| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)Posted Dec 4, 2002 20:30 UTC (Wed) by dbreakey (guest, #1381)Parent article: No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 4, 2002 20:53 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 23:37 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 5, 2002 1:01 UTC (Thu) 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 5, 2002 4:52 UTC (Thu) 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 15:59 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 16:24 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 23:05 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 18:33 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?
|
|
||||||||||||