
Goodbye Stallman - hymanroth
Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just couldn't read his latest post on the &#60;a href='http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html'&#62;javascript&#60;/a&#62; without getting a bit hot under the collar.<p>His  position is, in my mind, completely untenable. He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. It's not enough for him that a Google Docs javascript file be free (gratis) – he objects that the file is not easy to read and has no comments. The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. Seriously, what is this guy on?<p>I have in mind a special device for Stallman, Raymond and the other open source nutters. It consists of a big plastic bag that envelops their heads and into which is pumped the aroma of roasted coffee beans. It is required that they use this apparatus until such a time as their eyes light up and they utter the required phrase.<p>Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality. In the recent past it was easy to find some chump to lend you all the money required to buy that house/car/tv you really couldn't afford, or finance your startup based on a 10 page deck and the words “web 2.0”. But things have changed. And perhaps for the better.<p>The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. Hacker kudos doesn't pay the fucking rent. I want to know whether all the people writing iPhone or Facebook apps would have tried so hard if they knew their expected return would be exactly $0? Somehow I don't think so.<p>We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). If you use it and can afford to pay for it then why should I give it to you for free? Note: I'm not arguing against open-source, I'm arguing against working for free. If I spend a great deal of time writing a funky database application and big_multi_national dumps Oracle in favor of my code and saves itself $20million in the process, why shouldn't I get my sniff? Seriously, why not?<p>If the same code is used by some charity or someone's personal website then I'm happy to tip my hat and say 'glad to be of service', but not if they're Coca Cola, or Hertz, or... (you name it).<p>If there existed a fair and balanced why of rewarding open source developers then I believe the whole sector would explode with a level of commitment and energy that would dwarf the already impressive achievements seen by the community.<p>That time has come.<p>It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.<p>David Semeria
Milan, Italy
======
RobGR
I enjoyed reading Mr. Stallman's proposal. I support it and I would like the
abilities he mentions, to turn off and replace javascript, to be included in
Firefox.

Most of what you say is well-hashed anti-GPL stuff. A few web searches should
provide you with all of those arguments, much more carefully written, and save
you a good deal of ranting time.

Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to believe that the
copyright system promotes the economy or general society, or "the Useful Arts
and Sciences" as it is required to do by the US Constitution. Your examples of
iPhone and Facebook applications and writing a database are not very
convincing. Why should programmers everywhere be constrained from copying
something in order to subsidize the creation of iFart ? Giant multi-national
corporations use GPLd versions of Oracle competitors, even through MySQL and
Postgres and SQLite are licensed in exactly the way you object to, and somehow
the free market system still figured out how to pay programmers to work on
those projects.

------
tsally
All the people that made Fedora 9 worth $10.8 billion for free disagree with
you [1]. Just because you wont work for free doesn't mean other people wont.
It's a pretty unbelievable display of human passion and generosity. Why
criticize that?

[1]
[http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux....](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php)

------
lethain
Stallman surely realizes that minifying JavaScript is a standard process, but
it doesn't seem particularly relevant to his point. First, it not
straightforward to determine the licensing for many scripts, and second it
does not provide access to an unobfuscated copy of the source. In no way does
he ask for JavaScript to be served without minification, but rather he asks
that minified JS contain a pointer to a non-minified copy. Doing so doesn't
create an additional cost for the site owner, beyond possibly requiring an
extra step in a build script.

I think you are pushing two distinct movements into the same box: the free
software movement championed by Stallman, and the "get users first, monetize
later" euphoria of the "Web 2.0" movement. The first group is pursuing a moral
agenda; the second believes that it is a legitimate route to wealth. Much of
what you are blaming Stallman for seems better directed at the second movement
or at open source developers (who are often a very different breed than
Stallman, and who--in my experience--tend to hate the GPL as an unnecessarily
restrictive license).

I also find your example of iPhone and Facebook applications as somewhat
problematic. These platforms are ghettos where developers are dependent on the
capricious rules and regulations provided by the owners. This is hard to
ignore when you see traffic to applications dropping by a reported 50% after
the latest redesign for Facebook, and also when independent apps like
Podcaster (err, whatever the name was) barred from the AppStore because it
competed with functionality that Apple's own apps provided. Opportunity
abounds in both, but there are many many losers in both as well. The real
winner in both these situations is Apple and Facebook. Asking forgiveness from
Marx, when possible it is always best to be the landlord.

