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

251–260 of 292 posts

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#251

Post by sunchild »

philwelch wrote: post #169
sunchild wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, a contract doesn't replace a relationship. It just puts everyone on notice about what's intended. Most of the rider is crystal clear. It just gets hard to follow in areas such as the following: A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we us…

Would it really be Stallman without long moral justifications of every clause?

The problem with unerring dedication to a moral cause is that life always manages to present the most absurd edge cases. You start with someone casually asking 'Coke or Pepsi?' and your knee-jerk response is something about murdered workers in a South American jungle. There's nothing wrong with moralizing in every context, but it's the opposite of fun/pleasant to be around. Everything in life is a tradeoff.

Myself, I have a hard time being fiercely moralistic about anything, because Moralizers often do more harm than good. Necessarily, they purport to know the truth better than others – a conceit that I can't get behind.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#252

Post by glaurent »

bad_user wrote: post #228
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…

Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here. Software needs resources to get created and lots of it. As a company or as an individual, you can't sink time and resources into software that isn't at least popular. You can try to invest in something, but sooner or later resources dry out…

> Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here.

Progress in software development is not linear. You quickly get the basics done, and then the devil in the details. Also, the Gnome vs. KDE feud didn't help one bit.

That said, OS X being exactly what Linux dreams to be (Unix with a beautiful and useable UI, scriptable apps, reusable components, and a modern development platform), I know I'm not the only one to whom it provided a haven after years of Linux-induced frustration.

> Desktop Linux seems to me that it was created by stitching obsolete software and quick hacks together with glue and spit. Even broken as it is, I still marvel at how functional it is for me. And even unpopular as it is, there are some normal people using it, which goes to show that it isn't totally broken or insane.

No disagreement here.

> I don't agree there - having the source is a huge advantage, even if you aren't capable of modifying it. Just as with cars, you don't necessarily have to go to the parent company and you don't have to fix it yourself. You can always choose a local shop for repairing and tunning.

In theory it's true, in practice it rarely is, since taking over a code base of any significant size is a very hard challenge. I've yet to encounter a situation like you describe, or even hear about one. When the software doesn't work, you replace it, source available or not.

> I wonder why are you saying that, when server-side Linux and related software is such a huge hit.

Because the audience being other tech geeks, it's a much simpler endeavor.

> You can also point out to some desktop software that is free software, that is sponsored and yet community driven and that is usable.

Sponsored free software is usually mostly developed by the company sponsoring it, the community comes a distant second. This is a scheme which works, though, as the company has the final say. I hope it will keep on growing.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#254

Post by sjwright »

bad_user wrote: post #228
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…

Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here. Software needs resources to get created and lots of it. As a company or as an individual, you can't sink time and resources into software that isn't at least popular. You can try to invest in something, but sooner or later resources dry out…

> Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here.

I completely disagree with your assertion, but let's say for the moment that you're right -- Apple has thrown down a legal, legitimate gauntlet. So what the heck are you going to do about it? Complain? Say "that's not fair"?

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#255

Post by loup-vaillant »

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…

> "It's easy to go outside and whine, but true revolutioners dress up and change things from inside the system."

Actually, it is also hard to change the system from within. We humans run on corrupted hardware[1], and being in the system in the first place often change us in ways we don't initially approve of.

Now I think we do need people to change the system from within. But I also think we need other people who stay outside, if only to remind us of the ultimate goal.

[1]:http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_hum...

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#256

Post by sjwright »

jrockway wrote: post #206
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 see this come up in RMS threads again and again. "There are ways to make things change. But you have to adapt." Why should he? He's famous and you're not. Why should he take advice from you that's clearly not working? Also, he did change the system from the inside. This is why people deal with his quirks.

> He's famous

Not that famous, and if his goal is advocacy, he's doing a pretty miserable job. We get it, he's bitter because Linus is something of a computer programmer rock star and he isn't. I sympathise with much of his argument, but the way he argues contradicts his message.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#257

Post by kstenerud »

maximusprime wrote: post #199
jtheory wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does, however, provide a rider before to anyone considering inviting him to speak that makes his personal obsession and his inflexibility around that obsession abundantly and explicitly clear. I have a suspicion that whoever booked him simply didn't read it, or didn't understand it. I mean, come on now -- other people make lots of noise about his eccentricities, and he himself basically wears a signboard explainin…

There are plenty of eccentrics who are still nice people.

And there are plenty who have no social graces. What of it?

If you book a speaker without researching them, you have only yourself to blame when things go wrong.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#258

Post by sjwright »

ordinary wrote: post #241
demallien wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

> 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.

That's great, now all you need to do is find programmers willing to accept n dollars instead of n×100 dollars.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#259

Post by loup-vaillant »

demallien wrote: post #227
bad_user wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he has to control how everyone else uses it One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor. If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whate…

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…

> the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals.

I suppose you say so because it doesn't give the user total freedom over his copy of the software? It's not that simple: if the user had total freedom, he would also have the freedom to actively restrict the freedom of users who get the software from him.

One's freedom is supposed to stop at other's, so this is not right. Therefore, you need to take away the freedom to restrict other's freedom. The GPL does just that, and no more.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#260

Post by gbog »

yock wrote: post #249
bmj wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What did strike the most is how much this precise description of a conference organization is at odds with Asian culture. I guess rms would not be in his shoes in China for instance.
Post reply on HN