

RMS interviewed on Radio NZ - jgamman
http://nb.inode.co.nz/articles/rmsrnz/index.html

======
jgamman
[KH] If economic gains are not guaranteed by private software rights, would
that not lead to less innovation on the part of computer companies, software
companies.

[RMS] I don't know, and I don't care.

[KH] Well, that's an interesting response. Why don't you care?

[RMS] Because I want freedom more than I want innovation.

~~~
Anon84
And this is why open source is doomed to fail in _practically_ any commercial
setting. Industry requires innovation, and paying costumers demand it.

~~~
davidw
I'm not going to hit the down arrow, but your comment needs more depth to it.
Open source is very much used in tons of commercial settings. Maybe what
you're getting at is that cutting edge stuff is likely to remain proprietary?

One of the strengths of open source is that people can pay for _innovation_ ,
not innovation + a whole heap of stuff that's not really that interesting.
With open source, you can build up a huge amount of infrastructure and
concentrate on your cutting edge secret sauce type of stuff to make money on.

Of course, RMS wouldn't be ok with that, but... well, "I don't care", to
borrow his words. I'm glad he's around to frame the conversation though, he
makes me look like a moderate.

~~~
Anon84
By _this_ I meant putting philosophy in front of practicality. 99% (or some
other arbitrary percentage) of users want just that... to use software X to do
Y. For them, software is a tool, not an end in it self. People care as much
about the source code as they do about the plans to their cars engine... they
just want it to work without giving them any problems.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
I think in many cases people just don't _know_ that they care. They don't make
the connection to more everyday objects like cars.

Cars are a good example. Lots of people can do basic maintenance on their car.
They get frustrated when they have to go to a mechanic to find out what the
"check engine" light is complaining about _this time_. They buy the Chilton's
or Haynes' car repair manuals. On the more extreme end they do a complete
engine rebuild, or even assemble a kit car from publicly available reference
designs.

Cars are getting more complex and computerized though. I hear complaints about
how much harder they are becoming to service. And the example given in the
interview of the proprietary software in engine management chips is real.
Racers will completely replace the ECU controlling fuel injection and engine
timing with one which is programmable.

My parents' generation takes for granted that they can do these things with
their cars. But with my generation we changed from the grease monkeys to the
hackers, and the freedom to tinker has to come with us. For most people a car
is just a tool to get from point A to point B. But we are all poorer when the
hobbyists and amateurs don't have the freedom to tinker with, explore, and
hack their own computers and cars.

------
parenthesis
What about the freedom of organisations and individuals to profit from their
software-writing efforts?

'Freedom is good' sounds like a tautology, but freedom to do what, or freedom
from what?

Some freedoms are a good thing for people to have, others not (e.g. freedom to
escape the law (assuming the law is good)).

For RMS, the freedom of the many to use, see, modify and distribute code
always trumps the freedom of the individual person or organisation to keep
their code secret and restricted to the end of making money for themselves.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that RMS tries to equate 'freedom' with
'the freedoms RMS is in favour of'. But there are other freedoms which one can
argue for, and which conflict with RMS's preferred freedoms. (Which he does
argue for, but my point is that there are good arguments for other views too.)

~~~
davidw
IP is basically one solution to the problem of provisioning 'public goods',
which is what software would be without artificial restrictions, as it's
definitely non rivalrous, and difficult to 'exclude'.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions>

It is, however, very much an artificial construct, created and enforced by the
government with the intention of striking a balance that benefits consumers by
encouraging producers. So, while I disagree with RMS, I don't know that I
would call intellectual property a very natural 'freedom'. More than anything,
it's a compromise that has worked reasonably well until now, with some obvious
defects (software patents).

------
sant0sk1
Anybody have audio link? I'd love to listen to this on my drive home this
evening.

~~~
schtarb
[http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20080809-0845-Richard_S...](http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20080809-0845-Richard_Stallman_Freedom.ogg)

