
The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty - Tloewald
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-gnu-manifesto-turns-thirty?intcid=mod-latest
======
rdtsc
We've heard a lot about how inflexible or even terrible GNU/GPL is lately.
Whether you agree or not, I think it is important to remember that we would
probably be living in a very different world technology-wise if it wasn't for
GNU & GPL.

In other words, open source in general, even including popularity of other
licenses, would not have spread and become so popular if GNU and GPL wasn't
there as an extreme, far out example. For those younger here, sharing software
by big companies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc) was pretty radical and
unheard of back in the day. Now they all share so much of their code which is
great.

~~~
wz1000
Honestly, I don't understand the hate for GPL. Someone spends time and energy
making something, and releases it for _free_ , and for everyone to use. That
person has every right to decide how their software will be distributed. The
GPL only ensures that anyone who uses and modifies the software has to give
back to the community that spawned it in the first place.

~~~
davidw
> understand the hate for GPL

Here's an attempt, although before I start, I don't hate the GPL at all. I
think it's a clever hack, and a good license for some situations. Sometimes,
as a practical matter, it is annoying:

Sometimes, you work on proprietary code (as to why this is, here's one thing I
wrote a few years back: [http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-
scarcity/](http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity/) but
it's a long, involved discussion in and of itself!) and would like to
integrate some small library that would make your life easier. If you can't
use it, it's not really that big a deal, but if you can, great. Someone like
myself, who greatly enjoys open source software will also be sure to be a
'good citizen', giving back any changes to that little library, even if we're
not forced to.

But if it's GPL, you just can't use it. If this is the genuine intent of the
author, fair is fair and you move on. Sometimes though, people just slap the
GPL on stuff without particularly considering the consequences.

In some circumstances, BSD licensed code can attract more users, _because_
they are able to use it in proprietary applications. If they 'get' open
source, they'll still contribute back, causing the code to actually be more
used and useful than if it were GPL and excluded from use by a company
creating something it wants to make money with. (Ok, yes, you _can_ make money
with GPL stuff, but it's a lot more difficult than making money by simply
selling something directly, and even that is not _easy_ , as anyone who has
tried to start a software business knows).

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If they 'get' open source, they'll still contribute back, causing the code
> to actually be more used and useful than if it were GPL and excluded from
> use by a company creating something it wants to make money with.

It depends on the size of the contribution. If they only fix a small bug then
there is no real reason not to contribute the fix.

The trouble comes when a company makes any kind of nontrivial improvement at
all. In that case the proprietary version is significantly better than the BSD
licensed version and any improvements made to the BSD licensed version can
still be incorporated into the proprietary version but not vice versa, so the
proprietary version will always be better and continue to gain users at the
expense of the BSD licensed version.

Probably the most extreme example of this is iOS. Apple put a slick UI on BSD
and now it runs on a billion zero-freedom devices while BSD is slowly dying.
Compare this with Linux, which is much more popular in its own right and even
more so if you include Android, which itself is much freer than iOS in no
small part because the kernel is GPL'd.

The same thing can happen with any BSD licensed software. Anyone can do 25% of
the work to create a proprietary version which is 25% better than the original
and use it to cart off with most of the original's user base.

Ironically this is one of the things the BSD people complain about: Anyone can
take software released under a GPL-compatible version of the BSD license, make
some nontrivial improvements to it and release it under the GPL.

~~~
flomo
> Probably the most extreme example of this is iOS. Apple put a slick UI on
> BSD and now it runs on a billion zero-freedom devices while BSD is slowly
> dying.

This is a very incorrect association to make, as the existence of iOS has very
little effect on the relevance of BSD. (Besides, Netcraft confirmed *BSD was
dying long before iOS came out. :)

Sure, from the perspective of 20-30 years ago, there were dozens of
proprietary forks of BSD Unix (including NextStep), and BSD looked like a
lousy choice for open source distribution.

However that doesn't acknowledge the profound change internet distribution has
had on how developers consume open source code. There is now a massive
ecosystem of BSD/MIT/Apache licensed code and very few evil corporations
sucking it up and turning it proprietary. (Much of this 'framework' code which
was always problematic under GPL.) So we should acknowledge that BSD-style
licenses are successful in their own right, and not keep relying on outdated
FUD about Microsoft or Apple "stealing" code twenty-five years ago, because it
largely is no longer happening.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> This is a very incorrect association to make, as the existence of iOS has
> very little effect on the relevance of BSD.

Certainly Mac OS X has more relevance to the traditional BSD userbase than
iOS, but that's because iOS _preempted the existence_ of a mobile BSD
userbase. Linux has not only Android but also a slew of smaller players like
FirefoxOS and Tizen. BSD has _nothing_. It's hard to have less relevance than
non-existence.

> (Besides, Netcraft confirmed * BSD was dying long before iOS came out. :)

Of course it was -- it has been under the BSD license the whole time and
before Apple it was Sun et al as you note.

> However that doesn't acknowledge the profound change internet distribution
> has had on how developers consume open source code. There is now a massive
> ecosystem of BSD/MIT/Apache licensed code and very few evil corporations
> sucking it up and turning it proprietary.

That is almost a self-refuting statement. The primary reason to want a
permissive license over the GPL is to use the code in proprietary software. In
some cases that _does_ result in the proprietary software dominating the open
source equivalent in the market (as with OS X or Safari/Chrome), and the
remaining cases (the framework code you mentioned) are the exact use case for
the LGPL, which allows the framework to be used in proprietary software
without allowing the framework itself to be supplanted by a proprietary fork.

