Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

No, I get the free == freedom part. And it is still nonsensical at many levels.

I developed hardware for many years. A lot of this hardware was based on FPGAs. FPGAs, while hardware, are made into a functional solution through code. You write your hardware description in Verilog of VHDL and you get a working product in return. Some of this code took years to develop, evolve and optimize. It was very, very costly. And, there was no imaginable way that it made sense to release it as free (freedom) code. Doing that meant going out of business or seriously damaging a revenue stream that funded the development in the first place.

The same applies to my hospital example. Not free to own and not free to modify. In fact, it is both expensive and very much closed. And there is nothing wrong with that.

My basic premise remains true regardless of which flavor of "free" you choose to focus on: None of this would be possible without the financials to support and promote the release of gratis/freedom software. Impossible.

You mentioned MS as the greatest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. That cost MS millions to support. Those millions had to come from non-gratis/non-freedom software that MS charges for and keeps as closed source in order to earn money and employ their people. That's their model and there's nothing wrong with it.

RMS --or anyone else-- rejecting non-freedom software offerings in isolation of the realities that connect the two is nonsense. You would not have one without the other. It's a symbiotic relationship.

To further use your example: Support Microsoft non-gratis/non-freedom software offerings if you want to support the worlds largest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. I don't know, it could be a nice gesture by RMS and other proponents of his philosophies to support, rather than reject, MS in order to voice approval for their --per your assertion-- unmatched support of Linux (and probably other gratis/freedom software).

The healthier approach, in my opinion, is to recognize that both models have their place and that both have their evolutionary reasons to be perfectly valid and exist. I do and I try to support both.

The problem with the word "free" in English is that it has two meanings. In other languages there are distinct words for these two meanings. In Spanish they are "gratis" and "libre". So, gratis/libre software cannot exist outside the realities of the exact opposite type of software, non-free in every sense of the word. And that's OK.

My problem is with extremists who insist in not recognizing this and see the world through one and only one lens.

I use gratis/libre software. However, more often than not, I will look for paid software for a lot of applications where I need to ensure that proper support exists and, sometimes more importantly, that the software continues to be developed and evolves. All too often gratis/libre software falls short as developers loose interest in a field, leave school and need to earn a living or completely falls through the cracks and remains stagnant for years. Stories about this kind of thing abound.

In my own case, I have many examples of using gratis/libre software and then actively seeking paid alternatives in order to have a better solution with a single point of support.

The other issue with the freedom to modify part of the argument is that this is only good for us geeks. The average folk out there derives no direct value whatsoever from this. And, in a lot of cases, neither do we even though a lot of us could.

Here's the non-computing example for this: Do you fix your own car? Perhaps you do. I don't. Any more. When I was 19 I spent most of my weekends under the car or in the engine compartment. I can take an engine or transmission apart and rebuild it like the best mechanics. Yet, I have not done this for years. Why? That's just not what I do any more. I have other interests. And, more importantly, I need to focus my time, money and efforts elsewhere.

When faced with gratis/libre software that comes with source and a license to hack, frankly, in most cases, I have zero interest in doing so. I've done some, but that's not what I am in front of the computer to do every day. No, I need to get my work done and my job isn't defined as fixing problems with OpenOffice or some other piece of software. OpenOffice, as an example, has never worked for me or any business where I tried my best to introduce it. It is unreasonable to expect any business to continue to use a solution that does not work. So, in all cases, we moved on, paid for MS Office and got back to real work.

So, geeks want the ability to hack but I'd bet you that most just want to get on with building their products rather than fixing a problem with PHP or whatever. Sure, some do hack, a lot of them do hack, but that does not justify a position AGAINST closed source software.

I think that, in the end, we probably agree on a lot. I just don't like extremes in anything, from politics to religion and, yes, software. In most cases one population needs the other. It's OK to want to support gratis/libre software. I am just contending that this should not happen at the exclusion and vilification of paid/closed software because one would not exist without the other. Your MS example is the best proof I need: Support non-free software and you get huge benefits in the free software community. And that's OK. RMS and other should actively promote and support this.

