Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw)
Groklaw has an
interview with Richard Stallman. "Sean Daly met up with Richard
Stallman in Brussels, where Stallman just gave a speech on the GPLv3
draft. Mr. Stallman was kind enough to do an interview for Groklaw right
afterward, which we appreciate, especially because Sean tells me rms was so
exhausted before his speech that he pushed the chair away and did it
standing up, to make sure he stayed awake."
(Log in to post comments)
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 13:53 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Mr. Stallman was kind enough to do an interview for Groklaw [snip]Having read the interview, I would not use the word "kind" to describe it. :-) Even if you think you've heard enough RMS to do you for the rest of your life, this one is worth reading for the entertainment value.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 14:26 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] It was kind of him, given how tired he was, and Sean and I appreciated it.
He was kinda coarse in the interview, but entertaining is not his job and there is some interesting ideas in that interview, so we decided it was worth transcribing and publishing.
He went on to do another interview later that night. The guy just won't stop working.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 15:54 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] > He was kinda coarse in the interview, but entertaining is not his job and there is some interesting ideas in that interview, so we decided it was worth transcribing and publishing.
Thanks for that. It was really worth to hear. It shows that what somebody could consider as "unkind" was in fact quick refusals by RMS to speculate on topics he has no information about.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 16:13 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] People are weird.
Sometimes some folks have expectations of such political niceness in their answers. Other some folks expect a lot of courseness.
For example people who have a tendancy to come from wealthier backgrounds in the US expect people to be all polite and apologetical all the time. They expect people to be carefull about avoiding misunderstandings and hurt feelings. They are just used to that because people are always nice to them. I don't know how it is other countries.
My personal opinion is leave the over-politeness and carefull speech to corporate types and polititions. I'd rather hear a person's real opinion even if it is offensive to some people.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 17:37 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I would have preferred for RMS to decline the interview because he was evidently too tired. Politeness does matter when your purpose is to persuade, and this was hardly hostile press, the interview was for Groklaw. The substance of what he said was fine, it is the standard FSF position, but the tone is barely civil. He was practically biting the guy's head off.To be fair, some of the questions the interviewer asked were already thoroughly addressed in the speech RMS had just given, so I wonder whether the interviewer missed the speech. This might have added to RMS's irritation.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 17:49 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] What I was talking about didn't nessicary having anything to do with politeness per say. More like of a perception of politeness.
I don't think he was being that rude at all, except maybe when he talked over the guy. He was being 'curt'. It's not like he was calling him names or anything like that.
Personally I find when people dance around issues in a effort not to offend anybody very offensive. I tend to say 'why doesn't the asshat just answer the stupid question or tell the other guy to F-off?' when people go on and on about stuff or try to give reasonably sounding answers to questions that obviously they have no reasonable answer for.
It's like I was saying. People have a different level of expectations. Stuff that may seem rude to you isn't even close to a issue for me.
Plus it's makes for a better interview if people can just cut through the BS.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 4, 2007 18:35 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] I have to agree, he was a little curt. But, I also have to admire his uncanny ability to refuse to answer an unclear question, or a question that has way too many assertions in it to really be called a question anymore. :) He likes to give exact answers and therefore wants an exact question. That is a pleasant rarity for someone discussing complex issues.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 5, 2007 1:57 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link] Yes but he takes it to the extreme (as most hackers). The result is that the message is lost in noise of his constant corrections, interruptions and nitpicking. The biggest impression of the reader is - "Wow this guy is rude and what was it he was saying? I don't remember."
This sticking on clear questions is programmer's disease, nothing admirable. I do it too. It does complicate conversation a lot.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 5, 2007 3:30 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well also you have to realise that 70-80% of people dont' realy care about something nearly as abstract as something like 'Freedom' or anything like that. All they care about is their day to day lives and inconvience is something that ranks higher then the desire to learn or do new things.
It's always been like that. Probably third of all people can't realy see beyond the nose on their faces. So most people are just going to tune him out immediately as soon as they start hearing about how non-free software is immoral. They just see how somebody rational could have a position like that.
Especially when people that he is addressing make livings and support their families on the very things that he is calling 'anti-social'. Nobody is going to react well to things like that. I don't give a shit how detatched or 'middle of the road' a person thinks of themselves. They are going to react negatively emotionally to something like that and they will try to rationalize those feelings, right or wrong. They have no choice, they are human.
Plus you have people talking about RMS up and down and all over the place in a very negative manner so most people who never even heard the guy speak or read anything he has said automaticly has a expectation of rudeness, unresonability, and fanaticism. It doesn't realy matter what he says or how he acts, it's always going to have people react negitively because that is how they are told they should react.
If I was faced attitudes like that and I had a very How many times do you suppose he gets faced with the same questions in a day? or a week? a month?
Don't think that I don't see how people can consider him rude. Very often they are right. Maybe they are right in this case. Maybe if I heard a audio transcript he'd come off as completely different to both sides of the opinion.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 5, 2007 3:32 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "If I was faced attitudes like that and I had a very How many times do you suppose he gets faced with the same questions in a day? or a week? a month?"
dammit I was in the middle of deleting that line when I got distracted and hit preview and forgot about it. >:|
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 6, 2007 13:11 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Well also you have to realise that 70-80% of people dont' realy care about something nearly as abstract as something like 'Freedom' or anything like that."
A lot of people who DO care about freedom simply don't recognize the things RMS and the FSF promote as freedoms, at least not in the sense of the things that they care about. Most of the things that organizations dedicated to preserving freedoms care about are things rooted in essential human rights and recognized, even in situations where they were commonly abused, for millenia.
