Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Jul 29, 2010, 9:42 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #16

benofsky wrote: post #5

In response to software which requires a lot of development time to create, specifically tax software or games, RMS says: > The reason I don't use nonfree software is that it would take away my freedom. I don't want to let that happen. So I don't consider installing nonfree program, even as an possible option. I treat them as poison. I hope that you will too. This man lives in an imaginary world where no one has to m…

That's completely wrong. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what the free software movement is about. Ultimately it's a sort of grassroots consumer protection movement, not a bunch of hippies trying to abolish money. Stallman believes that you should vote with your feet and avoid using non-free software, and that if we all did this for everything there would be no space for non-free software in the market. That do…

Post by ajscherer » Thu, Jul 29, 2010, 9:44 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #13

ajscherer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like he said nobody should make any money. He said that nobody should install non-free software, which if everyone did as RMS wanted (they won't) would imply that one couldn't make money selling non-free software. Why is it that so many people believe they have a God-given right to make money by doing a certain activity ? I see this same thinking all the time in arguments about the future of newspaper…

Only in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.

Post by gabrielroth » Thu, Jul 29, 2010, 9:46 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #7

I decided that I would rather do something good with no monetary reward than profit by mistreating people A $1M grant from the MacArthur foundation and another $1M from the Takeda foundation tends to skew one's view of economics somewhat.

Post by chc » Thu, Jul 29, 2010, 9:50 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #26

chc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.

If the market changed overnight so that nobody wanted to buy non-free cars, which for the sake of argument we'll define here as cars where the full schematics are under a free license like the GPL. Nothing would really change. The main effort of making a car is still making the car . Just because you can download recipes or a CAD drawing of a car chefs or car makers aren't going to go out of business. They provide a…

Post by chc » Thu, Jul 29, 2010, 9:54 PM UTC

ajscherer wrote: post #23

chc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in the same way that carmakers would find another way to make money if suddenly everybody stopped buying nonfree cars — they would stop making their unprofitable product and start making, I don't know, tractors or something. For people who like cars, this is not really a good situation.

Yes, but people buy nonfree cars, and carmakers stay in business, precisely because people like cars. In the same way I think that proprietary software will continue to be lucrative because in many cases people prefer it to free software, regardless what RMS thinks. I just don't think it's valid to say that carmakers should continue to be able to profit making cars in a world where nobody wants them simply because it…