opposite: t…

I agree 100% with your last paragraph. I think the issue for many libertarians, however, is this: should thought be considered personal property, thus under legal protection by the state?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#175

Post by trav4225 »

milesrout wrote: post #20
trav4225 wrote: post #3

IMO, the fundamental problems with Stallmanism are not to be found in its tactics and execution, but rather in the very core of the philosophy itself.

I completely disagree. There are some problems with the free software movement but the fundamental idea behind it is essentially inarguable: proprietary software is anti-user.

To me, it's not about categories (users, companies, developers, etc.). We're all people -- citizens.

The question is: should ideas belong to the category of legally-protected personal property? I'm very aware of the pragmatic arguments in favor of this. However, I (and others) also believe that there are significant ethical arguments in opposition to it.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#176

Post by icebraining »

trav4225 wrote: post #173
icebraining wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think (2) is necessary to rebut Stallmanism - development methodology was never really a part of Free Software - but I don't agree that (1) is enough. One can defend capitalism and (physical) private property without defending copyright and patents †. In fact, it could be argued that they're anti -private-property, by preventing one from using one's stuff as one sees fit. † https://mises.org/library/against-i…

I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly what you have said, but I think it should be pointed out that GPL absolutely depends on and hangs off of copyright law. It's just as much an expression of the ownership of thought as proprietary software is. -2¢

That's true, but the GPL is just a neat tool that Stallman invented to work within the current legislation, it's not an actual component of his philosophy. For example, he supported a change to the laws that would shorten the GPL, as long as it also forced proprietary software to open up after a while[1]. He also specifically said that copyright is "no longer beneficial" and proposed major reforms, including eliminating any restrictions on private sharing of works[2].

Stallman's philosophy is that all software should be Free because the users deserve it, not because the author wishes it to be.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.en.html

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.en...

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#177

Post by jcora »

Chinjut wrote: post #115
wanderingjew wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author of the Hackaday post. I would know if this were taken with permission. The artist (joe kim) can be found here: http://theartofjoekim.tumblr.com/ In case anyone's wondering, we (hackaday) probably would have allowed the author to use this art, provided we get a link back to the post or some credit to Joe. In the absence of that, we're just going to point and laugh at this guy for clearly demonstrating he doesn'…

It's not clear that conclusion follows. Perhaps he understands copyright but chooses not to respect it?

Nah I was just stupid. Corrected now.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#178

Post by craigsmansion »

vivekd wrote: post #66

I don't agree with everything in this article but I think a part of it really put into words something I had been feeling for some time. I had always found it easy to agree with Stallman's view of free software. I think most reasonable people who didn't have a stake in proprietary software would agree with him. But, something about Stallman that made it hard for me to really take his movement seriously enough to want…

> I don't think any reasonable person would take him less seriously just for using software that, in many cases, he has no other option but to use.

It's not a public stance for rms. He simply doesn't have the need to use non-free software on his own devices. He will (and has) in a pinch, use someone's windows machine, much like he will use a someone's mobile phone to make a call. He's very pragmatic in that way: he doesn't want non-free software on his devices, controlling his life.

>I mean really, this guy doesn't even browse the internet because websites have proprietary software and instead uses some kind of software to get info off the web - that's extreme.

This is another case of his reputation preceding him. He doesn't casually browse the Internet because he has no time for that. Any interesting website he wants to read he has (automatically) sent to him by e-mail. This way he can process everything in batches when he has the opportunity, regardless of whether he has a connection at that time.

In short: rms is't making any sacrifices in order not to be perceived as a hypocrite. He has simply arranged his life in such a way that he doesn't depend on any proprietary software. And these days, it's really not that hard anymore, when you think about what you really need, software or otherwise.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#179

Post by saghm »

ommunist wrote: post #87
saghm wrote: post #12

Interesting read! I agree with most of this, but the I'm not sure I agree with the argument that it would be more effective to convince government agencies to switch to free software by appealing to a civic sense rather than a fiscal one; maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I find it more likely that government agencies would be swayed to adopt free software by showing them how much money they'd save.

Government is not interested in saving. The power of individual in the government is associated with the budget he is responsible for. No costs on software - no budget, no power.

Ah, true. I had forgotten the phenomenon where agencies make sure to spend their whole budget just to make sure they don't get less money the next year.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#180

Post by jordigh »

smsm42 wrote: post #162
jordigh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. You can combine GPL and non-GPL code, as long as the non-GPL code is compatible with the GPL. Pretty much all of the popular free licenses are compatible with the GPL. I think there's a widespread misconception that you have to relicense code in order to combine it with the GPL. You don't. The code can retain its license, because its license allows it to be used with the GPL. Saying that you have to…

> You can combine GPL and non-GPL code, as long as the non-GPL code is compatible with the GPL. That's a pretty big exception, which reverses your conclusion. It's like saying "not true not everyone can buy Lamborghini Aventador - everybody can, as long as they have half a million dollars to spend!" That's kind of the point that turns your "not true" into false. > Pretty much all of the popular free licenses are comp…

> That's a pretty big exception

It's not. Most of the anti-GPL free software advocates are using compatible licenses, such as the MIT or BSD licenses, and they are already following all of the conditions of the GPL, since they are distributing source code.

> But if you want to distribute the mix, you'd have to abide by GPL conditions.

Almost everyone is already abiding by the GPL conditions when they are distributing MIT-licensed code. The only real concern about violating these conditions is to not distribute source code. If you have no intention to distribute non-free software, you should have no concern with the GPL.

I just cannot understand, try as I might, why anyone would have a problem with the GPL while at the same time eschewing non-free software. If you are already doing as a matter of course what the GPL is asking you to do, why do you object to being told to do it?

Post reply on HN