~~~
flomo
> iOS preempted the existence of a mobile BSD userbase

It's completely ridiculous to claim there anything like a "mobile BSD
userbase", and zero arguments beyond that were given. There's no real reason
why Android or any other mobile OS couldn't be based on a BSD. Given the IP
constraints of mobile phones, it probably would be a better choice than a
bastardized Linux.

Oh, and "*BSD is dying" is a troll. HAND.

> The primary reason to want a permissive license over the GPL is to use the
> code in proprietary software.

The facts are that other than primordial forks of BSD Unix (e.g. iOS), 99% of
the permissive ecosystem remains non-proprietary.

It's not like people are coding against "Ruby on Rails Professional" or
"Angular.js Enterprise-Edition", all of this software is open and commoditized
and free, and always will be.

> exact use case for the LGPL

I don't understand why BSD-style is much more popular than LGPL for
'frameworks'. Perhaps because it's because it's the "Lesser" GPL and the first
link on the page is "Why you shouldn't use [this]".[1]

In the software industry, the FSF actually has a lot of moral authority. My
guess is that if it doesn't look like they'll stand behind the LGPL, why
bother?

[1]
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html)

------
skywhopper
As much as RMS rubs many people the wrong way (including myself), the GNU
project has brought an amazing amount of good to the world, and done much to
enable and inspire the various other forms of open source software we enjoy
today, which in many ways has driven the development of the Internet in a
direction that would have been basically impossible without the software
foundation laid by RMS and others who took up the GPL.

I'm glad to see the New Yorker covering a massively influential, but often
invisible, force behind today's Internet.

~~~
nickysielicki
I fear that you, as well as a large portion of the HN community, are
prematurely marking GPL software and the GNU movement as an outdated idea that
has less of a place moving forward. You look at society today and say, "well,
tech has moved so much in the past 25 years, and it's far too developed to
become closed now. The point has been made."

That's bullshit.

We live in a far more closed world than we ever have before. Most people (eg:
those not on this website) use their phone as their primary computing device.
They access software primarily through closed source app stores. They give
their information to servers which are almost certainly closed source.

This industry is far too young; the war on general computing is far too
powerful, to be able to have this opinion and think it does no harm. We have
seen all the good that the GPL has done for us, and we've seen the damage that
BSD licensing can do. I'm not saying that BSD licensing doesn't have a place,
(I actually use OpenBSD on a daily basis, and I'm aware of many of the
difficulties that they face with regards to GPL'd stuff [1]), I'm only saying
that it is not superior to the GPL in all cases.

[1]:
[http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657](http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657)

~~~
skybrian
The way I think of it is that it's important to have a backup plan. Few people
are prepared to give up commercial software today, but we can support the
efforts of the activists who do try to live purely, in case we ever need it.
Releasing software under GPL-compatible licenses is a way of contributing,
even if it's not as strong support as some people would like.

------
arca_vorago
It's nice to see GNU Manifesto get some love. I have a hard time seeing the
ideals of RMS and Free software get run over in conversation so easily, even
on HN, while almost every experience I have reinforces the idea that GPLv3 is
the future.

For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV. Now I have a
TV with a quad core ARM in it but I can't put my own distro on it because even
though they are running Linux and hence GPLv2, Samsung has made recent patches
likely to brick the TV with any attempts to install your own OS...

I think too many people have bought into the idea that GPL code makes for
complicated legal issues that isn't worth the trouble, but I don't think
that's the case at all. Neither is it the case that you can't profit from GPL
code. All you have to do is provide source!