This ain't a hobby.

Personally, rms doesn't bother me and he's free to do as he pleases, but what annoys me is the people in rms related threads online who act as if the development of FOSS[0] is entirely dependent upon him. There were a lot of parallel developments in software, which is not a zero sum game.

I find a lot of rms's essays interesting and I regularly use a lot of GNU software, especially emacs. Still, rms is often divisive and counterproductive. We must call it "GNU/Linux"? We must use one of a handful of "totally free distros" instead of even distros like Fedora and Debian? Stallman played a vital early role, but no role was necessary.

If GNU never existed, we wouldn't have emacs/gcc/etc., but there are alternatives and those alternatives would have become more developed over time.[1] Linux would have used the BSD programs instead of the GNU programs or they would have written their own.

(In fact, if Linus never invented Linux, there would still be FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. These are all, as far as I know, less dependent on GNU applications (if at all) and many people in the BSD communities see the GPL as restrictive.[2])

If the FSF never was founded, we wouldn't have the GPL and we might not have gotten copyleft at all, but we would still have BSD, MIT, Apache, etc., licenses. "Free software" is an ideology that is largely dependent on Stallman, but "open source" software is inevitable because of the benefits it provides society.

-----

While one particular philosophy of freedom and computing were largely driven by rms's writings, the practical benefits of sharing source under a free license are not at all dependent on some broad philosophical goal. It's just more profitable for businesses to not have to pay for software (while at the same time not being "pirates"), to have access to the source code (for patches, even if the upstream refuses them), and so on. I find it hard to imagine a company with lots of servers like Google existing if they had to pay Windows or UNIX license fees (especially if the competitive pressure from Linux and BSD never existed). Software like Apache's httpd would have existed even if rms never wrote anything, in my opinion.

Companies don't care about the freedoms that rms cares about. They care about making money. It just so happens that you make more money in the long run[3] if you don't get forced into overly restrictive terms by a vendor who then locks you into their proprietary technology, continually increasing fees and restrictions over time. Open source software gets major contributions by people who are paid to do this by big corporations who would rather do this than pay for closed source software. It just so happens that the terms allow end users, startups, and so on to benefit from the big businesses who are ultimately acting in their own best interests. If rms had his way, this virtuous circle might not have come about because rms is very much opposed to any sort of compromise at all.[4]

Stallman is the opposite of this sort of pragmatism that is common in the "open source" world. To rms, one ought to act ethically, and anyone who does not do so is essentially evil. At one point, he said that you didn't have to make software for money, you could just be a waiter. (I can't find the source, but it stuck with me.) The implicit assumption behind this statement is that free software is inherently not profitable in the world where Internet distribution makes charging for distribution of free software impractical. In rms's mind, something like GNU would exist even if one could not make money off of it, had to get a day job, and development had to be sponsored by big not-for-profit organizations like the FSF.

It's noble to be this committed to a philosophy, but fortunately the world does not exist as the "worst case scenario" that rms prepared for. The rest of the FOSS world has largely moved beyond this mentality. Companies like IBM and Red Hat sponsor development for, and make money off of, "Linux and open source". They use those terms instead of "GNU/Linux and free software" because the latter are ideologically loaded, and hence have the potential to hurt their businesses by scaring away potential customers.[5] The people who wanted FOSS in the 1990s got creative and found ways[6] to get massive amounts of cash to sponsor their development so that they could get paid to do what they love. Apparently, you can make software without charging directly for copies.[7]

So I can see other reasons why people active in FOSS would want to not be associated with rms: his complete hostility toward "open source", major Linux distributions, the common use of the term "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", the complete lack of the ability to compromise, focus on philosophy and politics over code, etc. If people associate all of the open source movement like rms[8], it could scare away some who would otherwise contribute and help make the world a better place. The useful contributions rms made was his source code (such as GNU emacs) and he did make many useful contributions in the past, but if his ideologies scare off someone from making major source code contributions, then now he's being counterproductive. It doesn't matter how notable his name/initials are if he's making a very public mistake. In the end, all that matters in the FOSS world is the source code.

