6 ms·

If Richard really cared about FSF he would stop making such a spectacle of himself as it's easy to discredit a movement with a gibbering lunatic as its frontman

If Richard really cared about FSF he would stop making such a spectacle of himself as it's easy to discredit a movement with a gibbering lunatic as its frontman. Then again, maybe he's setting an example of how programmers should make money in a post-FSF world (writing books and doing interviews)

paulhauggis 15y ago
Programmers should make money by creating services. Since there is no source code, you don't have to worry about piracy or distribution licenses.
- simonbrown 15y ago
  Stallman disagrees. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    I think this is hilarious. Stallman would rather have you live in poverty and get donations or basically become a tech support technician than sell software for money. My problem with Stallman is that he doesn't compromise. For the same reason many people on HN hate religious right zealots, I dislike Stallman. The only people in my mind that don't compromise are dictators and I'm glad he has no power over anything that I do.
- HerraBRE 15y ago
  You're joking, right? Free Software is not about slavish compliance with licensing terms or inventing shiny new technology for technology's sake (that movement is called Open Source). Free Software is about having the freedom to control your computing environment. I believe this is really, really important because in a world increasingly shaped and even dominated by technology, people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code. Proprietary software violates this requirement, but at least you can reverse engineer it, hack it. With cloud services, even that option is removed. The user has lost all control. This is pretty obviously bad for a democratic society, but hey, it's great for tech wizards aspiring to be the next Mark Zuckeberg, so who cares about that? :-P
  - JS_startup 15y ago
    The same argument can be made for any sufficiently complicated device or technology, not just code. I suppose I could deconstruct my smart phone and reverse engineer all of its drawings, designs and schematics. Practically speaking though I am bound to its original designer's implementation. Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy.
    - angersock 15y ago
      "Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy." You have conflated so much economics and governmental policy here I don't even know where to start. We (at least Americans) live in neither a free market nor democracy, for starters.
      - JS_startup 15y ago
        The comment I was responding to is the one that brought up how FSF is beneficial for a "democratic society", not me.
    - HerraBRE 15y ago
      You are right, the same argument can be made, and often it should be made. As an example, a lot of people are pissed off that they can no longer fix their cars themselves because of black-box designs and software restrictions. The ultimate result of that sort of thing is a monopoly on repairs and upgrades, where only approved mechanics who promise to only make approved changes can do useful work. This may be good for the bottom line of the car manufacturer, who ultimately wants you to buy another car, but it is not good for society. Software is also a special case, in that it is rapidly becoming our society's primary means of communication and decision making. Some things, games and toys, don't matter really and are not a matter of great concern. But other things, operating systems and communication platforms, social networks, voting systems... it can be argued that allowing these to be closed and proprietary is something we should never accept. Also, keep in mind that Intellectual Property is not a natural right - it is an artificial construct, a monopoly granted by government to encourage innovation and for the benefit of society. If it turns out that it does the opposite, hinders innovation (patent wars, anyone?) and disempowers society (censorship on Facebook?), then it has stopped serving its purpose.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- botj 15y ago
  There's A GPL for that (pun intended ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Estragon 15y ago
He, might be crazy, but definitely not a gibbering lunatic. His position is perfectly logical, no matter how much it pisses you off/frightens you. It is the interviewer who was spouting an emotionally loaded false dichotomy, which is an effective rhetorical tactic for defending the way he's making his living and so might be a sane response, but is also nonsense.

paulhauggis 15y ago

Programmers should make money by creating services. Since there is no source code, you don't have to worry about piracy or distribution licenses.

simonbrown 15y ago
Stallman disagrees. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  I think this is hilarious. Stallman would rather have you live in poverty and get donations or basically become a tech support technician than sell software for money. My problem with Stallman is that he doesn't compromise. For the same reason many people on HN hate religious right zealots, I dislike Stallman. The only people in my mind that don't compromise are dictators and I'm glad he has no power over anything that I do.
HerraBRE 15y ago
You're joking, right? Free Software is not about slavish compliance with licensing terms or inventing shiny new technology for technology's sake (that movement is called Open Source). Free Software is about having the freedom to control your computing environment. I believe this is really, really important because in a world increasingly shaped and even dominated by technology, people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code. Proprietary software violates this requirement, but at least you can reverse engineer it, hack it. With cloud services, even that option is removed. The user has lost all control. This is pretty obviously bad for a democratic society, but hey, it's great for tech wizards aspiring to be the next Mark Zuckeberg, so who cares about that? :-P
- JS_startup 15y ago
  The same argument can be made for any sufficiently complicated device or technology, not just code. I suppose I could deconstruct my smart phone and reverse engineer all of its drawings, designs and schematics. Practically speaking though I am bound to its original designer's implementation. Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy.
  - angersock 15y ago
    "Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy." You have conflated so much economics and governmental policy here I don't even know where to start. We (at least Americans) live in neither a free market nor democracy, for starters.
    - JS_startup 15y ago
      The comment I was responding to is the one that brought up how FSF is beneficial for a "democratic society", not me.
  - HerraBRE 15y ago
    You are right, the same argument can be made, and often it should be made. As an example, a lot of people are pissed off that they can no longer fix their cars themselves because of black-box designs and software restrictions. The ultimate result of that sort of thing is a monopoly on repairs and upgrades, where only approved mechanics who promise to only make approved changes can do useful work. This may be good for the bottom line of the car manufacturer, who ultimately wants you to buy another car, but it is not good for society. Software is also a special case, in that it is rapidly becoming our society's primary means of communication and decision making. Some things, games and toys, don't matter really and are not a matter of great concern. But other things, operating systems and communication platforms, social networks, voting systems... it can be argued that allowing these to be closed and proprietary is something we should never accept. Also, keep in mind that Intellectual Property is not a natural right - it is an artificial construct, a monopoly granted by government to encourage innovation and for the benefit of society. If it turns out that it does the opposite, hinders innovation (patent wars, anyone?) and disempowers society (censorship on Facebook?), then it has stopped serving its purpose.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
botj 15y ago
There's A GPL for that (pun intended ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

Estragon 15y ago

He, might be crazy, but definitely not a gibbering lunatic. His position is perfectly logical, no matter how much it pisses you off/frightens you. It is the interviewer who was spouting an emotionally loaded false dichotomy, which is an effective rhetorical tactic for defending the way he's making his living and so might be a sane response, but is also nonsense.