Anyway, I'm just saying I think RMS is a man ahead of his time even today, and
as corporations and governments extend their tentacles of power into the
digital world the last bastion of freedom for hackers is going to be GPLv3+
and not BSD (which enables putting users in prisons, eg Apple).

~~~
jordigh
> For example, I made a bad purchase and bought a Samsung SmartTV.

Is that one of those TVs that spy on your conversations as if 1984 were a
fucking manual to be followed?

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-
is-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/your-samsung-tv-is-spying-on-
you_n_6647762.html)

~~~
arca_vorago
Yep, one of those... which is why I wanted to put something I could control on
it, but alas I have updated too recently and am afraid of bricking a $3k tv...

~~~
mindslight
_Always_ take software ownership of your devices as soon as you buy them, so
you're well within the return period if it doesn't work out. You have a much
better opportunity to assert your modification rights during the return period
rather than having to beg the manufacturer to honor the warranty.

(I know this doesn't help you now, and your next chance is when the device is
old enough that you're comfortable losing it. I'm posting this so others don't
make the same mistake. I'd personally just forget about the computer in your
TV, and setup a proper HTPC).

~~~
arca_vorago
Thank you for this information, I wish I had thought about it in that manner
at the time of purchase, and it is something I think more modern techlectuals
should consider.

------
bcg1
Good article, fair, factual. Proper use of the word 'hacker'. Balanced with
comments from Tim O'Reilly and accurate distinction made between GPL and
BSD/MIT. Good job Maria Bustillos.

Can't believe I just wrote that about an article in The New Yorker. :)

~~~
blt
You and me both. I was prepared for an upper crusty profile making fun of his
mannerisms or idealism. Instead I got a clear, concise summary of Stallman and
the landscape of software licencing. This will be an excellent introduction
for the average person.

~~~
finnh
The New Yorker is an amazingly humane publication. Not snarky, not haughty,
not what many people (who do not read it) think it is. This piece is a
representative sample of their journalism.

The New Yorker is like Burning Man - people who've never experienced it have
strongly held, fiercely incorrect assumptions about what it is.

~~~
finnh
@matthewn (can't reply directly to you) - hah! You're right, Anthony Lane is
hilarious. And the opera reviews can be boring if you (like me) are not into
opera. But you know what I mean =)

~~~
emodendroket
I love the New Yorker, but the whole "goings on about town" section is
obviously useless if you don't live in New York.

------
rian
The GPL is a hack on copyright law.

If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. The GPL is
only as powerful as current copyright law allows it to be.

Don't hate on the GPL, it's _satire_. Hate on the last century of corporate-
lobbied legislation that has granted unprecedented levels of power to
copyright:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Major_amendments_to_federal_copyright_law).
E.g. Mickey Mouse _still_ isn't in the public domain!

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law.

Its quite possible to believe that existing copyright law represents exactly
what government should do to manage IP in that domain and _not_ believe that
the GPL represents a choice people should make about how to use the rights
provided under copyright law. (Note: I am not saying, in this post that I hold
either part of that opinion, only that it is not inconsistent.) So I disagree
with your claim "If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright
law."

Believing that government should permit something is different than supporting
the choice to actually use that permission in any particular way.

~~~
rian
It's possible but it's not logical!

If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for
authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it.
If you think the author is abusing power, then that means the current
copyright law is too broad, and if it's too broad you ultimately don't agree
with the law.

~~~
xamuel
Suppose for whatever reason (employer legal department, etc.) you can't use
GPLd sourcecode.

You'll quickly find that GPL sourcecode is not just neutral to you, it's
outright harmful. Why? Because if there's a strong project that's GPL'd, that
disincentivizes anyone from working on a less restrictive open-source version
of same. So now that funny "satire", as you put it above, is forcing you to
reinvent wheels, when you could be using that effort to further improve the
world.

~~~
nmrm2
_when you could be using that effort to further improve the world._

Except that by "improve the world", you actually mean "make a quick(er) buck
for ourselves".

By the same logic, your company charging for their software (or not open-
sourcing it) is "outright harmful" to people who want to use your company's
software to make themselves a quick buck for themselves.

Except that you can at least read and learn from the GPL code when making your
own implementation. Somehow I doubt your GPL-hostile employer is taking even
that small step toward improving the world.

------
cromulent
Every couple of years I make the same comment here: He's a curious character,
but history will treat Stallman kindly.

------
donjh
To those in Chicago, Richard Stallman will be speaking at Loyola tonight.
[http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html](http://ccug.chicago.il.us/fsm.html)

