11 ms·

My Talk at Microsoft

264 points by thiccly 7y ago

Crinus 7y ago
> And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not in my talk. > > Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. > > I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible. I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF mission.
  - bubblethink 7y ago
    >it is unclear what benefit there would be You can run windows software elsewhere. What more do you need ?
    - arthurcolle 7y ago
      The source code.
      - nvrspyx 7y ago
        Which you would have if it was open source. I don't understand your point.
  - wyldfire 7y ago
    I think the benefit is unclear but it's almost certainly not limited to good will. There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today (for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.
    - Crinus 7y ago
      I know one of the first things i'd do if i had the code would be to improve the practically abandoned MDIClient. The second would be to bring classic theme back :-P
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    If Windows was open sourced it'd easily reach mainstream media awareness.
- dimitar 7y ago
  Given that Windows is a considered a "service" it makes sense unless there is something to hide (some odious telemetrics, perhaps). No one is going to replace Microsoft in selling Support and Updates, unless it isn't some niche that it doesn't care about anyway, just like Oracle didn't destroy the RHEL market with their own Linux. I'm thinking it can help them win some government contracts outside the USA (by saying "you, and anyone else can see that there aren't any backdoors"). The potential open-source community can expand Windows markets the same way it did for Linux, making sure Microsoft remains relevant.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  When I asked HN about the licensing for windows.h and similar header files, there was some incredulity that MS could ever give them a permissive license (or even a slightly less restrictive one). And this was just for the public header files that define a public interface! So I think it unlikely because Windows developers aren't calling for it and Linux developers don't care about it. Sure they'll open source particularly services and applications, especially as they move to more platforms. But I doubt they'd open source Windows itself.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  I also don't think it's impossible, but I am also sure they're not going to open any significant part of Windows until they have full control of Linux in corporate environments, which is probably going to happen in less than 10 years, or a lot less should they buy a well known popular distro then turn it into Microsoft Linux.
Operyl 7y ago
> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later). Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).
- ryukafalz 7y ago
  Sure, but it should at least differentiate between GPLv3 and GPLv3 or later. The SPDX license list does this: "GPL-3.0-only" vs "GPL-3.0-or-later". GitHub does not. (Also, GitHub already does recommend licenses to some extent; there's a short list of highlighted ones in the license selection dropdown.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jedieaston 7y ago
Interestingly, this is not the first time that I've heard Microsoft talk about open-sourcing Windows [0]. The licensing behind many of the components may make it a distant pipe dream, but since they make most of their money through their applications (i.e. MSSQL runs on Linux now, the software teams all work under Azure now), I could see it happening sometime. [0]: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...
- eloisant 7y ago
  They could open source the Windows kernel, and it wouldn't change anything. Just like OSX is based on Darwin which is Open Source, and Android is based on Linux, that doesn't provide any more freedom for users or encourage interoperability.
  - badpun 7y ago
    The users could at least fix the bugs and document the APIs better (via reading the code) than it's currently done on MSDN. Sounds like free labor for Microsoft BTW.
robteix 7y ago
> There are those who think that Microsoft invited me to speak in the hope of seducing me away from the free software cause. > Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more. Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give up free software or to research him at all?
- letstrynvm 7y ago
  Because in 2019 msft finds itself making big $$$ from renting servers running Linux and associated FOSS stack.
Zhyl 7y ago
>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable. They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative. Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...
- Iv 7y ago
  I do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium. I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that. Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over. It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.
    - Iv 7y ago
yummybear 7y ago
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.
- incompatible 7y ago
  Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.
  - kuu 7y ago
    What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - badpun 7y ago
      HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.
      - PyroLagus 7y ago
        > HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF. Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.
        beatgammit 7y ago
        No, DOCs and PDFs aren't necessarily software, they can contain software, just like a webpage. And just like a webpage, Stallman can choose to use FOSS to view those files, and that software can choose to not run any scripts in those files. I'm sure he'd agree that people should also not include proprietary software in those files as well, but doing so is far less common than webpages, at least for stuff the average user is going to run into. And how many people are actually programming in HTML/CSS vs JavaScript? A proof of concept is one thing, but most users won't run into it.
