Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars" • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#41

Post by HansF » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 3:27 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #33

bayareaguy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that the biggest obstacle to Stallman's idea of free software is his own stupid use of the word "free", so I feel I have to ask but do you mean free as in "without charge" or free as in "unencumbered"? Given that this is Hacker News, it's perhaps important to keep in mind that Stallman has nothing against commercial software. The whole "free" issue for him has to do with restrictions on the right of peopl…

No, the issue for Stallman is for the software to be open and stay open. There are many places where the GPL put limitations on what YOU CAN DO with the software. His whole "rights for the people" is a side effect of "rights for the software". By free he means the SOFTWARE is free, not the people using it are free to do what they want. There is a reason the BSD people complain like hell about GNU and the GPL. In my v…

You USE (do) the software anywa. The gpl only limits distribution

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#42

Post by HansF » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 3:30 PM UTC

billroberts wrote: post #13

I don't agree with Stallman. Like probably most HN readers, I use a lot of Free/Open Source software - Linux, MySQL, Rails... and it's incredibly valuable. However I don't expect all software to be free, and to a large extent many major bits of open source software are 'market distortions' created by the big commercial IT companies. Eg OpenOffice is largely StarOffice, bought by Sun and open sourced, mainly in order…

The gpl explicitly allows you to charge for your software.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#43

Post by ctkrohn » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 3:46 PM UTC

It's a little strange to attack the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for only giving away 10% of it's wealth per year and investing the rest. They give away a far larger proportion of their endowment than most other foundations. Notably, they recently announced that they intend to give away all their wealth within 50 years of Bill Gates' death. This is much different from other foundations funded by personal wealth: think of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, etc. that have effectively become self-perpetuating entities.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#44

Post by rincewind » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 5:34 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #17

I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if…

I think Stallman was referring to this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#45

Post by mynameishere » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 5:47 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #17

I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if…

And:

Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...

Most foundations exist eternally to provide welfare for social workers. I'll credit Gates for preventing that. Stallman didn't do basic research on the matter.

Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong. I don't mind laying down 40 dollars for a million man-hours of work. I don't consider this an unethical requirement. What I do consider unethical is expecting developers to work for nothing as their moral responsibility to me.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#46

Post by parenthesis » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 5:58 PM UTC

rincewind wrote: post #44

ComputerGuru wrote: post #17

I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if…

I think Stallman was referring to this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...

Maybe (I hope, but doubt) Gates is investing in such companies so that he can influence them to 'clean up' their act.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#47

Post by mynameishere » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 5:59 PM UTC

tx wrote: post #7

mattmaroon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial software largely means proprietary, especially in the area of web applications. It can have APIs and interact with other programs much the way Windows does, but it is proprietary nonetheless.

... which I consider a major loophole in GPL. If google is using a single line of GPL'ed software in their "Big Table" implementation, I demand to see the source, even though it's not "distributed" to my computer. Matt, free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible: this is why starting a software company is so cheap these days. Without it you'd be paying "enterprise-grade" fe…

free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible

This is not the argument that Stallman is making, and if he could fully grok the simple fact that business and not mankind is that which has benefited from free software, he'd probably go hang himself in despair.

Windows + IIS + VS + SQL Server is not that expensive. Altogether, it's still much cheaper than starting a lawn-care business.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#48

Post by mattmaroon » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 6:25 PM UTC

rplevy wrote: post #34

mattmaroon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "anti-freedom argument" (which should actually be called the pro-proprietary argument, because nobody sane is against free software) is fairly simple: there can be both and both can coexist peacefully. We can (and do) have Linux and Windows, and use them for different things. The market and individuals decide which is better for what task. Some people say Ubuntu is finally a usable desktop OS for average Joe. Eve…

The fact that the two coexist does not constitute a valid argument for how things should be, in a better world. There are many less-than-ideal things that coexist together with superior alternatives. For example there are countries where women are required to cover their entire face in public, but the fact that they coexist with secularly governed nations does not validate theocracy as not being oppressive. Similarly…

But how things should be is the way they are, with both existing and the market deciding. Why should RMS decide how they should be, rather than the market and the individuals who comprise it?

Comparing a free market, in which free software competes with proprietary, to an oppressive theocracy is pointless.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#49

Post by mattmaroon » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 6:49 PM UTC

galactus wrote: post #27

mattmaroon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming it's an either/or proposition. I never said that. I love free software, we use it for many things at Draftmix, and I own a ton of websites myself, none of which are hosted on Windows. I think it's had a hugely positive impact on the world, and I hope that some day my startup can contribute back. But that doesn't mean proprietary software is evil. There's a place for both, and Stallman doesn't see that…

"Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will." For Stallman it is not a question of quality of software but of ethics. And he explains his views without resorting to religion or calling people idiots.

His views are a religion, and he essentially calls Bill Gates something worse than an idiot: evil.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#50

Post by mattmaroon » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 6:51 PM UTC

HansF wrote: post #42

billroberts wrote: post #13

I don't agree with Stallman. Like probably most HN readers, I use a lot of Free/Open Source software - Linux, MySQL, Rails... and it's incredibly valuable. However I don't expect all software to be free, and to a large extent many major bits of open source software are 'market distortions' created by the big commercial IT companies. Eg OpenOffice is largely StarOffice, bought by Sun and open sourced, mainly in order…

The gpl explicitly allows you to charge for your software.

But forcing you to open source it prevents you from being able to, generally.