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

Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

richard.stallman.usesthis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 262 posts

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#221

Post by yummyfajitas »

antoncohen wrote: post #220
yummyfajitas wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"?

> Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"? Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses giv…

Making software non-free is not something an individual does with software. It is something an individual does to other individuals.

You can do whatever you want with free software. You just can't prevent me from doing the same thing.

Similarly, you might describe freedom of the press as a form of fascism - in a land with freedom of the press, you lose the "freedom" to censor my newspaper.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#223

Post by burgerbrain »

hollerith wrote: post #154
nknight wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could do 99% of my job effectively on a ~200MHz Pentium with maybe 64MB of RAM. About the only thing that would really bite me is the occasional need to help the client team, which often means booting Windows in a VM and replicating their comparatively bloated development environment.

If you had to use the ~200MHz Pentium to buy something from Amazon though you'd be screwed :)

I kind of doubt it. I was using my 233MHz PII up until about 3 years ago to buy things off Amazon regularly.

It's amazing what you can do with some swap and a little patience. ;)

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#224

Post by antoncohen »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #221
antoncohen wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"? Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses giv…

Making software non-free is not something an individual does with software. It is something an individual does to other individuals. You can do whatever you want with free software. You just can't prevent me from doing the same thing. Similarly, you might describe freedom of the press as a form of fascism - in a land with freedom of the press, you lose the "freedom" to censor my newspaper.

The way you describe freedom is the way some oppressive regimes start, an individual believes their way is the right way, others will benefit from their way, so their way is forced on people.

With freedom of the press, the press has the freedom to choose what they publish. You as an individual have the freedom to choose not to read what they publish. You don't have the freedom to restrict what or how they publish, that is their choice.

With software licenses the copyright holder has the freedom to pick a license and publish their work how they choose. With BSD-like licenses the receiver of the software also has the freedom to pick a license and re-publish the work as they choose. With the GPL the receiver of the software loses the freedom to choose what they do with it, the copyright holder is imposing their will and beliefs on someone else. With the BSD License people have choice, including the choice to impose their will, but that choice is theirs.

Instead of the press, I think it might be clearer if you think about it as drugs or alcohol. You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to get in a fight while drunk, or get in a car and drive drunk. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of others, you impose your will, you take away their right not to get hit.

It's about freedom of choice. The choice of an individual lies with that individual, with freedom of choice you do not get to restrict the choice of others.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#225

Post by yummyfajitas »

antoncohen wrote: post #224
yummyfajitas wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making software non-free is not something an individual does with software. It is something an individual does to other individuals. You can do whatever you want with free software. You just can't prevent me from doing the same thing. Similarly, you might describe freedom of the press as a form of fascism - in a land with freedom of the press, you lose the "freedom" to censor my newspaper.

The way you describe freedom is the way some oppressive regimes start, an individual believes their way is the right way, others will benefit from their way, so their way is forced on people. With freedom of the press, the press has the freedom to choose what they publish. You as an individual have the freedom to choose not to read what they publish. You don't have the freedom to restrict what or how they publish, th…

You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice.

I like your drugs and alchohol analogy.

With free software, you as an individual have the freedom to do whatever you want with it in your home. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to prevent others from modifying or reproducing it. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of others, you impose your will, you take away their right to modify and reproduce the software.

The point you seem to be missing is that licensing software is not something you do to the software. It's something you do to other people.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#226

Post by olalonde »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #225
antoncohen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you describe freedom is the way some oppressive regimes start, an individual believes their way is the right way, others will benefit from their way, so their way is forced on people. With freedom of the press, the press has the freedom to choose what they publish. You as an individual have the freedom to choose not to read what they publish. You don't have the freedom to restrict what or how they publish, th…

You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice. I like your drugs and alchohol analogy. With free software, you as an individual have the freedom to do whatever you want with it in your home. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to prevent others from modifying or reproducing it. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of…

A software license is a form of contract that individuals are free to accept or not. If you disagree with the contract, you are free not to use the software.

Here's another analogy. If I build a restaurant and want it to be non-smoking, I'm not restricting your freedom. You are free not to come to my restaurant.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#227

Post by bo1024 »

syawaworht wrote: post #68
ldesegur wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman is to software what Jean-Paul Sartres was to philosophy during his time and still now. JPS like RMS was living through his convictions and ideas to the point of refusing the Nobel prize because it would have tinted his motivations. RMS would do the same without any questions. Don't get them wrong: these people are not fanatic, they are just living and breathing a cause they started for a good reason.…

I don't mean to belittle RMS's achievements, but as a general point, I don't think that simply adhering to conviction is courageous. It's the easy way out. It's the way that doesn't address the greys in reality, for the sake of simplicity of what you believe in. You are not tested in your decisions, because you have already refused to make any.

I agree, as a general point. When you are completely dedicated to an ideology, you don't have to worry about how it affects real, actual people. You don't have to morally weigh the consequences of your actions because you've already decided a priori which actions are right and which are wrong. Perhaps that's the difference between conviction and fanaticism.
Post reply on HN