nirui 7y ago
I somehow want to quote this too: > Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later). I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice. It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make wiser choice before a repository is created.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  I take issue with the "promote ... the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later)" here. The GPL is a controversial license by itself, though it's the de facto copyleft license and reasonable to promote it, but the GPLv3-vs-GPLv2 debate is alive and well and I don't want GitHub to "promote" either of them as "the best".
  - simion314 7y ago
    Were you ever affected by the GPL3 vs GPL2 license? I am just wondering who is affected(not everybody makes kernels and drivers)
    - bbq123r 7y ago
      Yes my large tech company has a blanket ban on us using GPLv3 (it's possible to get some exceptions but a pain in the arse), but no problem with GPLv2
    - mikepurvis 7y ago
      Any MacOS user who has to put up with having bash-from-2006 as the default shell has been affected by GPL2 vs GPL3.
      - zeveb 7y ago
        Correction: any MacOS user is affected by Apple's decision not to update bash.
5trokerac3 7y ago
> I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990; I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views. Why do people still prop this insufferable person up? Interacting with everyone like an angsty teen is no way for anyone who considers themself a professional to publicly talk. IMO FOSS is where it is today more despite Stallman than because of him. Being an asshole isn't necessarily a sign of being a savant. Sometimes people are just assholes. Edit: Just a reminder that, only a week ago, this man was fired for using a technology forum to defend a 74 year old man having sex with a 17 year old prostitute on pedophile island.
- typon 7y ago
  The whole phenomenon of rms worship on forums like these depresses me about the future of our industry
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Glory to the software industry!
- GoofballJones 7y ago
  He IS an insufferable prick. He's a loon. He's always been a loon and said loony things. Yes, many many many years ago he contributed a lot of things that are important to the Free Software movement, but just because he did that doesn't mean he's immune from being criticized for being a shitty person. People can still admire what he did back in the day, but you don't have to defend his views or his bullshit. Like Bobby Fischer, you can absolutely admire and study his past chess games, but he was a reprehensible human being.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  SO MUCH THIS.
Iv 7y ago
> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net). That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110
- AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
  I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something like GNU Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.
  - yebyen 7y ago
    I've been in the too-awkward position of suggesting a solution "like" one that I have made, knowing already that there is some specific reason why my solution won't ultimately be the one that is accepted. Arguing this way results in a stunted discussion, giving away the foregone conclusion that my specific solution is obviously unsuitable for some reason or other, and is therefore not worthy of our consideration at all. (But we have a lot to learn from it, and we should have this discussion before putting it aside.) It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used. I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective. Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.
  - Iv 7y ago
xiaodai 7y ago
Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities. European Union funds some software, but more should be done. The economy of free software is a classific economics problems; too many free loaders. We can't continue to rely on volunteers. The public needs to fund open-source software, just like how to we fund universities!
- simion314 7y ago
  > 99.999% the numbers are not that bad, consider someone asks me to write them a tool for them to manage their electronic store inventory, tasks etc. I am the developer the shop is the client, I get paid and they get the programs and the source code. This is what it should be and not land int he situation where you get a change later and you don't have the source code. Or someone hires me to write a program to apply a filter for an image, this program will run on my client server , because it runs on a server only my client will have the source and because the users won't run it on the browsers I do not need to send them a copy of the source. Anyway there are more jobs where you are paid to write software and the client also gets the source and does whatever he wants with the code, as long as all users that run the program can get a copy of the source then it is free software. you don't have to make the code public on Github
- syshum 7y ago
  There are plenty of people that work on OpenSource at corporations. Linux Kernel is a widely known example, but not the only one. Further, there are funding models that do not require "donations" to fund libre software, "Free" does not mean free in cost, it means freedom. Some options include 1. Paid Binary Dististrbution 2. Support Agreements 3. Priority Features 4. Customization 5. Hosting / SaaS 6. Paid documentation access 7. Donations / Tips 8. Normal Invoicing (most people forget You can invoice a company for GPL software, nothing prevents it. This is often good for Bean Counters) There are others as well
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Maximus9000 7y ago
Some clunky writing here: > it isn't totally impossible. > so we can run them without any nonfree software Edit: removed my suggestions
- midgetjones 7y ago
