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

Richard Stallman’s rider

secure.mysociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#241

Post by ordinary »

demallien wrote: post #236
bad_user wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, a fee of $50, for example? Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right. Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom. through the threat of legal actions What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GP…

Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right. That's nice, but seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL, how I'm I supposed to collect my $50, if the next dev down the road packages up my code as an application, and makes it available free, with source code and what not. In the real world, I can no longer get paid for my software in such a circumstance. Or how about you produce a module, I se…

Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else from packaging up my work and distributing it for free).

Yes, if you've released your software under the GPL, collecting money by granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash.

What threats? What do you think the GPL is? It's a threat to use legal remedies if you don't play by the rules of the GPL. Without that implicit threat, we could just ignore the GPL as a rather boring piece of irrelevant text.

This is true of any contract or license. I've not heard the FSF or Stallman argue for the abolishment of contract law.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#242

Post by demallien »

ordinary wrote: post #238
demallien wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. But it's not your fault, the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals. He went from having the high ideal that software should always be open, to trying to force other people to thin…

Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. This is incorrect. I quote: "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."[0] [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

If I am to judge by your other reply to me in this thread, you yourself know that it's quite deceitful to say that I can charge money for GPLed software. Yes I can charge money, but I'm obliged to supply the tools needed so that any half-competent programmer can undercut me by 100%, meaning that I can't actually receive money by selling my software, because you can always download the same software legally for free.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#243

Post by ordinary »

demallien wrote: post #242
ordinary wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. This is incorrect. I quote: "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."[0] [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

If I am to judge by your other reply to me in this thread, you yourself know that it's quite deceitful to say that I can charge money for GPLed software. Yes I can charge money, but I'm obliged to supply the tools needed so that any half-competent programmer can undercut me by 100%, meaning that I can't actually receive money by selling my software, because you can always download the same software legally for free.

I wasn't being intentionally deceitful, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

With regards to "charging money for GPLed software", I agree with you completely: if you write GPL software, it is almost impossible to make money by selling that software on the open market. The first customer you ensnare is given access to the source code, as well as the right to redistribute your work under the same conditions that you do, blowing up your entire business model.

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but let me quote your original post and explain why I don't feel the above detracts from my point:

I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal.

The goals of the FSF (and thus Stallman, if only by his function as president) have nothing to do with money. The fact that there are ways of making money in the sofware world that are compatible with the GPL license is evidence of this. I mentioned some in my other post. This may not be as profitable as straight up selling (or renting out) the right to use your software, but that is merely a side-effect, not the ultimate goal.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#244

Post by DanBC »

maximusprime wrote: post #239
officemonkey wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing the two is a bit like comparing Thomas Paine to Thomas Edison. Stallman created a movement. A movement that largely predicted the ways technology and society interact. I think in 100 years people will still using the GPL. I can't say that about the iPod.

BS. Free software existed well before Stallman.

Do you have any examples please?

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#245

Post by slowpoke »

maximusprime wrote: post #200
slowpoke wrote: post #100

I'm still amazed at this man. You can like or dislike his views, but he has more dedication and, more importantly, integrity in every hair of his impressive beard than most people can ever hope to have in their entire body.

Many insane people get obsessed by things. That doesn't make them impressive. It's sad IMHO.

There's a fine line between genius and madness, and in my opinion, rms treads it rather nicely. As I said, if anything, you have to acknowledge him for sticking to his beliefs no matter what. Whether that's obsession or dedication is subjective and for everyone to decide for themselves.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#246

Post by bad_user »

demallien wrote: post #236
bad_user wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, a fee of $50, for example? Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right. Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom. through the threat of legal actions What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GP…

Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right. That's nice, but seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL, how I'm I supposed to collect my $50, if the next dev down the road packages up my code as an application, and makes it available free, with source code and what not. In the real world, I can no longer get paid for my software in such a circumstance. Or how about you produce a module, I se…

     seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL, 
     how I'm I supposed to collect my $50
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said authors should only license their work under GPL or compatible - my whole freaking point was that it is in their right to do whatever they want.

This opinion is not however opposed to my other opinion, that all software should be free. Because all software should be free by choice, not by law.

Also notice how I explicitly mark these as being opinions, that's because I leave room for considering errors in my judgment.

I am also not holly - I work on proprietary software all day long right now. I also think products in general ARE OK for now to be proprietary, but the platforms themselves ARE natural monopolies, going against what capitalism is about and are the scourge of this industry.

Of course this is not the opinion of Stallman which thinks absolutely all software should be free right now -- I can't blame the man since he's been warning us about all the dangers of closed software since the 70'ties and he must feel tired repeating the same thing over and over again, while being right and ridiculed at the same time.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#247

Post by glaurent »

pwaring wrote: post #231
glaurent wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Yeah, because the constant feuds within the Linux community, the failure to settle on a common desktop platform, the crowd of "I-want-to-write-yet-another-irc-client" devs, and the utter lack of appreciation for end-user needs all have nothing to do with it. What Stallman in particular and the Linux community in general fails to understand i…

"community development simply doesn't scale" I think that depends on what you apply it to. Community development seems to work well enough for individual projects, but not in-between projects (see amount of duplication caused by LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org).

> Community development seems to work well enough for individual projects, but not in-between projects

that's pretty close to saying that community development doesn't scale, isn't it ? :-)

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#248

Post by DanBC »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #197
phzbOx wrote: post #176

I, too, was disappointed by Richard Stallman' talk. We were a bunch of students in a conference in general software engineering. And he was invited to give a talk about copyright and freedom.. cool, right? Not exactly. He came in and started acting like he really didn't wanted to be there and didn't care at all about us, the place and the organizers. I'm usually not the kind to judge someone else dressing but Stallma…

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely hig…

>riddled with superfluous explanations

How do you know they are superfluous? How do you know they weren't added over the years as they became needed after people did stuff?

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#249

Post by yock »

bmj wrote: post #104
heyrhett wrote: post #7

All of his demands are either directly related to his health or the moral causes that he champions. He is specific and verbose. Some of these things might seem strange to people who are younger than 50 years old, and aren't flown around the world to give hundreds of talks. I think that this demonstrates the value of a clear and verbose contract.

I think the "flown around the world" bit is the most important. In America (or even Western Europe, for that matter), we may wonder why it includes so much detail. But perhaps by spelling things out, it removes the possibility of cultural misunderstandings.

Indeed. Including, but perhaps not limited to, possibly offending your hosts/organizers when you don't drink the Pepsi they so carefully provided for you. In the Western world we might not care so much if he leaves a few sodas on the presenter's table. That may not fly so well in cultures that don't drink as much soda and abhor waste far more than we.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#250

Post by iab »

seiji wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #18

This is charming; gives a sense of the guy; seems like it would be useful information. Who thinks to say "do not buy me a parrot"?

For such a specific rule, it must have happened before. I'd wager somebody once gave him a parrot for breakfast. "Good morning, sir. Your host ordered you a breakfast of eggs over easy and a parrot we've named Lenny, The Open Source Linux Parrot sponsored by Coke®."

"Once you are done sir, would you allow me the honour of directing you across several of our nearby streets?"
Post reply on HN