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

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#281

Post by quanticle »

demallien wrote: post #273
quanticle wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software. That is entirely the point. One of the stated aims of the GPL is to ensure that everyone is capable of producing software. The GPL attempts to ensure that your software won't ever be redistributed in a form that takes away the user's capability to build on your code.

You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so. The GPL is not un unmitigated good for the vast majority of users.

You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so.

Why? If you said that, for 99% of the population of this planet, literacy is forever out of reach, you'd be rightly laughed out of the room. The increasing importance and preeminence of software in every system we interact with means that programming is a new form of literacy and numeracy.

Not only can the 99% code, but, increasingly, they must. They must, in order to assert control over the software that increasingly controls them.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#282

Post by billpatrianakos »

bad_user wrote: post #213
billpatrianakos wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microso…

It seems like everyone backing Stallman's fundamentalist stance has this either/or attitude as it applies to the free software vs. proprietary issue (which is really a false dichotomy). They may pay lip service to the idea that both have their place but continue to back the RMS extremist position.

When I say the world doesn't work like that I don't know how I could clarify. The previous sentences explain it I think. The world works like this: people pay money for goods and services. Some nice people help others and give things away free but we all need money to survive. If OS X or MS Office were GPL someone would derive a work, give it away free and we wouldn't have those companies to make nice things like our iPhones and whatnot. The free software movement has given us a ton of great things and have done their share of innovation but it's the big guys who are making money that are improving on those ideas and creating products that everyone can enjoy, not just us power users, hackers, and other technophiles.

In the end, the general tech using public just wants to surf the web, do some work, make a phone call and generally just have a product work. The restrictions put on proprietary tech (like the apple walled garden and the upcoming Windows 8 secure boot) are a small price to pay in their eyes to just be able to turn on their devices and get something done.

Let's be honest here and admit that the FSF and all it's made, while truly awesome, just isn't ready for the average user. We need the evil software companies not only to make products that are useful for everyone but to actually continue copyrighting and patenting their works because really these restrictions are what fuel innovation. I don't like the premise of the FSF. I'm on board with open source, though. I value both and in the end, while its kind of dumb when you step back and look at the big picture, both sides need each other.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#284

Post by billpatrianakos »

DanBC wrote: post #248
billpatrianakos wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you really think the parrot thing wasn't superfluous? Did he have to mention that? The whole thing with the tea was totally unnecessary. Just say "hey, if you want me come speak I'll need x, y, and z amenities". Do I care why he needs it? Very doubtful. Did he have to infuse his politics in the rider? Not really. That's just being a diva. He really thinks highly of himself.

If youre an RMS fan, that's cool but how can you honestly defend that thing. Make a list. Not everything on it needs an explanation. I wish I could put it another way but my whole argument boils down to this: "C'mon. Really? Just c'mon"

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#285

Post by nimblegorilla »

jrockway wrote: post #207
nimblegorilla wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree totally. The most frustrating part about Stallman's "free software" is that he has to control how everyone else uses it. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system.

I don't think Stallman ever said that you don't have the freedom to call Linux Linux. He's simply asking that you don't. As you can see, it's very easy to ignore his requests. That doesn't mean he should stop making them.

Stallman has never said that people can call it just Linux if they choose. My understanding is that he refuses to interact with anyone unless they agree to call it GNU Linux. Seems like a control issue to me.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#286

Post by nimblegorilla »

bad_user wrote: post #216
nimblegorilla wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree totally. The most frustrating part about Stallman's "free software" is that he has to control how everyone else uses it. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system.

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 don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young..."

You clearly don't understand what the GPL means. Nothing in the GPL lets you demand whatever the fuck you want. It is the complete opposite. The GPL only requires me to redistribute source code for any changes I make to your software.

Anyone who truly believes in the freedom of software would not try to bully the name of another project.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#287

Post by sjwright »

jrockway wrote: post #278
sjwright wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Lots of GPL-based companies, like RedHat and Best Practical, seem to be doing just fine with this.

An order of magnitude more are doing an order of mangnitude even more fine without this.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#289

Post by jrockway »

sjwright wrote: post #287
jrockway wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of GPL-based companies, like RedHat and Best Practical, seem to be doing just fine with this.

An order of magnitude more are doing an order of mangnitude even more fine without this.

By that logic, we could say, "it's a poor idea to hire sjwright, because some that didn't are making more money than the one that did."

In other words: correlation, causation, no.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#290

Post by jtheory »

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.

Yes; they are likely better candidates for commencement speakers.

I wouldn't say rms "isn't a nice person" in this context -- he's just very focused on his cause, and he doesn't take detours or "tone it down" for the sake of avoiding temporary inconvenience to others. It's rare for people to stick to their own principles so studiously (unfortunately, perhaps?), so he even goes out of his way to warn them.

It's not exactly stepping on puppies.

Post reply on HN