  > > it isn't totally impossible. > how about: "It's totally possible" That completely changes the meaning.
  - Maximus9000 7y ago
    Agreed, my suggestion might be off. Either way, he's got some clunky sentences there.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  I agree with your second suggestion (although you added an unnecessary that in there), but your first changes the meaning significantly. To my reading, “it isn’t totally impossible” signifies a thing being very to extremely difficult—perhaps close enough to impossible that the difficulty is worth recognizing as potentially insurmountable—though not entirely outside the realm of possibility. “It’s totally possible”, on the other hand, seems to indicate a thing of such negligible difficulty the obstacles are not worth mentioning.
- typon 7y ago
  Your edits fail to convey the context in which these sentences are written. Sometimes using a double negative conveys information that would be lost otherwise. In this case, the normal response to rms' suggestion would be "that's impossible!", to which he's replying that no, it isn't totally impossible.
decoyworker 7y ago
I'm usually the first to shit on Stallman but I really liked his suggestions here. But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org? https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...
- Gaelan 7y ago
  They’d have to drop the windows store, no?
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    This is a hypothetical. I realize the improbability.
    - tutfbhuf 7y ago
      If you could run a completely free (libre) windows, including all pre-installed software, subsystems ... everything, well then hypothetical yes.
- qbaqbaqba 7y ago
  Why not?
bbanyc 7y ago
He's a rape apologist and a serial sexual harasser. That matters more than anything else he's done in the past (and I'm an Emacs user). He should not be invited to speak anywhere, and discussion of anything he says or does should acknowledge his indisputable misogyny. [Side note: it feels very weird for me to be this kind of inflexible, insufferable moralist... almost Stallman-esque. I'm completely sincere about this, I just never thought I could be.]
srbby 7y ago
Linked from tfa: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html >we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?
- jraph 7y ago
  It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare. However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects. I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a feature).
  - srbby 7y ago
    Two things that come to my mind from reading your response: Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11833 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11... Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-and-your-android-green-bubbles-in-our-imessage-chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...
    - thelazydogsback 7y ago
      > ...why not PDF... Because it's pre-rendered and doesn't reflow, etc -- a very annoying format for anything other than as a target for printing.
    - jraph 7y ago
enz 7y ago
>Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. >I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible. Really? Does anyone have more info about that?
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  Depends on who you ask - if the NT kernel were to be made open-source it wouldn't impact Microsoft's sales of Windows because the kernel is useles without the userland - and the real value of Windows derives from the userland Win32 API. If they mean the entire OS - kernel, userland, shell, the bundled programs that come with it - no, that won't happen, not least because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to all of that code: any third-party licensor could put a stop to that overnight.
pon1es 7y ago
What did we trade Stallman for, hypothetical competent women?
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Can someone flag this ?
souterrain 7y ago
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.
paggle 7y ago
I hope he got paid well for that talk, it was probably his last paid speaking engagement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shmerl 7y ago
> Help fight against copyright on interfaces. MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did they ever announce the reversal of their position? To his points, I'd add: * Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards. This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before (ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)
fortran77 7y ago
> I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views. This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.
- longcommonname 7y ago
  Canceling a talk doesn't equate to changing a view.
  - qnsi 7y ago
    He had a view that going and giving a talk would be a good idea, and activists convinced him to change this view
  - fortran77 7y ago
    It means he's an easy mark, and doesn't think things through. I lost any respect I had for him after that, and so did everyone else in the circles I associate with.
    - NullPrefix 7y ago
      Why did he cancel the talk? What were the arguments?
jccc 7y ago
> I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990 Could someone illuminate what this was about?
- lemper 7y ago
  something along with objective c's frontend for gcc. https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...
sys_64738 7y ago
> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. Once that occurs then we will all trust Microsoft without reservation. Even Stallman.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
In case anyone else was wondering about when this was published, as I was, this was published on RMS's site today: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_September_2019_(Microsoft) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_Septe...
jamesgeck0 7y ago
> Help fight against copyright on interfaces. This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he talking about copyrighted APIs?
- em-bee 7y ago
  that's about APIs

