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

Richard Stallman Explains [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#61

Post by dijit »

tequila_shot wrote: post #56
teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".

To be fair, he's clarified why he feels this way many times.

Repeating the same arguments has got to be frustrating and people might pick up on it. (assuming that RMS has very little to say but says it often).

FWIW his reasons of proprietary software being evil are[0]:

* Proprietary software obstructs the use of its programs

* Proprietary software obstructs social cohesion, fragments communities.

* Proprietary software obstructs the customisation and adaption of programs.

* Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype.

* Proprietary software prevents choice; swapping out proprietary software with something else can be tricky, if it's not resting on standards then sometimes it's simply impossible.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#62

Post by cbenz »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact.

So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#65

Post by icebraining »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?

How is rms doing that? Has he been granted lawmaking powers?

No, he is only putting conditions on the software he made, nothing more. If selling binaries under any agreed terms is freedom, how can giving away source under agreed terms be restricting freedom? Your position is contradictory.

Meanwhile, rms' position is clear and unambiguous: there are four freedoms that users should have, and software either respects them or not.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#66

Post by loup-vaillant »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?

GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assuming any two humans have roughly the same moral value.)

So yes, we would restrict a bit of freedom. But that's the only way to prevent even greater restrictions.

By the way, RMS never called permissive licences evil. Just weak. And he's not opposed to GPL/proprietary dual licencing, as long as the two versions are the same. It's not weaker than a permissive licence, and the creator has another way to make a profit.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#67

Post by icebraining »

lloydde wrote: post #49
Ace17 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at some point in the food chain, software developers need to put food on the table and send their kids to school. How does that happen if all software is free? Please note "free" has nothing to do with price, but with end-user freedom (to use/study/modify/share). (example answer to your question: custom/internal software).

It actually does have to do with price. All free software is one user away from the possibility (likelihood) it is free as in beer. The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food on kids bellies.

All free software is one user away from the possibility (likelihood) it is free as in beer.

And yet, my and others' salaries have been paid for over six years writing free software without it ever being published publicly by its users, despite being GPL licensed.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#68

Post by icebraining »

teekert wrote: post #55
amelius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything developed by big companies that deals with our data on their premises is evil. We should simply not allow that, and let big companies just develop the hardware.

""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me. You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life, don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with Google and reap the benefits of a very helpfu…

Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more money than software developers.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#69

Post by ajuc »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

I think it's similar to third wave feminism. It's a revolution that has already won for most practical purposes, but keeps on fighting.

In a world, where almost all software was proprietary, and open source only made sense if you're living in towers of academia - RMS made sense and contributed greatly to society. Nowadays - not so much.

It isn't worth it to restrict freedom of creator and force him to write open source software for minimal increase in the freedom of the users, when there is already an open source alternative for the given task.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#70

Post by ajuc »

cbenz wrote: post #62
teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

That depends on the software and market, surely. If there's 5 open source alternatives, is it more important to get 6th for the minimal gain in freedom for the users, or is it more important to let the creator keep his freedom to share it under whichever licence he prefers?

What if there's 100 open source alternatives already?

Post reply on HN