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

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#191

Post by aaronbrethorst »

oblio wrote: post #94
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given your sense of fatalism about this, I assume you don’t spend your free time building OSS apps for mobile platforms?

I'm not a fatalist, I'm just pointing out a fact. FOSS is far from winning. FOSS has barely "won" the lower levels of the stack and the highly technical niches. But the more you move towards user-facing applications, the more proprietary things become.

If you genuinely care about reversing this, then I recommend spending more of your free time building open source apps meant for end user consumption.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#192

Post by cyphar »

rglullis wrote: post #185
newscracker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just in the image management space, we do have GIMP [1], Inkscape [2], Krita [3], just to name a few FOSS applications using GPL that come to my mind right now, among many others. Photoshop may probably not have come into existence in RMS's world, but that wouldn't have precluded any of these from coming up (even if they appear not to be of the same caliber or if they seem like clones of proprietary applications). Yo…

As much as I am big supporter of FOSS - writing open source software as much as I can, financially support developers, and actively try to avoid proprietary solutions when there is an adequate free alternative - I am yet to see any kind of open-source software that is original or that it has managed to create a new industry on its own. All praise to GIMP, Inkscape and Krita, but they only exist because some proprieta…

That's true for proprietary software as well. Hell, most software is a remake of something that existed in the past. You can find examples of original free software projects that have caused real change (one that comes to mind is the whole Zones/Jails/Containers thing), but that's not really a good measure of whether free software is succeeding.

There are countless free software projects that were created as alternatives to proprietary software and have exceeded the original by orders of magnitude. If you want to look at a measure of success other than "amount of work you can do with free software" then that's what you should be looking at. Improvement and innovation often doesn't come from some massive new technology, it's always gradual improvements that really make the difference.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#193

Post by belorn »

legulere wrote: post #184
belorn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to repair movement is in direct opposition with current US copyright law over DRM. The reason is not for "copy someone else's work without compensation". Karen Sandler and several security researcher want free software freedom in regard to medical devices. They want to verify the code and even out the power balance between those that depend on the code for their life and the producer of it. That too is not…

I agree that the current DRM laws are bad and that you should be allowed to inspect medical software in certain circumstances. That has nothing to do with the GPL or the three freedoms though.

Companies that avoid GPL also avoid licenses that forbids DRM and guaranties access to source code.

But to reiterate the four freedoms:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose. With DRM this is impossible. The DRM business model to prevent generic parts rely on users not having freedom 0.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works. Without this researchers can't do inspection of medical software or voting machines.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program. Without this a person can't improve their tractor that they bought, even if they are by law the private property owner of the device.

That leaves:

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.

So for the cases above, three out of four software freedoms is required.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#194

Post by cbenz »

teekert wrote: post #160
cbenz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think your rights should make it possible for you to do with my creation as you please, then I shall never do business with you. Hell I don't even want to create anything in or for a world that thinks they have anything to say about my creations. I shall share my creations with you as a I damn well please and if you don't want to stick to the conditions that I set for sharing something with you, I shall simply…

Despite the "damn" and "hell" words you use, let me develop my opinion.

It is not the user rights which allow them to do whatever they want. I totally agree that one must not violate the terms expressed by the author.

I don't like to talk about "my" creation or "yours" or somebody's. Because every creator is inspired from previous ones. Someone obviously works for a certain amount of time, but the concept of paternity is strange given all the inspiration. When I write free software, I always consider it would not have been possible to do it without libraries and other inspiration. So it's normal to give back the product of my time to the world, which gave me the base to do it.

I create things not to do business, but to make the world match my ideas and hope people will follow and improve. And I would really be pleased if somebody has a complaint or criticism, and takes the time to "fix" it concretely by coding it, not just expressing it.

In arts (music, painting, etc) this is natural, as in science and research. About computer science, how people can improve then if it's not free software? That would be a "use it or drop it" situation, not adapted for collective improvement.

So using free software licenses, as a creator, makes the world better. The contrary doesn't make the world worse, but freezes it until free software appears. That's waste of time in a sense!

That's why I don't recommend people to use proprietary software. Because it maintains the world in a situation which is not ideal, globally.

I understand people want to make money for a living. But there are economic models quite OK with free software. We have to find a way, I mean collectively, to finance free software. That would be an improvement for society,better than defending proprietary software.

Finally pardon my English, I'm not native.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#195

Post by rglullis »

cyphar wrote: post #192
rglullis wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I am big supporter of FOSS - writing open source software as much as I can, financially support developers, and actively try to avoid proprietary solutions when there is an adequate free alternative - I am yet to see any kind of open-source software that is original or that it has managed to create a new industry on its own. All praise to GIMP, Inkscape and Krita, but they only exist because some proprieta…

That's true for proprietary software as well. Hell, most software is a remake of something that existed in the past. You can find examples of original free software projects that have caused real change (one that comes to mind is the whole Zones/Jails/Containers thing), but that's not really a good measure of whether free software is succeeding. There are countless free software projects that were created as alternat…

I never said that FOSS is worse than proprietary software. This is not what the discussion is about.