264 points by thiccly 7y ago

> And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not in my talk. > > Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. > > I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible. I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.

meddlepal 7y ago
I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF mission.
- bubblethink 7y ago
  >it is unclear what benefit there would be You can run windows software elsewhere. What more do you need ?
  - arthurcolle 7y ago
    The source code.
    - nvrspyx 7y ago
      Which you would have if it was open source. I don't understand your point.
- wyldfire 7y ago
  I think the benefit is unclear but it's almost certainly not limited to good will. There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today (for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.
  - Crinus 7y ago
    I know one of the first things i'd do if i had the code would be to improve the practically abandoned MDIClient. The second would be to bring classic theme back :-P
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  If Windows was open sourced it'd easily reach mainstream media awareness.
dimitar 7y ago
Given that Windows is a considered a "service" it makes sense unless there is something to hide (some odious telemetrics, perhaps). No one is going to replace Microsoft in selling Support and Updates, unless it isn't some niche that it doesn't care about anyway, just like Oracle didn't destroy the RHEL market with their own Linux. I'm thinking it can help them win some government contracts outside the USA (by saying "you, and anyone else can see that there aren't any backdoors"). The potential open-source community can expand Windows markets the same way it did for Linux, making sure Microsoft remains relevant.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisSD 7y ago
When I asked HN about the licensing for windows.h and similar header files, there was some incredulity that MS could ever give them a permissive license (or even a slightly less restrictive one). And this was just for the public header files that define a public interface! So I think it unlikely because Windows developers aren't calling for it and Linux developers don't care about it. Sure they'll open source particularly services and applications, especially as they move to more platforms. But I doubt they'd open source Windows itself.
squarefoot 7y ago
I also don't think it's impossible, but I am also sure they're not going to open any significant part of Windows until they have full control of Linux in corporate environments, which is probably going to happen in less than 10 years, or a lot less should they buy a well known popular distro then turn it into Microsoft Linux.

Operyl 7y ago

> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later). Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).

ryukafalz 7y ago
Sure, but it should at least differentiate between GPLv3 and GPLv3 or later. The SPDX license list does this: "GPL-3.0-only" vs "GPL-3.0-or-later". GitHub does not. (Also, GitHub already does recommend licenses to some extent; there's a short list of highlighted ones in the license selection dropdown.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jedieaston 7y ago

Interestingly, this is not the first time that I've heard Microsoft talk about open-sourcing Windows [0]. The licensing behind many of the components may make it a distant pipe dream, but since they make most of their money through their applications (i.e. MSSQL runs on Linux now, the software teams all work under Azure now), I could see it happening sometime. [0]: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...

eloisant 7y ago
They could open source the Windows kernel, and it wouldn't change anything. Just like OSX is based on Darwin which is Open Source, and Android is based on Linux, that doesn't provide any more freedom for users or encourage interoperability.
- badpun 7y ago
  The users could at least fix the bugs and document the APIs better (via reading the code) than it's currently done on MSDN. Sounds like free labor for Microsoft BTW.

robteix 7y ago

> There are those who think that Microsoft invited me to speak in the hope of seducing me away from the free software cause. > Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more. Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give up free software or to research him at all?

letstrynvm 7y ago
Because in 2019 msft finds itself making big $$$ from renting servers running Linux and associated FOSS stack.

Zhyl 7y ago

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable. They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative. Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...

Iv 7y ago
I do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium. I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that. Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over. It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.
  - Iv 7y ago

yummybear 7y ago

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

incompatible 7y ago
Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.
- kuu 7y ago
  What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - badpun 7y ago
    HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.
    - PyroLagus 7y ago
      > HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF. Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.
      - beatgammit 7y ago
        No, DOCs and PDFs aren't necessarily software, they can contain software, just like a webpage. And just like a webpage, Stallman can choose to use FOSS to view those files, and that software can choose to not run any scripts in those files. I'm sure he'd agree that people should also not include proprietary software in those files as well, but doing so is far less common than webpages, at least for stuff the average user is going to run into. And how many people are actually programming in HTML/CSS vs JavaScript? A proof of concept is one thing, but most users won't run into it.

nirui 7y ago

I somehow want to quote this too: > Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later). I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice. It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make wiser choice before a repository is created.