My second to last point in this unfortunately disconnected response is that
neither Stallman nor Web 2.0 have _ever_ been the "guard". Both are and have
always been fringe movements. The "guard" has always been large companies
selling software to other large companies and making tremendous sums of money
while doing so.

Finally, people do get paid for open source contributions. It isn't straight
forward, and the correlation between time spent and money returned is not
predictable in the same way it is for an hourly consultant gig, but there is
always money there for people who grasp it.

------
mcav
If nothing else, Stallman serves as a constant reminder that we should
consider the extremes -- both free, and what would happen should freedom
disappear -- in order to keep a realistic perspective.

~~~
rms
We should be happy that RMS is out there fighting the good fight. Though most
of us don't go quite as far as he does, our livelihood depends on the
availability of Free and open source software, and the ideals of the Free
Software Movement. Democratic society is built on debate. When you have people
at various extremes arguing you end up somewhere in the middle and I'm glad
RMS is there to skew the average.

------
makecheck
First...discussion thread here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500>

Second, the account you posted with has had 1 karma for 147 days. A rant
should not be the first thing that you share with this community.

~~~
trapper
Critique the argument not the person.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I agree, ad hominem -> bad form.

------
arjunnarayan
I think a really interesting proposition would be to get together and write
some GPLed javascript libraries. Things that would be immensely useful in
coding up something like Google Docs. IANAL, but we may need some modified
Affero type GPL for this. I'll leave licensing up to Stallman and Co. Then,
you'd quickly see some GPL adoption on that side.

The key is seeding the domain (in this case javascript libraries) with code so
good and tempting, people would rather give back their improvements than
rebuild the base from scratch.

------
chanux
I hope that RMS or any other Free Software advocate hasn't ever come to your
place & threatened you to develop/use free software. If you like the concept
you got that way & if you don't... you are free to go your way... It's the
freedom of choice.

And I too believe that RMS is very strict & straight on his view. But we
shouldn't worry about that. Since he is the icon that represent Software
Freedom, he being loosy will not do any good to the community.

~~~
trapper
RMS says that proprietary software is evil. He makes those developing
proprietary software feel bad for making a living. His endgame isn't about
choice to be free, it's about everyone making free software.

If he had the power, do you think he would outlaw proprietary software?

~~~
plinkplonk
"If he[Stallman] had the power, do you think he would outlaw proprietary
software?"

This kind of hypothetical question is not a valid argument.

"If you were starving to death would you become a cannibal?" Should we put you
in jail now if you answer yes?

~~~
trapper
I think it's a valid question because this is what we wants to accomplish, as
he has stated many times. He openly states proprietary software is evil, and
by association the vendors.

Chaunx said he isn't threatening. I disagree, and feel he is quite threatening
to those who don't share his world view.

------
dinkumthinkum
I understand why you're writing this but I don't think you are making much
sense. Don't get me wrong, I see how Stallman sounds utterly ridiculous. But
he is Richard Stallman. Also, you are sort of making a whiny "wah wah let's
get rid of this open source hogwash cuz I want my money wah wah wah -- but
don't think I am against open source" argument.

FSF has a particular agenda, an agenda most of us here should at least
understand. This javascript stuff does pose potential problems for complete
free software types from following their principles and using the Web. It
makes it difficult. So Stallman is proposing a means by which one can know if
a JS is GPL. Fine. I had been wondering for a couple years now why I hadn't
heard much about this issue.

If this is what put you over the edge about Stallman, then you just haven't
been paying much attention.

~~~
hymanroth
In a way you're right. But I do know what Stallman stands for and respect what
he's done. I was just hoping he would lay off the web.

The web is open, by definition. Anybody can view a javascript file in the
browser cache, and it's not hard to work out how it works even if it is
minified/obfuscated.

I just don't see the need to start blocking scripts because the developer
doesn't subscribe to his radical views.

In the unlikely event of his idea taking off, it could dampen innovation
rather than encourage it.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Well, but minified or "obfuscripted," if you like, Javascript is not really in
keeping with the views of FSF. A programmer sufficiently dedicated can work
out and deal with assembly code of a given executable. The point is that,
according to FSF, it should be utterly free.

As far as dampen innovation, eh, I doubt it. I don't think enough people will
take Stallman's view seriously for there to be any real danger here. I
certainly don't. But I understand your reservations.

------
phoreo
Free software is great. But it's okay to charge for things, too.

