Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)
Here's an interview with Richard Stallman on ZDNet.
"I don't know what Microsoft might do in the many situations that might develop. What I can say is that Microsoft has enough cash on hand to pay 5,000 programmers to write free software for about a century. There is clearly no need for the proprietary software model."
(Log in to post comments)
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 12:49 UTC (Wed) by dr_lha (guest, #86) [Link] "What I can say is that Microsoft has enough cash on hand to pay 5,000 programmers to write free software for about a century. There is clearly no need for the proprietary software model."I think it could be argued that there's a need for proprietary software in order to raise the amount of cash that Microsoft has. Although I remain convinced that companies can profit using Free software, it's clear that they can't monopolise and make billions like MS have.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 13:30 UTC (Wed) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Sorry. I'm confused. Can somebody please explain the connection between these two statements? Microsoft has all of this money precisely because of the proprietary software model. If he's trying to make the point that Microsoft drastically overcharges for their software—fine. But how does this correlate to "… clearly no need for the proprietary software model."? Even reading the original article didn't help clear that one up. Statements like this make me want to re-examine everything he says, and I support his arguments … mostly.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 13:53 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I suspect that the problem is that Stallman is an idealist, not a realist.I agree might even agree that there is no need for proprietary software. If we shut down Microsoft and loot its bank accounts, we could pay for all the free software we need for a century, and *most* of the world would probably be happier. Unfortunately, those that wouldn't be happier are the people who are currently rich, and hence have a lot of influence over deciding what is "needed". When RMS says we don't need proprietary software, he's thinking in terms of what software does for society and what good society can do and how it can benefit, educate, illuminate, and entertain the world. However, most people don't think that way. They think how they can make money. Who cares if they already have all the money to fund everything that needs to be done for the forseeable future? If they can make more, they want to do it. It's natural. I'm not immune from this myself (although I'm not in the state of having all I need to fund everythign I need to do!). The people at Microsoft, and many other places, depende on proprietary software for their lucrative incomes. Sure, most of them could find a good living in the "free software" world, but they've *got* it made now, so why would they give that up? I'd point elsewhere. The world does not need pharmaceutical patents. Oh, many will argue against me, but we could fund all the research that we fund right now via avenues other than making pharmaceutical companies rich. And pharmaceutical patents do an awful lot of harm; they inflate drug prices tremendously, which leads to mass deaths in poor countries, and which may eventually cost the government *more* than it would have to pay to fund the research directly once the baby boomer lobby makes a medicare drug benefit a political necessity, etc. I would say that pharmaceutical patents do a lot of harm, and there are other ways to accomplish what good they do. So we don't need them, and indeed, we need not to have them! But.... pharmaceutial companies are rich, and have a lot of power, and indeed bolster everybody's mutual fund and hence the economy. Thus, politically, our leaders need the pharmaceutical companies, and therefore need drug patents, and therefore we're going to have them even though when you look at the world as a whole and the net effect on humnanity, drug patents are terrible things. Proprietary software is similar. Humanity doesn't need it, or at least so RMS would argue. But some have found it extremely convenient. Thus, for the forseeable future, we will have it-- just as we will have drug patents for the forseeable future. -Rob
Interpreting Stallman Posted Dec 4, 2002 16:37 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Stallman is smart and reasonably practical. His pronouncements seempuzzling primarily because his ethical position is unusual and hard to grasp even after he explains it. Consider an analogy between his view of proprietary software and the view that many people have of prostitution. Critics of prostitution argue that it damages society at large and the individuals that participate in it. These critics would exhort others to shun prostitution, whether or not it was illegal. Similarly, Stallman feels that proprietary software is damaging to society at large and should be shunned. In articles like the given link, he is saying that the evil of proprietary software could be avoided without seriously harming the amount of work that gets done by society. So really, there are two different classes of disagreement with him - Class I: not agreeing that proprietary software is evil in the way or to the extent that he claims, and Class II: not agreeing that free software can be economically substituted in all or most all cases (e.g. because of the extra overhead involved in other ways of collecting funds to pay programmers or other ways of protecting trade secrets embedded in the code).
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 18:01 UTC (Wed) by rkpagadala (guest, #6588) [Link] Thanks Rob for your comments.For me there are two questions. 2)What should/can I do about it?
