Free & Proprietary • Hacker News Board

Re: Free & Proprietary

#51

Post by bayareaguy » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 7:26 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #24

aggieben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the great irony is that FSF software isn't really free either - it just has its own restrictions that it prefers to others'. To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite", and seems to have sprung directly from Stallman's own peurile bitterness, and not from anything so noble as what they claim. Even if you like the FSF stances (and I have no problem with that), I think it's hard to argue that their idea of "free"…

I think of it like this: GNU's "free" is really "the freedom of software." That is, it's not what's better for the users/property owners (think fascism) but what's better for the software itself, as an entity (think democracy.) Your right to freely use the software stops where the software's own right to not be "jailed" begins. To put it another way, the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities…

the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities in the future

Sounds like the plot from http://www.accelerando.org/_static/accelerando.html

Re: Free & Proprietary

#52

Post by bayareaguy » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 7:55 AM UTC

Focusing on touchy-feely stuff like whether some software is better because their spokesperson is a genius/is a kook/made money selling software/popularized the editor millions use/wants to help some people with their riches/doesn't wash their hair because they are afraid of getting soap in their eyes/etc is fun but not really satisfying.

Matt, I think there is some merit to your argument but you fail to take into account the fact that many of the applications you think are superior also have long histories relative to their relatively unencumbered counterparts.

If I look for new proprietary software, I don't tend to see many examples that are as superior to open source software in the same way I might say Microsoft Office is to Open Office. More often I tend to see proprietary software left in the dust as in the case of Apache vs IIS unless I look for niches.

Can you cite any good examples of well-known new proprietary software that is clearly superior then their open source alternatives?

Note I say "open source" and not "free".

Re: Free & Proprietary

#53

Post by axod » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 8:11 AM UTC

I agree with most of this, but certainly not the line "It’s driven the computer revolution, which is the most significant shift in technology"

Microsoft in my view completely stifled any innovation for ages with their monopoly and unethical business practices. We went backwards in some cases. If it weren't for microsoft I think a lot more innovation would have happened in computing.

Thankfully that's all changed now.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#54

Post by davidw » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 8:45 AM UTC

greendestiny wrote: post #50

andreyf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of…

You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems, other users are free to get the original project just like you were. FSF licenses just restrict the way I can release my derivative work. At best the FSF license can be seen as an understandable restriction on freedom to preserve open source software by requiring reciprocation. To me there is no question that MIT and BSD lice…

> You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems,

I don't think that's necessarily true. Imagine an open source system that's fairly popular, but with just a few developers. ProprietaryCo hires them all up, and users realize that if they want improved versions of said project, they're going to have to pay, or find some new developers. Far fetched? Not really, it's pretty similar to what Sun Microsystems did.

So, there is some risk to the community. What 'protects' BSD licensed projects best is to have a strong, and diverse development community, which is one of the things that the Apache Software Foundation tries to encourage.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#55

Post by gwniobombux » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 9:01 AM UTC

tjr wrote: post #19

sspencer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech" publishing house? Curiouser and curiouser.

I don't think RMS is opposed to all non-free books, but believes that books meant as reference or instruction ought to be free. And as pg mentioned, the fact that the code is free for (implicitly) any use whatsoever means that the code could be used in proprietary software without issue, and thus the code isn't free. Was RMS opposed to the book, the code, or both? I suspect both, and since it appears that he quickly…

RMS doesn't have a problem with the ACL code (obviously he would prefer the GPL for it, but I reckon he would consider it free software), as he doesn't have a problem with GNU/Linux distributions shipping e.g. BSD-licensed code. And, yes, he is opposed to non-free books, though he distinguishes between those which should be modifiable and those which shouldn't be; for more on this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ht...

