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

Richard Stallman Explains [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#111

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

cJ0th wrote: post #91
reacweb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in incompatible ways.

If you use FOSS only, you still remain dependent on the maintainers of your stack since realistically speaking you don't have the time to understand and hack every piece of software you rely on.

Just because you yourself cannot be competent in everything, does not mean that being dependent on a monopoly is the same as having to buy certain things from people who are more competent at producing or maintaining them than you are.

Noone guarantees you that a year from now you will be able to find anyone who is willing to fix your plumbing. That does not mean you might as well have proprietary Microplumb products installed in your house that noone can repair or extend without permission from Microplumb Inc.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#112

Post by teekert »

rglullis wrote: post #110
Joeri wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that. It's…

In RMS' world Photoshop wouldn't even come to existence.

The question is indeed: would Adobe have created Photoshop in RMS world.

It's very short sighted to think everything else would be the same except for software licenses.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#113

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

legulere wrote: post #82
cbenz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.

That's like saying that the freedom to repair your own car does not apply to car owners because almost nobody is a car mechanic.

The free software freedoms are what allow any end-user to freely choose anyone they want for audits, repairs and extensions of their software, instead of being dependent on a monopolistic supplier. Whether the individual user has any clue of software development is completely irrelevant.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#114

Post by majewsky »

belorn wrote: post #97
legulere wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument: Not giving away what you wrote for free under the terms dictated by Richard Stallman is literally slavery.

The argument is that freedom is often restricted if the end results is harmful. Proprietary software depend on copyright to prevent owners, which today often mean property owners of physical objects with DRM in them. Property owner is deprived of all rights that personal property is normally given to their owners. That power is instead taken by those that produced the object. If sale of property actually follow tradi…

Tell that to Monsanto.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#115

Post by majewsky »

legulere wrote: post #82
cbenz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.

Even the freedom to use is a freedom that applies to users.

With a proprietary product, the vendor can make changes behind your back via the auto-update backdoor, and you cannot do anything about it. With an open-source product, if a user does not like what the vendor is doing in the new version, they can just stick with the old version.

(It used to work that way with proprietary software, too, but today I cannot really think of software that cannot be forcefully end-of-lifed by the vendor. For example, look at how Samsung disabled the Note 7 phones with OTA updates.)

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#116

Post by majewsky »

dijit wrote: post #61
tequila_shot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".

To be fair, he's clarified why he feels this way many times. Repeating the same arguments has got to be frustrating and people might pick up on it. (assuming that RMS has very little to say but says it often). FWIW his reasons of proprietary software being evil are[0]: * Proprietary software obstructs the use of its programs * Proprietary software obstructs social cohesion, fragments communities. * Proprietary softwa…

> Proprietary software has network effects: if you have skype, I am more likely to have skype.

In fact, it's more vicious: If you have Skype, I am more likely to need Skype.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#117

Post by TeMPOraL »

cJ0th wrote: post #91
reacweb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in incompatible ways.

If you use FOSS only, you still remain dependent on the maintainers of your stack since realistically speaking you don't have the time to understand and hack every piece of software you rely on.

That's just the consequence of professional specialization. But the expected consequence with FOSS is that, if you can't or don't want to do it yourself, you can always pay a third-party specialist to go in and fix your copy of the software. In fact, it may be further expected that in this case, you'd have multiple competing specialists to choose from - just like it is in e.g. appliance / home / car repair, where you can go to whichever repair person you like and they'll fix stuff for you.

You can observe that most software is leased, not sold, thus restrictions apply. And indeed - the same holds in physical world; if you're the house/appliance/car, you might not be able to use it the way you like, or get whoever you like to repair it. But that's precisely the problem! Renting instead of owning has serious drawbacks, and Stallman is fighting against those, trying keep us at something more akin to personal ownership model.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#118

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #44

I suppose it's a philosophy. Are there enough who share Stallman's view to advance computing technology at a pace that can match what we see with commercial sector? For sure, I am amazed at the power and scope of open source software and it's a highly influential movement. But at some point in the food chain, software developers need to put food on the table and send their kids to school. How does that happen if all…

> Are there enough who share Stallman's view to advance computing technology at a pace that can match what we see with commercial sector?

Stallman does not object to commercial software. He objects to proprietary software. You may charge for free software as much as you like.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#119

Post by CaptainZapp »

legulere wrote: post #82
cbenz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.

Your remark reminds me of a /. signature of old:

  If you don't like the GPL write your own damn software
I agree with the sig, but certainly not with your comment.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#120

Post by loup-vaillant »

teekert wrote: post #100
loup-vaillant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assumin…

This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wron…

> This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software.

In part only. You cannot ignore the freedom of whoever that choice of licence affects.

We already have restrictions over deals one can make. Stuff like "Grab this gun and kill yourself on camera for the enjoyment of our snuff movies fans. In exchange, your family will get $1M." Sure, it sounds extreme, but many people would give their lives for their family, and I'm sure some sick powerful people take advantage of this.

Which leads to my next point:

> The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal.

Not really.

There's a point where the actual choice is between using such and such spying service or proprietary software, or stop participating in society altogether.

Don't want your position to be tracked at all times? Imagine your life without a cell phone. Many people would lose friends if they quit Facebook —if only because they would no longer receive their messages.

The real reason why so many people are using proprietary software is because they don't have a choice. Microsoft Word is a prime example: everybody uses it, so everybody else has to use it.

---

No matter how you cut it, freedoms conflict. You cannot maximise the freedom of the provider without sacrificing the freedom of consumers. More generally, you cannot maximise the freedom of anyone without sacrificing the freedom of everyone else —if only by a little bit.

That's freedom's most basic principle: one's freedom stops at others'. One way or another, there's a limit. The question is where we should put that limit.

Post reply on HN