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 21:52 UTC (Wed) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] RMS is a realist. He used to work contract developing proprietary software, in order to support developing free software. He also uses proprietary software, when needed to develop free software.I think what he fails to accept the attitude he must have, and the things he must do, to amass billions of dollars of wealth. The business credo, "Negocios son negocios," is both highly destructive, uniquely motivating, and categorically leads to poor social behavior.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 8:59 UTC (Thu) by kreutzm (subscriber, #4700) [Link] Where did you get this information from ? AFAIK he never worked on proprietary software nor does he use it.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 12, 2002 9:24 UTC (Thu) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Check here. While it doesn't actually say he worked on proprietary software, he did, as far as I know, work on closed-source, in-house software while at MIT. It was, reportedly, his experiences there and his observations on the lack of unencumbered software at the time that led him to start what is now, and may have always been, the GNU project.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 16:05 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] My understanding is that there is no connection. The answer is taken out of context. The question was "Which is more likely to happen: Free software conquers Microsoft, or Microsoft embraces free software."What RMS is saying is that abolition of software copyright won't destroy Microsoft - they still can "innovate". They don't need the proprietary software model to continue to exist. RMS is not saying that the software copyrights were not essential for Microsoft to become who they are now. The question was about the future, not about the past, and RMS gives an answer about the future.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 9, 2002 11:33 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] The problem here, as I see it, is that RMS is answering in a deliberately obscure manner, probably to promote just the kind of discussion as is now going on in this thread. While this is obviously an effective tactic, it strikes me as just a little underhanded, especially considering his proclaimed stance on such issues. I applaud him for managing to promote the discussion in the first place (good or bad, it needs to take place), but I wish he would (or perhaps could) use less devious methods. Incidentally, to me, he is subtly implying, without actually stating it outright, that Microsoft, since it now possesses so much in the way of material resources, now has a moral and/or social obligation to produce socially useful software (ie: 'free' software). Does anyone else see it this way, or am I just completely out of touch?
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 14:25 UTC (Wed) by mnummeli (guest, #8374) [Link] I think that Microsoft can ensure better publicity and still keep on with $$$$$ flooding in, if they release a Linux distribution on their own and/or release a competiting open source Unix-kernel and software related to that. Why this? For many reasons. People already know, that Microsoft has many years' experience with OS'es + other necessary software widely used. If Microsoft gives the opportunity for people to view and alter the source code under GPL-type-of licences (restoring trust in them, because then people would know they are not hiding anything like 'secure audio paths', trapdoors ...), and also offer firms the possibility to buy an advanced server with full support (like RedHat is doing right now with Linux), it would also keep them on top level of computer software business.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 15:55 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Microsoft is bound by contracts and cannot open the source code for the software without permission of the copyright holders. Even if they decide to open source e.g. Internet Explorer, they'll have to strip parts copyrighted by third parties. Netscape did it with Mozilla. Sun did it with OpenOffice.Even if the copyright on the closed source software is abolished, Microsoft may still have contractual obligations that would survive the abolition. Even if Microsoft releases some software under a free license, most of their software will remain non-free. I don't think that releasing "Microsoft UNIX" will make people trust them. I just cannot imagine Microsoft abandoning all their codebase, including MS Office and MSIE, in favor of their new free OS. Microsoft is not Apple - it's a software company, and their main asset is the existing codebase.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 3:44 UTC (Thu) by mnummeli (guest, #8374) [Link] Does Microsoft Internet Explorer have parts which havebeen copyrighted by third parties? Never heard of such before.