What I am arguing is simply that if proprietary software was forbidden, a lot of innovation would be restricted.

Imagine today if we were living in RMS world and everyone that writes software needed to have their software openly published and freely distributed. How many would simply not even start? Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No. Who would be the big player that would have any interest in seeing the development of any technology that could threaten their business?

Most "innovation" would happen in academic settings, and it would never make the jump to any industry.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#196

Post by cyphar »

rglullis wrote: post #195
cyphar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true for proprietary software as well. Hell, most software is a remake of something that existed in the past. You can find examples of original free software projects that have caused real change (one that comes to mind is the whole Zones/Jails/Containers thing), but that's not really a good measure of whether free software is succeeding. There are countless free software projects that were created as alternat…

I never said that FOSS is worse than proprietary software. This is not what the discussion is about. What I am arguing is simply that if proprietary software was forbidden, a lot of innovation would be restricted. Imagine today if we were living in RMS world and everyone that writes software needed to have their software openly published and freely distributed. How many would simply not even start? Would there be a M…

That feels like a backwards argument to me. There are many free software companies (RedHat, SUSE, Canonical, etc) that create plenty of innovative software. I'm sure you know the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech", but your argument appears to be conflating proprietary and commercial. Especially when you start discussing academic settings (which, by the way, uses a lot of proprietary software).

But more importantly, a discussion of "what could've been" is not really helpful to a discussion of what we should do today. I could equally argue that if users were more empowered than they are now, that you would see much higher levels of technical literacy and much more innovation. Do I have evidence to back that up? No, but neither do you.

I can give you more examples of free software that didn't have a proprietary counterpart, but I don't think that you really want such examples. You want to discuss an alternate universe where proprietary software doesn't exist.

> Would there be a Microsoft, Google or Apple or Facebook? No.

How on Earth could you possibly know that? You're possibly right that they wouldn't be identical to their current counterparts (they probably wouldn't be able to mistreat their users to the same extent), but those companies and those products might still exist.

Social networks existed before Facebook. Hand-held computers existed before Apple. Search engines existed before Google. Operating systems existed before Microsoft.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#197

Post by snakeanus »

rglullis wrote: post #110
Joeri wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that. It's…

In RMS' world Photoshop wouldn't even come to existence.

And this is a good thing.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#198

Post by snakeanus »

teekert wrote: post #136
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?" I hope you're aware that this is the oldest argument in the book. It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if you're not free to make other people slaves.

Exactly, by forcing a license (you made up) onto my creation, you are basically taking my property and enslaving me. You are saying to me: "Nice work you got there, now, I am going to use it under my conditions. Oh you don't want me to share the software? Too bad, not sharing is evil! I'm sharing it anyway." Yes, you are free to say this but then I can choose not to share my software with you. I will only give you my…

I would argue that you are evil if you do not allow the user to use for any propose, distribute, and modify the software.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#199

Post by ue_ »

sokoloff wrote: post #167
loup-vaillant wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little good faith, will you? The idea was that capitalism gives you a choice between proprietary, shitty, or non-existent software. Not much of a choice. Photoshop is often showed as an example where free alternatives aren't up to snuff (I personally don't have an opinion on this one). Hence the short "requires".

It's not for a lack of good faith in interpreting your words (IMO), but a genuine difference of opinion on a critical point. I don't view software on a spectrum from proprietary through shitty to non-existent. I view it more as a two-by-two matrix of high quality/shitty on one axis and FOSS/proprietary on the other. All four quadrants are populated. The economic incentives that capitalism and proprietary software pro…

>In the 22 years since GIMP started, it hasn't caught Photoshop.

I think it's important to look in that quadrant, though. Why does that quadrant exist? In my judgement, it's beacuse such software requires a large amount of research and time to be devoted to it, and while certain free software projects are able to catch up to it, they are few and far between.

The next question to ask is why such development-intensive software is proprietary. In my judgement, the answer to that is because the development must be funded somehow, primarily in the case of programming that funding is wages. Open source/free software business models, while existing, do not have the same return, especially for these sorts of programs (though they do for Red Hat for instance.)

So presumably, such software could exist being free software if its developers were already accounted for in terms of wages, so they can spend more time making it.

This is where alternatives to capitalism enter - Socialist systems do not have wages, and people have much more free time to pursue their interests, while being sustained by communal production, to which they also participate in part. As such, such development may be possible under Socialism, but not capitalism. There is much less incentive to have proprietary software under Socialism.

Post reply on HN