On a different note: there's is no reason to call him names for not signing ACL, he just takes a principled stand. Why should he sign it anyway? If I had a copy of ACL (yes, I am poor) I wouldn't want anybody but pg to sign it.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#56

Post by Tichy » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 9:15 AM UTC

sspencer wrote: post #2

Stallman's inability to see how damaging his rhetoric is to his cause is rapidly overshadowing any of his achievements. I went to HOPE 2006 in NYC a few years ago, and ran into him while heading to a lecture about Asterix PBX use. As a huge admirer of GNU tools and the GNU/Linux operating system in particular, it was thrilling to finally get to meet one my heroes. For about a few seconds. I shook his hand and somewha…

Calling him an asshole for not giving you an autograph? I am rather impressed by his determination. He should have double checked the license for ANSI Common LISP, though.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#57

Post by Jem » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 9:22 AM UTC

This probably isn't appropriate for posting here, but I'm out of ideas...

Does anyone have a contact email for mattmarroon.com? There's an infected iframe distributing malware in his Twitter Revisited post but I can't find a way to get in touch with him (no published emails and his whois is protected).

Re: Free & Proprietary

#58

Post by gwniobombux » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 9:33 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #35

sayrer wrote: post #29

I don't think this post is a good way to frame the argument. In particular, it's pretty hyperbolic when it comes to the effectiveness of Gates' philanthropic efforts. Like, what kind of madman would oppose the greatest giving campaign the world has ever seen? America's earlier robber barons showed similar changes of heart. It seems incredibly misguided to frame an abusive monopoly as a triumph of laissez faire econom…

I was more saying that you shouldn't attack Gates FOR his philanthropy, as Stallman does. Not that his giving makes his business practices or proprietary software immune to criticism.

Nope, Stallman does not attack Gates FOR his philanthropy. That's misstating the facts. He questions the mode of operation of the Gates Foundation based on an LA Times article, possibly this one: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...

Re: Free & Proprietary

#59

Post by bitdiddle » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 10:05 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #27

bitdiddle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.doc a best product. Sorry no way. Word to this day cannot produce anything near as good as Tex. I daily watch long email threads of collaborators struggling to share .doc files written with different versions of Word on different platforms.

TeX may have had superior output, but its input methods have always sucked. At the period of time when word came to dominate there were no wysiwyg TeX tools and it was a real pain to include figures and images. Output formatting mattered if you were submitting a conference paper, but the other 99.999% of the population cared more about being able to get simple tasks done easily.

perhaps, one builds up a set of neat macros and using emacs it's quite workable. For mathematics, Word still can't touch it. Word is also all about constantly needing the next $500 version. It's not clear also that they ever got this wysiwyg thing correct. It seems to change the fonts all the time in arbitrary ways. Sorry, I'd rather memorize a bunch of tags and use emacs.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#60

Post by bitdiddle » Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 10:33 AM UTC

aggieben wrote: post #25

bitdiddle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your definition of "free"? I believe FSF code, as in GPL is free. There are four freedoms that come with it. The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. You're also free not to use it. I find it interesting that so many criticize RMS for his character and style. I find myself very tolerant of people who are very talented programmers. I think RMS is a pretty decent programmer. Emacs…

The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. Ah, good. Progress. We agree that what FSF calls "free", and what RMS so piously lectures us all about, has at least one substantive restriction. My definition of "free" (as in speech, as the Righteous and Holy FSF puts it) includes no substantive restrictions. I think the Stallman's definition of "free" basically amounts to extortion on some level…

I don't see it as extortion, I like of think of it as share and share alike. Someone elsewhere commented that GPL advocates want to be paid back in code rather than money. There's some truth to that view. I like the analogy to the "tragedy of the commons". Everyone wants to graze their cows there for free, but then sell their milk for profits.

Programs are a form of mathematics. Freely (as in freedom) disseminating them is a good thing, it fosters creativity and synergy.

Enumerations are also a good thing, they help us remember and clarify contracts. The bill of rights is a good example. You have freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, to be secure in your letters, etc.. Notice that implicit in some of these is that you cannot deny others these rights.

I've noticed many are content to dismiss RMS because of his character. I've felt that way some in the past also but I would urge you to read some of his essays and even more so the works of Lessig, Moglen, and others in this area.