Smithalicious 7y ago
I take issue with the "promote ... the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later)" here. The GPL is a controversial license by itself, though it's the de facto copyleft license and reasonable to promote it, but the GPLv3-vs-GPLv2 debate is alive and well and I don't want GitHub to "promote" either of them as "the best".
- simion314 7y ago
  Were you ever affected by the GPL3 vs GPL2 license? I am just wondering who is affected(not everybody makes kernels and drivers)
  - bbq123r 7y ago
    Yes my large tech company has a blanket ban on us using GPLv3 (it's possible to get some exceptions but a pain in the arse), but no problem with GPLv2
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Any MacOS user who has to put up with having bash-from-2006 as the default shell has been affected by GPL2 vs GPL3.
    - zeveb 7y ago
      Correction: any MacOS user is affected by Apple's decision not to update bash.

5trokerac3 7y ago

> I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990; I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views. Why do people still prop this insufferable person up? Interacting with everyone like an angsty teen is no way for anyone who considers themself a professional to publicly talk. IMO FOSS is where it is today more despite Stallman than because of him. Being an asshole isn't necessarily a sign of being a savant. Sometimes people are just assholes. Edit: Just a reminder that, only a week ago, this man was fired for using a technology forum to defend a 74 year old man having sex with a 17 year old prostitute on pedophile island.

typon 7y ago
The whole phenomenon of rms worship on forums like these depresses me about the future of our industry
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Glory to the software industry!
GoofballJones 7y ago
He IS an insufferable prick. He's a loon. He's always been a loon and said loony things. Yes, many many many years ago he contributed a lot of things that are important to the Free Software movement, but just because he did that doesn't mean he's immune from being criticized for being a shitty person. People can still admire what he did back in the day, but you don't have to defend his views or his bullshit. Like Bobby Fischer, you can absolutely admire and study his past chess games, but he was a reprehensible human being.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ubermonkey 7y ago
SO MUCH THIS.

Iv 7y ago

> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net). That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something like GNU Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.
- yebyen 7y ago
  I've been in the too-awkward position of suggesting a solution "like" one that I have made, knowing already that there is some specific reason why my solution won't ultimately be the one that is accepted. Arguing this way results in a stunted discussion, giving away the foregone conclusion that my specific solution is obviously unsuitable for some reason or other, and is therefore not worthy of our consideration at all. (But we have a lot to learn from it, and we should have this discussion before putting it aside.) It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used. I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective. Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.
- Iv 7y ago

xiaodai 7y ago

Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities. European Union funds some software, but more should be done. The economy of free software is a classific economics problems; too many free loaders. We can't continue to rely on volunteers. The public needs to fund open-source software, just like how to we fund universities!

simion314 7y ago
> 99.999% the numbers are not that bad, consider someone asks me to write them a tool for them to manage their electronic store inventory, tasks etc. I am the developer the shop is the client, I get paid and they get the programs and the source code. This is what it should be and not land int he situation where you get a change later and you don't have the source code. Or someone hires me to write a program to apply a filter for an image, this program will run on my client server , because it runs on a server only my client will have the source and because the users won't run it on the browsers I do not need to send them a copy of the source. Anyway there are more jobs where you are paid to write software and the client also gets the source and does whatever he wants with the code, as long as all users that run the program can get a copy of the source then it is free software. you don't have to make the code public on Github
syshum 7y ago
There are plenty of people that work on OpenSource at corporations. Linux Kernel is a widely known example, but not the only one. Further, there are funding models that do not require "donations" to fund libre software, "Free" does not mean free in cost, it means freedom. Some options include 1. Paid Binary Dististrbution 2. Support Agreements 3. Priority Features 4. Customization 5. Hosting / SaaS 6. Paid documentation access 7. Donations / Tips 8. Normal Invoicing (most people forget You can invoice a company for GPL software, nothing prevents it. This is often good for Bean Counters) There are others as well

