
Liberating software - interview with Richard Stallman - Tsiolkovsky
http://rt.com/programs/spotlight/liberating-software-richard-stallman/
======
sathishmanohar
If Richard Stallman, has changed the name of "Free Software Foundation" to
"Software Freedom Foundation", He could have saved 2 years of his lifetime,
not having to explain "free as in freedom, not free as in beer".

~~~
tikhonj
The issue isn't so much with the Foundation as with "Free Software" in
general. It wouldn't make sense to call Firefox a "Software Freedom" project,
but calling it "Free Software" does makes sense (just in too many ways at the
same time).

~~~
calcnerd256
"The Software Freedom Foundation encourages (and participates in) the creation
of Liberated Software"

------
Flimm
"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other
are people who believe software must be totally free."

Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't
understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis.

Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word
"free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is
a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews,
continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's
name itself is spreading it.

~~~
paulhauggis
"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't
understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis."

The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you
sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to
re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license).

I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people
that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate
mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an
exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly
lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.

~~~
skeptical
Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-
free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they
feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so
much inclined to pay for it.

If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to
updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it,
that is.

~~~
paulhauggis
"Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually
cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because
they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not
so much inclined to pay for it."

People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are
immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the
GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a
proprietary license.

"f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to
updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it,
that is."

As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for
free.

This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy,
and you also get to charge a monthly fee.

~~~
skeptical
Well, I don't know if you're aware of it, but you just repeated what I replied
to you with a different phrasing.

~~~
tensor
A service is completely different. For one, you are not giving out any source
code. If you do give out all your service source code under the GPL, you still
have the same problem. If a single person buys it, they can then continually
release a free version of it with the source provided.

------
soitgoes
Agreed with a lot of what he was saying about corporations controlling
government and society. SOPA seems like a good example of that.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I have to play devil's advocate here because what you said is interesting.

Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give
them real control? How so and how much?

Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the
creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to
control those agencies then who _should_ be "in control"?

If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting
control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can
and will only do good?

Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by
the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer
works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always
add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what
to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough
clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in
government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have
control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free
they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted
to.

Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of
government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies
would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to
the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.

~~~
tikhonj
For any open source project, the developer only has a final say on the _name_.
If you disagree with what somebody is doing, you are _always_ free to take the
code and change what you like. If Linux is used in the government, _the
government_ has control: if they want they could, oh, write their own access
control and security system for it. And then release it as open source. But
that's patently ridiculous, right?

The whole point of Free Software is that you are _not_ beholden to the
developer--you are always free to modify the code yourself or hire somebody
else to do it. The government could even maintain their own distro and do
everything the way they want. With proprietary software, there are two issues:
they are not allowed to modify it _legally_ and it is not practical because
you only have a binary.

In fact, the whole point of the GPL is to ensure that not only the original
developer does not have absolute control over the source, but that other
developers can't do so either.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I get that completely but one of my major points was that because people are
writing the software you'll always run into some problem. People by mature
have their views which can creep into software. They also make mistakes which
could creep in too. And even though a large community submits code to a single
project, the project's creator has final say of what makes the final version.

Now, all the points about these issues being mitigated and possibly eradicated
are totally right on. What I'm saying though is that this freedom is only
truly an advantage if you take advantage of it. Someone who uses free software
but doesn't inspect the source, modify it to their liking, and generally just
trusts it might as well have gone the proprietary route. That freedom it gives
you is essemtially useless unless you're exercising it to your advantage.
Granted, I'll give you that you can pretty much trust most major free software
but all I'm saying is that you never know, you could have a back door or
spyware in the free stuff and won't know it unless you check. Just because
it's free doesn't mean it's safe. I'm wondering how many people are using free
software to avoid these pitfalls but never look under the hood and just take
the developer's word for it that it's secure. "It's FOSS so it _must_ be
secure, right?" is how many may think.

------
pm90
There was a question in the video which i found interesting (and which i think
was not answered in the video)... if the source code of a program is publicly
available, then won't an attacker have an easy time in finding
vulnerabilities? By making only the binary available, isn't this risk being
eliminated? (I don't know much about this, so was just wondering whether there
is a good explanation for why this is true or not...)

------
skeptical
If you've seen other interviews with RMS, this is pretty much one more, a good
one to be fair.

Spoiler alert!

Best part of the interview: Journalist: Are you married? RMS: No, I'm not.
Journalist: Well, I am, I don't want to be free.

------
billpatrianakos
Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that
proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the
software. This is not true and it really depends on what "features" you are
comfortable with having in programs you buy. Stallman likes to say iTunes is a
jail but to him that feature is restrictive while to others it's simply
convenient. If I buy a copy of Windows or Office or iWork I _do_ control the
software. I'm able to control the input and output. It certainly has
limitations but depending upon what knd of user I am I may not care to extend
the application or modify it or learn how to do so. If I really wanted those
"free" abilities then I'll choose free software but Stallman assumes we all
want to be free as it relates to software. Not everyone does.

The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software
can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source
is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as
someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version.
That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place.

One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary
software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone
who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and
would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends?