-----

[0] FOSS means "Free and Open Source Software" and is a compromise term between "free software" fanatics and those who prefer the term "open source". All three terms are largely equivalent in meaning, but have different ideologies attached.

[1] I think one of the appeals of FOSS is that there is no one leader, no one ideology, no one organization or company, and so on. There is not even just one program for any given niche, there tends to be at least two. Often the alternatives to a given program are inferior in some way, but if the major program they are alternative to never existed, they probably would have been made more capable or forked at some point. (Or another program would have been written from scratch to fill the niche.)

[2] Even the so-called "permissive" licenses are restrictive when compared to the WTFPL. :-P

[3] It's not surprising that contemporary big businesses care about profit. It is surprising that some pay attention to their long run interests! :-P

[4] If you don't believe me (and this very article that's being linked to implies the same thing), see the GPLv3 controversy and also note that the Linux kernel is still under the GPLv2.

[5] If you're making money, the term "free software" is misleading. Also, the term is not unambiguous in English: Google it and you'll find a lot of freeware. It would also be confusing for a company like Red Hat to "charge for free software". "Freedom Software" probably would have made more sense than "free software".

[6] One of the compromises they made was dropping "free software" for "open source" and rms never forgave them.

[7] The ease of distribution and copying that broadband Internet provides should encourage other industries to find ways to make money without charging for copies, as well. Music, movies, books, and so on, probably have ways to make money without the traditional "charging for copies" model. Also note that if you do not charge for individual copies of your software, making all or most of your source code available under an open source license is probably a great cost-reducing technique that just about everyone should use. Sites like reddit have source code available on Github, and they benefit from it because the value for reddit is the domain "reddit.com" and the posts located there, not the software that runs it.

[8] Very few people would want to live in as pure of a free software environment as rms does. I personally don't know how he can get any work done on a tiny netbook. I use two 1080p 24 inch monitors.

Please explain to everyone how this, http://stallman.org/amazon.html, is just instructive (useful/informational). There's plenty more.

Sorry, but I don't think you get it.

To use your car analogy. The analogy would be correct if the only way to legally service your car would be to use the dealership's mechanic. Any attempt by you to rebuild your engine or use after-market parts would be illegal. Forget about improving your car in any way. That's illegal too. No new car stereo for you unless you upgrade to a whole new car.

Most people are fine with this because they know nothing about cars, and only care if they work. You hear them saying "as long as I get to drive it, I don't care. I have better things to do than service my own car."

But the restrictions go deeper. You aren't allowed to operate the cars the way you want. It's a huge revenue stream for the car companies to place restrictions on how you use your car. Want to drive somewhere new? Apply to the company and wait for them to hear back. You're not a big customer so you speak to someone in India and the wait is 6 months. Most applications are bungled and you have to resubmit it repeatedly. Still people don't complain saying "most of the places I need to drive are allowed by the car company. Only very strange and extremist people want to drive to some place new."

Now suppose you want to lend your car to a friend. You can't, unless they pay a hefty sum to the car company for an "additional driver license." The standard license allows two adults as drivers and up to two passengers, but if you want to carry more passengers, there's a fee for that too. Some people grumble, but they've been taught since an early age that sharing your car or giving unauthorized people rides is immoral.

Lots of people don't obey these laws, and there is a huge media campaign to call them "car Pirates" and an illegal movement called "hackers" who want to fix their own cars when they break, and add new features or drive to new places. They are often sued and the media goes nuts deriding them, calling them wackos and extremists.

When the car company goes bust and most of them do, you can continue to use the car for as long as it will run, but when anything breaks, you need to scrap the car and buy a new one with a different but equally incompetent company.

This is the situation of proprietary software extended to cars.

You're right. He forgot to mention that Amazon keeps ambulances parked outside of its fulfillment centers because it's too cheap to aircondition them in the heat of the summer or allow its workers to take water breaks. Note: Employees pay for their hospitalizations from heat stroke.