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Maximus9000 7y ago

Some clunky writing here: > it isn't totally impossible. > so we can run them without any nonfree software Edit: removed my suggestions

midgetjones 7y ago
> > it isn't totally impossible. > how about: "It's totally possible" That completely changes the meaning.
- Maximus9000 7y ago
  Agreed, my suggestion might be off. Either way, he's got some clunky sentences there.
bobwaycott 7y ago
I agree with your second suggestion (although you added an unnecessary that in there), but your first changes the meaning significantly. To my reading, “it isn’t totally impossible” signifies a thing being very to extremely difficult—perhaps close enough to impossible that the difficulty is worth recognizing as potentially insurmountable—though not entirely outside the realm of possibility. “It’s totally possible”, on the other hand, seems to indicate a thing of such negligible difficulty the obstacles are not worth mentioning.
typon 7y ago
Your edits fail to convey the context in which these sentences are written. Sometimes using a double negative conveys information that would be lost otherwise. In this case, the normal response to rms' suggestion would be "that's impossible!", to which he's replying that no, it isn't totally impossible.

decoyworker 7y ago

I'm usually the first to shit on Stallman but I really liked his suggestions here. But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org? https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...

Gaelan 7y ago
They’d have to drop the windows store, no?
- decoyworker 7y ago
  This is a hypothetical. I realize the improbability.
  - tutfbhuf 7y ago
    If you could run a completely free (libre) windows, including all pre-installed software, subsystems ... everything, well then hypothetical yes.
qbaqbaqba 7y ago
Why not?

bbanyc 7y ago

He's a rape apologist and a serial sexual harasser. That matters more than anything else he's done in the past (and I'm an Emacs user). He should not be invited to speak anywhere, and discussion of anything he says or does should acknowledge his indisputable misogyny. [Side note: it feels very weird for me to be this kind of inflexible, insufferable moralist... almost Stallman-esque. I'm completely sincere about this, I just never thought I could be.]

srbby 7y ago

Linked from tfa: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html >we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?

jraph 7y ago
It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare. However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects. I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a feature).
- srbby 7y ago
  Two things that come to my mind from reading your response: Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11833 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11... Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-and-your-android-green-bubbles-in-our-imessage-chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...
  - thelazydogsback 7y ago
    > ...why not PDF... Because it's pre-rendered and doesn't reflow, etc -- a very annoying format for anything other than as a target for printing.
  - jraph 7y ago

enz 7y ago

>Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. >I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible. Really? Does anyone have more info about that?

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
Depends on who you ask - if the NT kernel were to be made open-source it wouldn't impact Microsoft's sales of Windows because the kernel is useles without the userland - and the real value of Windows derives from the userland Win32 API. If they mean the entire OS - kernel, userland, shell, the bundled programs that come with it - no, that won't happen, not least because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to all of that code: any third-party licensor could put a stop to that overnight.

pon1es 7y ago

What did we trade Stallman for, hypothetical competent women?

mav3rick 7y ago
Can someone flag this ?

souterrain 7y ago

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.

paggle 7y ago

I hope he got paid well for that talk, it was probably his last paid speaking engagement.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shmerl 7y ago

> Help fight against copyright on interfaces. MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did they ever announce the reversal of their position? To his points, I'd add: * Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards. This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before (ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)

fortran77 7y ago

> I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views. This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.

longcommonname 7y ago
Canceling a talk doesn't equate to changing a view.
- qnsi 7y ago
  He had a view that going and giving a talk would be a good idea, and activists convinced him to change this view
- fortran77 7y ago
  It means he's an easy mark, and doesn't think things through. I lost any respect I had for him after that, and so did everyone else in the circles I associate with.
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    Why did he cancel the talk? What were the arguments?

jccc 7y ago

> I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990 Could someone illuminate what this was about?

lemper 7y ago
something along with objective c's frontend for gcc. https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...

sys_64738 7y ago

> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL. Once that occurs then we will all trust Microsoft without reservation. Even Stallman.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

In case anyone else was wondering about when this was published, as I was, this was published on RMS's site today: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_September_2019_(Microsoft) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_Septe...

jamesgeck0 7y ago

> Help fight against copyright on interfaces. This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he talking about copyrighted APIs?

em-bee 7y ago
that's about APIs