In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends
up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That
turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we
have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people
who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain
ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot
at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them
because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice
everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons.
In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.

~~~
dman
You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view.
To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand
the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the
nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of
its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young
hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can
look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The
more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view
- one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used
and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that
Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend
code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and
find magical is to read and understand how it works.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with
Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks
about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we
already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be
free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what
happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of
software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too,
what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could
have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large
company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for
proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that
Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden
of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me
everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code
and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it.

On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros
frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod
my system however I want.

My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as
if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based
on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows
or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm
glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary
always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an
amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing
to their strengths in the greatest of ways.

~~~
tikhonj
I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious
perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely _isn't_ wonderful)
could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example,
at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is
subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is
open source.

Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever
the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them
to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are _infinitely_ more heavily
marketed than Linux.

Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can
do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary
software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly.

There is _nothing_ wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy
(a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the
source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in
just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac
OS on different hardware.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to
illustrate part of my point.

Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but
it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making
money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid
software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after
selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability
to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor
system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you
make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or
form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can
say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it.

I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to
distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely
undermines the developer.

I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready
for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication
of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing
people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my
software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on
board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually
turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work
gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a
viable business.

The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every
program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say,
TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that
costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.

------
kabdib
Stallman conflates "charging money" with "being evil".

Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source
code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or
releasing toy versions.

When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I
gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a
way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for
my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something
right.

Charging money isn't evil, /evil/ is evil.

~~~
skeptical
Err... no.

He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer
having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and
redistribute.

Read this on the gnu website and understand how wrong you are:
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>

When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing
free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for
putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for
one, think that's the way it should be.

In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...

~~~
billpatrianakos
Wait a minute now. Are those really a user's basic rights? Who is Stallmam to
decide for both users and developers what our rights are? If users get those
rights then developers have theirs taken from them.

This is unique to software and it isn't right. There's an underlying sense of
entitlement to this that I don't agree with. No one is entitled to the right
to modify my work and redistribute it. That completely undermines the
developer and there's no incentive for people to innovate. It's a free for all
where everyone rips everyone else off. This only works if everyone holds firm
to Stallmam's beliefs.

If we want to talk about rights and freedom, how about the right for
_everyone_ to choose. As it stands now we all can choose to make or use
software that allows us to modify, extend, or distribute or we can choose to
go proprietary. Both have their merits for both users and developers. These
aren't really rights at all. Anything that takes freedom from one group and
shifts it to another isn't freedom at all.

Stallman's entire ideology is built around a false choice. This shouldn't be
free or proprietary, it should be free _and_ proprietary.

~~~
quanticle
Stallman's ideology is actually fundamentally libertarian. The core principle
of libertarianism is, "Your rights end where mine begin." It doesn't matter if
you're a state, a corporation or another individual. Your rights end where
mine begin.

Amongst the rights granted to each individual is the right to modify the tools
that they use. You restricting my freedom to modify is as wrong (according to
Stallman) as you restricting my freedom to move about.

~~~
_dps
I think "libertarian" is close but not quite right (unless you are coming from
Chomsky's viewpoint, which is a niche within a niche, at least as far as US
libertarian thinking is concerned).

If you take libertarianism to mean "allow anything that is consensual and does
not involve externalities", then proprietary software as implemented today is
totally fine. The user consents to an agreement that amounts to "I'll give you
the output of my compiler, but I'm not going to give you the input. Also, you
have to promise not to redistribute it."

Of course, setting up the details of that arrangement for every creative work
would be a huge hassle, and copyright is an attempt (in my opinion a failed
one) to streamline it. One way to envision copyright in a libertarian
framework is a legal presupposition that when I tell you a "creative secret"
(copyrighted work), you'll keep it secret (won't redistribute) unless I give
you explicit permission (a license).

*Edit: to elaborate on why I think copyright is a failed streamlining of the above framework, I'll just give one example. If I broadcast my "creative secret" out loud (or over the EM spectrum) then I can't reasonably expect it to be secret. The people who listen to it and hear my "secret" have never formed a consensual agreement with me. Thus, copyright as it stands gets twisted into "you can't participate in public communications without promising to pretend that various things you hear are owned secrets"

------
jroseattle
> programmer-turned-philosopher Richard Stallman.

Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no
longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become
a philosopher.

RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism.
Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is
not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals
in a society.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black
boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going
into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box.

That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If
it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's
called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide
software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge
for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us
back in this scenario.

I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create --
because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself,
controlling.

~~~
quanticle
>I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create --
because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself,
controlling.

Not really. Stallman is actually making a very libertarian point when he
insists that users have the right to modify and redistribute software. He's
saying, in essence, "Your rights end, where mine begin." To Stallman, every
user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have
the right to modify and resell any other tool they use. As a software
developer, you don't have the right to take away a user's software because
they modify and resell it.

~~~
jroseattle
> To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software,
> just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use.

I guess we should then be permitted to modify and resell a book, a movie, or
anything else that's the output of one's thoughts?

If that's where the argument ended, I would simply say "well ok" and move on,
but Stallman goes beyond that. He wants to dictate what terms I would put
around any application I provide as a product, simply because it's in the
realm of software. As if software is this magical land where I have no say in
anything I produce.

Framing this industry as somehow different based on a simplistic parallel of
hard goods = soft goods is disingenuous.