~~~
davexunit
And to those in the Boston area, RMS will be speaking at LibrePlanet at MIT on
Saturday. [http://libreplanet.org/2015](http://libreplanet.org/2015)

------
rando3826
> he found himself unable to adapt a new Xerox printer with a program he’d
> created to alert users to paper jams

And still I can't go to an average computer store, buy a printer which is
powered by free software so I could customize it like this. We have a long way
to go. First to mind: the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more
hardware.

~~~
davexunit
>the respects your freedom campaign needs to grow to more hardware.

Yes, we'd like to do that. If you know anyone producing hardware, please
encourage them to seek RYF certification.

We may not have a regular printer certified, but at least we have two 3D
printers. ;)

------
philangist
Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy) speaks about his usage of GNU/Linux -
[https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY](https://youtu.be/P_mS4CIXcLY)

~~~
AceJohnny2
> Stephen Fry (of Top Gear infamy)

As others have mentioned, I'm surprised you'd associate him with Top Gear of
all things. He's better known as the host of the british quiz/comedy show QI
(Quite Interesting) [1], and before that one half of the comedy duo behind "A
Bit of Fry and Laurie" [2], the other half better known in the US as the actor
who played Dr House. Fry also played Jeeves in a television adaptation of P.G.
Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster series, and dare I say incarnated the perfect
humble and effective butler, again alongside Laurie as Wooster. [3]

He's one of the top living british comedians, which is why him outing himself
as a geek and explaining the importance of the GPL has so much weight.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bit_of_Fry_%26_Laurie)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster)

~~~
copsarebastards
I feel like Philangist is probably showing his US roots here: the most popular
of Fry's works on this side of the pond is _Top Gear_. As an American, the
only reason I ever came across _A Bit of Fry and Laurie_ is because of a
British friend, and I hadn't heard of _QI_ or _Jeeves and Wooster_. And I've
some exposure to British culture (I've watched _Doctor Who_ , _Allo Allo_ ,
_Black Adder_ , _Black Books_ , _Orphan Black_ , _Black Mirror_ (you guys like
your black names!), _Monty Python_ , and others that don't immediately spring
to mind).

I'm somewhat surprised to find what didn't make it over to the UK from here,
though. Someone recently asked me why Americans call her "Willis" and ask what
she's talking about, for example.

------
hasenj
I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users. All
the new walled gardens wouldn't have been possible without open source.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter .. you name it.

~~~
davexunit
>I think the irony is that open source is empowering developers, not users.

And that's why copyleft is still important! We, as developers, have an
abundance of awesome free software to build applications with, but rarely do
those freedoms make it all the way to the user. Open Source gives developers
freedom. Free Software gives users freedom, too.

Consider using the (A)GPLv3 for your next project.

------
ayberkt
As a side note: it was Stallman's birthday yesterday, who turned 61 himself.

------
gerardin
Damn it is younger than me :(....

------
vezzy-fnord
_" Richard's sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of 'Thou shalt
not,' and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, 'Love your neighbor; make
value for the world. Let the people do with it what they will!'"_

Such a dud on O'Reilly's part. The analogy is totally confused from a
theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old
Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the
Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of
Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective.

~~~
dragonwriter
> in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually
> exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion

It doesn't treat them as being mutually exclusive or essentially opposed, it
treats them as different areas of potential focus within the same overarching
tradition where focus on one vs. focus on the other produces a very different
"feel" even when the overall values aren't all that different.

> and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are
> from a libertarian/anarchist perspective.

I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an
alternative to "Old Testament", but its clear from your preceding complaint
that you got the intent, which was that "Christian" here stood in for "New
Testament" and that both alternatives were, in your words, "in the Christian
religion". So your first criticism makes your second seem disingenuous, as the
two criticisms require _different_ readings of the text.

FWIW, as a lifelong Christian, I've seen this kind of "New Testament" vs. "Old
Testament" focus distinction -- one that aligns with detailed proscription
based vs. a more personal and situational approach -- made frequently by
Christians, and by Christians whose personal preference is on either side
(ones who criticize the other side of the relative focus divide for focusing
too much on the NT without critical OT context, and those who criticize others
for focusing too much on the OT without attention to how the NT should inform
the application of the OT.) So I don't think that analogy is inappropriate or
poorly chosen, even if the precise wording ("Christian" vs. "New Testament")
is less than ideal.

~~~
copsarebastards
> I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an
> alternative to "Old Testament"

On what grounds?

Neither the Old or New Testament aligns with modern Christianity particularly
well, but the New Testament definitely aligns more closely.