RTFH (read the friendly Help screen) Posted Dec 5, 2002 10:54 UTC (Thu) by Medievalist (guest, #8395) [Link] In Internet Explorer, select the "Help" menu from the top menu bar, then select "About", then look at all the pretty licensing information.For even more, move the binary to a more capable OS such as ancient, doddering Unix or fresh, half-baked linux :^) and do a "strings" command on it. Windows itself contains code from IBM, Shiva, Symantec, and many others... as well as some BSD code and implementations of reverse-engineered algorithms derived from Apple and Stac products. Microsoft pays other companies to provide things like antivirii, disk defragmentation, remote access services, etc. that they are unable to create themselves (within their artifical time constraints for release, that is). Some of these things (like the disk defragger) could easily be "unbundled", others (like Shiva's RAS) have become pretty deeply entangled in the windows code-base. --Charlie
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 6, 2002 7:36 UTC (Fri) by robot101 (subscriber, #3479) [Link] Did you ever hear of a company called Spry and their browser called Mosaic? Microsoft "Give us your browser and make it do what we want and we'll give you a cut of all the sales from it." Spry "Great!"... except MS didn't sell it... they gave it away. Sucks to be Spry... =)Like most good Microsoft software, possibly excepting Word, they didn't write it, they just bought or stole it. DOS, NT, IE, Visio and FrontPage come to mind, and I'm sure they've done the same while trying to enter the 3D graphics software market.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 18:09 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The software world owes Stallman a huge debt of gratitude.Without him, none of use would be logged into our GNU/Linux boxes that SourceForge is a good example. They shouted "OPEN SOURCE" from the roof What's next? will people use Intels closed source compiler? Will they Without the GPL (and friends), GNU/Linux is just Microsoft Windows with The world would be a *much* better place without proprietary software and A lack of patents, or as Stallman suggested elsewhere, a 3 year limit on Ciaran O'Riordan
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 18:59 UTC (Wed) by jimd (guest, #8377) [Link] Come on give me a break. Stallman is an extremely bright individual but ...so was Karl Marx, and Marxist world is an ideal world that would be nice to live in, but it ain't the real world.
Is Stallman communist?! Posted Dec 5, 2002 4:43 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] > Stallman is an extremely bright individual but... so was Karl Marx,Hmm, Marx?! Well, of course, it depends on your definition of "extremely bright". What's that? The ability to attract stupid (and, unfortunately, not only) people by loud sentenses? Then Hitler was a bright person, too. And, BTW, he came to the power in a much more legal way than all comminists did. Or a person inventing an "all-in-one" theory which nobody's managed to confirm experimentally (or rather worse - every such an attempt confirms the theory is wrong)? As a maintainer of a world-acclaimed scientific web site, I periodically get lengthy emails containing universal theories explaining everything from superconductivity to existense of God. They definitely consider themselves "extremely bright individuals". The scientific community, however, considers them... well, most of the community don't consider them at all :-). Or, maybe, a person, whose children die because they have nothing to eat while their father's spending millions of his best millioner friend Engels (a perfect example of "exploiting bourgeoisie") on publishing "Manifesto" and similar junk? It always hits me hard when I see people drawing parallels between Stallman/FSF movement and Marx/communism. Only blind can do that. Compare: * Marx's theory miserably failed on each and every attempt to practically implement it. All commununist regimes crashed (well, Cuba is the last to be afloat yet; it joined the camp one of the latest, though), leaving millions of murdered citiziens and completely destroyed economy behind them. On the contrary, GNU projects successfully flourish and gain popularity with every year. * From the very moment of creation of every communist state people were trying to escape it. They flee, they run, they swim, they fly away on every possibility. Inspite of walls, riffles, and dogs. Risking their life. Visit the Berlin Wall Museum. It will impress you. And have you heard about a _single_ occasion of somebody trying to cross the wall in the opposite direction? On the opposite, nobody forces you to switch to GNU/Linux. And once you're in, you aren't locked. Just reboot. And having the choice, the population of free software users dramatically increases with every year. * Finally - which is, in fact, the core of dissimilarities - is the freedom. The freedom of FS versus the deathly struggle of the communist ideology against each and every human right. > and Marxist world is an ideal world that would be nice to live in Oh yes. Have you _ever_ read yourself the "Manifesto" and other "theoretical" works by Marx? "Abolition of property in land", "Abolition of all rights of inheritance", "Equal obligation of all to work", "Establishment of industrial armies", children labour armies, children are taken off their parents and taken care of by the state,... Yeah, an ideal world. You know about the perfect implementations of the "nice world"? The concentration camps. For a reason, though, all who experienced the "nice world" and managed to remain alive are pretty negative about it... > but it ain't the real world. You can get quite close, though. Give up your citizenship and immigrate to Cuba. Enjoy. Evgeny
Is Stallman communist?! Posted Dec 5, 2002 6:30 UTC (Thu) by saulsnes (guest, #8387) [Link] Well, first thing about communism: A communist state never existed. Those states claiming to be communist, have nothing to do with communism as such - communism in itself does not involve supressing common citizen (that is actually straight against the original idea) and building a Berlin Wall around your country... What you're thinking of when saying communism, is Leninism and/or Stalinism.So, GNU and free software in general has a lot in common with the communist idea - that everyone is equal (in all "communist" states until now, some have been more equal than others...) and have the exact same rights. Communism does not fight democracy - just the opposite, actually. I don't know if it's because you're all American capitalists (the biggest smiley you've ever seen), but communism as such is not bad, but I'm afraid it's an utopia (not sure of the spelling), since everyone has failed to build a real communist state yet... Yours sincerely, // Simon Ask Ulsnes // Student, Denmark P.S. Hitler was very, very bright - you don't get to be dictator if you're not very, very bright!
