

Stallman Spreading FUD about Gates & His Charity Fund - ComputerGuru
http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/

======
captain-m
I agree that Stallman's stab at the gates foundation is cheap and uncalled
for. However, if you're going to write an article accusing someone else of FUD
you'd better make sure you're not guilty of it yourself.

>"Is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it’s right to illegally obtain
copyrighted software?"

No he isn't. He's suggesting that Bill Gates should have allowed people to
share his software.

>"It’s one thing to say that Gates should never have charged for his software
and another to say that it’s OK to use it without paying."

Stallman is saying that the software should have been free as in speech, not
free as in beer. Nowhere did he imply that it's OK to use the software without
paying.

~~~
narag
FWIW, Stallman wrote long time a piece saying that it might be simpler and
braver to make dozens of copies of expensive commercial software and giving
them away on a street corner. He didn't do that and instead tried to create
alternatives. But it was some kind of "what is wronger" question.

------
jgrahamc
You think that's bad?

ESR just compared Obama to Hitler. No, I am not kidding.

<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301>

Quote: "There is a pattern in the lives of the really dangerous charismatic
tyrants that they tend to have originated on the geographical and cultural
fringes of the societies they came to dominate, outsiders seeking ultimate
insiderhood by remaking the “inside” in their own image. Hitler, the border
Austrian who ruled Germany; Napoleon, the Corsican who seized France; and
Stalin, the Georgian who tyrannized Sovet Russia. And, could it be…Obama, the
half-black kid from Hawaii?"

------
1gor
The author is clueless about RMS:

>is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it’s right to illegally obtain
copyrighted software?

Software is recored knowledge. Human progress means always building on top of
somebody's knowledge. "Ownership" of knowledge is immoral and takes away human
freedom. 'Copyrighted software' has no more rights to exist than 'copyrighted
math'.

~~~
PieSquared
I disagree. Code is more like literature than software. It is wrong to take it
without prior owner's permission.

Algorithms, and software ideas, however, are like math. So _patents_ on
software make no sense. There's a difference between code and algorithms;
algorithms shouldn't be copyrighted/patented; code, on the other hand, is the
property of whomever wrote it, and thus it may be copyrighted.

~~~
bayareaguy
_Code is more like literature than software._

What code are you talking about? All of the code I have is software.

 _It is wrong to take it without prior owner's permission._

Is that always the case? It certainly isn't always true about literature. As
an american I'm happy my country's founders didn't have to worry about getting
permission to use the ideas that went into the literature of our government.

 _Algorithms, and software ideas, however, are like math._

They aren't just "like" math, they _are_ math. They may be other things as
well.

 _Code is the property of whomever wrote it, and thus it may be copyrighted._

Not all code is or should be that way.

If you're going to compare code and literature, please keep in mind that the
early history of literature was almost entirely devoted to maintaining social
order and mundane matters of business transactions.