Is Stallman communist?! Posted Dec 5, 2002 11:03 UTC (Thu) by Medievalist (guest, #8395) [Link] P.S. Hitler was very, very bright - you don't get to be dictator if you're not very, very bright!Don't be so sure! You can get to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth even if you are an incoherent moron, as our current administration amply demonstrates. They are also demonstrating how capitalists can destroy an economy every bit as effectively as communists, but that's another rant entirely.... But no, Stallman isn't a communist. I'd say he's a socialist if anything. And most definitely not a (lassez-faire) capitalist! --Charlie
Is Stallman communist?! Posted Dec 5, 2002 15:53 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] > A communist state never existed.Thanks God, not. But many came very close to it, unfortunately. > Those states claiming to be communist, have nothing to do with communism Really? And how are the common citizens supposed to be forced to go to the "industrial armies"? It is _exactly_ what communism is about. I repeat - read the original works by Marx. Don't rely upon mild interpretations your professors did. > What you're thinking of when saying communism, is Leninism and/or Stalinism. Leninism (and especially Stalinism) is an extremely soft version of the Marx's communism. During the years of Stalin's ruling, only ~ 10% of the state population were in the camps. Marx wanted _everyone_ to be in the "industrial armies". Marx wanted wives and children in common. Stalin didn't go that far. Etc. > So, GNU and free software in general has a lot in common with the ?! GNU is about _freedom_, not about equality. > (in all "communist" states until now, some have been more equal than others...) Only an idiot may believe that everyone are (or can be) equal. As in any other army, in the Marx's "industrial" armies, there must be sergants, officers, generals,... and since everyone wants to be a general (instead of working the whole day for no money at all), the generals would have to invent some ways to keep the positions for themselves. Of course, Marx understood it. You'll find in his works all the theoretical base of terror against the civil population. > Communism does not fight democracy - just the opposite, actually. I truly hope you'll understand one day how wrong you are... Or did you mean that democracy fights communism? Unfortunately, it doesn't; or does it badly... > I don't know if it's because you're all American capitalists (the The smiley not accepted. As a matter of the fact, I spent 24 years of my life in the USSR. > but communism as such is not bad, but I'm afraid it's an utopia (not sure Why don't you ask yourself - why?! Great, so there is a man who invented a theory, and everyone (and there have been a lot of efforts) trying to prove it experimentally ended up with millions of murdered innocent people who weren't asked whether they allowed the damned experimentalists to arrange the experiments on them. So how would you call this theoretist? A bright individual? Yes, he's as bright as devil is. > P.S. Hitler was very, very bright - you don't get to be dictator if Again, it depends on definition of "bright". If you wish to call _this_ "bright" - fine with me. So it's the same kind of brightness as Marx posessed. As to be _smart_ - 6 years were enough for Hitler to set the entire world against him; another 6 years - and he commited suicide. Decide for yourself... Regards, Evgeny PS. Sorry about off-topic; couldn't resist...
Commenting propriterary/free software Posted Dec 5, 2002 1:19 UTC (Thu) by msv (guest, #8380) [Link] Hello-oo!Anybody remembering we live in a market economy? The *customer* chooses what products to use, not the vendor. The russians tried it the other way around for 70 years, it didnīt turn out any good. Proprietary or free, why all this fuzz? I use what I like, if any company, ANY company, goes down the sewer because of this, well, thatīs the nature of market economy. If ANY company has a business model that doesnīt fit the customers the company will notice, a.k.a. "no money". Time will tell if the proprietary model is good or bad. Trust me on this one. regards Mikael S.
Commenting propriterary/free software Posted Dec 5, 2002 7:39 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Copyright is protected by the state. Money of taxpayers is spent to protect companies' right to hoard information.
No future without freedom! Posted Dec 5, 2002 3:41 UTC (Thu) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] Opinions are still divided, and I see people just using software because it does something they need, not because it is a good software (a software well conceived, that allow people working on it to be paid normaly, that is secure ...).Those people must take other parameters into account. To make an analogy with an economic rising topic we could speak of M. Stallman position as the application of the principles of "sustainable development" to software and information technology. The problems mentionned here are similar to the problems that lead to the concept of "sustainable development". Sustainable development comes from the evidence that poor countries can not develop if we have an unfair sharing of revenue. Preventing this development is detrimental to human rights and human progress and finaly is detrimental on the long term to those first using this way of domination of the economy. Free software comes from the evidence that knowledge and science can not develop if we have an unfair sharing of access to knowledge and information tools. Preventing this development is detrimental to human rights and human progress and finaly is detrimental on the long term to those first using this way of domination of the information.
All the wars, all the battles, have been wars and battles for freedom against domination. Today an industry that is no longer able to create added value try to steal freedom to be able to sell it back to you at the higher price. Freedom is not an utopy, it is a necessity, humanity can not evolve if it is not free. We must not forget that the freedom of the ones stops where the freedom of the other starts. The law has mostly had to decide where the border between everyone freedom is. Today the law is mistaking its target, aiming at freedom and individuals instead of taking the defense of people and knowledge. This is a reaction of threat, not a reaction of courage and wisdom. This is the start of great loss for humanity and for anyone who succumb to this facility now. I hope those fighting the wrong way won't have to regreat the loss of the highest value of mankind in the future: freedom. If you are not convinced, then I hope for myself I won't have to regreat my failure to help you today, because it is an horrible idea to imagine you would not want to be free.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 8:01 UTC (Thu) by herbalite (guest, #8390) [Link] While it reamins to be seen which path leads to success in future, there is one thingthat I want to point out. A free society is only free if a company and individuals have the right "to be proprietary". Microsoft and others choose to be proprietary. Others choose another path. But those crying out for freedom should really respect the freedom of others too, else we're talking about being phoney.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 8:36 UTC (Thu) by qazwsx (guest, #8392) [Link] The right "to be proprietaty" is a freedom of removing my freedoms of sharing, using and adapting the software. Your argument is pointless.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 8:55 UTC (Thu) by herbalite (guest, #8390) [Link] True freedom has to respect others that hold different values, that's my entire point.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 10:38 UTC (Thu) by qazwsx (guest, #8392) [Link] So, if by my personal values I decide that you should pay me a big fine, should I have the freedom to make it happen? Like you said, true freedom means that you have to respect my values, right?
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 9:28 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It's sad to see this argument on LWN. I think it was answered many times. The problem is not that the companies want to make money off the software. The problem is that they enjoy protection from the state, and that protection is called copyright. Copyright is not a natural right - it was created to boost productivity and innovation. If it doesn't work for software, then the rules should be changed.I'm not advocating opening source code for everything. If I wrote the program, it's my right to hide or even delete the source. However, those who want to get benefits from the state for being innovative should not be allowed to hide their innovations from the public.
Short, sweet, to the point... are you OK? Posted Dec 5, 2002 11:06 UTC (Thu) by Medievalist (guest, #8395) [Link] Damn, what a concise, cogent remark. I bet you never post on Slashdot.
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 5, 2002 12:37 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] What exactly is a "natural right"? Is it a natural right to restrictothers from entering your house? (what makes the house yours? did you construct it?) Is it a natural right to restrict them from wandering over your property? What about if you live on a long pleasant stretch of sea shore? Sometimes people argue that digital copyright is much less natural because the uniqueness of a copy is not limited by physics/cost, but the argument could be exactly reversed: the author of the copyrighted work added something new to the universe from nothing, so one could say that she has more natural right to restrict how it is used than someone who simply paid for a property title to something created by nature that would exist and be used by someone whether or not the author ever existed.
|
|||||||||||