There are also a lot of organizations that are commonly perceived as fringe groups who are devoted to freedoms that they have defined and promte, many of which the rest of the population considers anywhere between inappropriate and reprehensible.
The FSF fits somewhere in between. They have a bunch of freedoms that they have invented and claim should be recognized as essential. They have some zealous converts, who agree that those freedoms are essential and should be pursued where they don't exist. Others think the FSF's freedoms are just nice-to-haves that make nice goals, but aren't in the same class as "freedom of speech", for instance.
This would be a much more academic debate if it didn't also involve the GPL and open-source development, which a lot of people believe in without particularly buying the FSF's freedom platform. When you start involving people's livelihoods, people's intellectual products, and questions of what is "fair" and what is "free", the debate becomes emotional.
I wonder if we might see in the near future an alternative license that is as strong as the GPL, and as broadly accepted in the community, but that emphasized the code-for-code fairness model rather than the "freedom" model that made some of this debate painful. Not that we need more proliferation of licenses, but none of the ones I've seen gets that balance right...
Sean was there Posted Apr 4, 2007 18:50 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You talk about "hardly hostile press" as if Richard should be nicer to friends than with hostile press - I think the opposite makes sense. With friends, he can assume that politeness etc. are not so necessary. We wanted information, we got information. With hostile press, he has to be careful about feeding character attacks, among other things.
Sean was in the room during the talk, but he was doing the audio and video recording, so his attention could not always be on the talk. That, and the questions were prepared before the day of the talk.
Maybe the audio doesn't portray the actual atmosphere very well. Afterward, the three of us went and had a nice dinner.
It was all taken well, it was a long day Posted Apr 5, 2007 20:44 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] My personal opinion is leave the over-politeness and carefull speech to corporate types and polititions. I'd rather hear a person's real opinion even if it is offensive to some people. It's perfectly normal to politely disagree. Politeness requires treating people with basic respect, not agreeing with everything they say.
politely disagreeing Posted Apr 6, 2007 6:07 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You and I may politely disagree when discussing this story, but an interview is different. In the interview, Richard was asked for his position on various issues. The interviewer's job is to extract information from Richard. Finding something that he and the interviewer could agree on or agree to disagree on was not the purpose.
I'm sure Richard and someone could politely disagree over what blend of tea is nicer, but if the topic is specifically what is Richard's opinion, then all he can do is give it, as clearly as possible.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 15:38 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] I especially liked the part at the end about the game console.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 15:51 UTC (Wed) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I hope you mean it in the sense that RMS was right. Game consoles are taking over the function of PCs, and yet are remaining as closed as ever. The rules of the game are changing while we are concentrating only on desktops. It takes some vision to notice where this is going, and apparently RMS has it. Few people do.
I don't understand how people don't see that a game console is a regular computer - no more, no less. Being prevented from programming and tinkering with your own game console is as unacceptable as being prevented from programming your own PC.
Would you buy a PC in which you cannot upgrade the OS or install any custom software ? Oh, but the console has a shiny box and sits in the living room, so it is an entirely different thing :-)
As for poor the kids being depraved from a Wii. Surely there are still some games remaining for the PC - even Linux.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 16:01 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] I meant it in the sense that the exchange was amusing.
I don't really play that sort of game or buy that sort of console (or have kids), so I'm not
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 16:14 UTC (Wed) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was making more of a general statement :-)
Actually I own a PS2 myself and occasionally play and, to be completely honest, until today it hadn't really occured to me that I shouldn't have bought it. I mean, I knew it was proprietary and all, but I hadn't fully realised that by purchasing it I was acting against my own interests, so to speak.
So I am mostly angry at my own stupidity. RMS comes across as rude, and sometimes insincere - namely when he pretends not to understand certain questions - but he is right most of the time.
I have to admit that his position on the tivoisation of medical devices, automobiles, etc, wasn't very convincing.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 4, 2007 16:24 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] More and more, games consoles and handheld computers are taking over tasks that we currently use PCs for.
The free software movement has worked hard and won a lot of ground on ensuring software freedom for people who use PCs, but if the next generation use other devices - ones that we don't support so well, and sometimes can't support - then that could be a big failure for the free software movement.
I think this is something we have to start thinking about now.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 4, 2007 23:24 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] As a Playstation 2 owner and a rabid Free Software dork (eg. I believe in free firmware), I think I cannot agree. There has been endless hype about game systems taking on general computing tasks since about 1985, but it has essentially not ever materialized.
This may be changing with the xbox and now wii/ps3/360 generation, with the assumption of networking and the inclusion of a hard drive, but the playstation 2 is essentially useless for any purpose but running games. Even on Linux I generally play proprietary games, and have no problem with this.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 3:49 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You could be right. I'm not a market analyst.
And if you are right, then this isn't a big deal. The ethical issues of software freedom exist for PCs because they control our ability to read, write, and communicate, and they manage a lot of data that we should be able to control the privacy of. If games consoles just play games, then the ethical issues of software freedom are not so important for them.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 7:37 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I've heard somebody once say something along the lines of:
Microsoft may not realise it, the game makers and the users may not realise it, but the real difference between a PC with Windows and Xbox is that on the Xbox they have to pay Microsoft licenses for writing software for it.
Realy that's it.
Consoles nowadays are basicly the ideal PC in regards to how people like Microsoft or Sony would like to see it.
Looked down and able to use the internet for cheap delivery of subscriber content.
It's like the old AT&T stuff were AT&T wanted to restrict what sort of phone a person could buy. They wanted to make it so that a person who didn't buy a AT&T official phone could not connect it to their service. They got sued and lost and basicly that is why in the US the phone service ends as soon as it enters your house. The house wiring and phones and such are your own responsability (of course the phone company would be happy to service your house for a extra fee)
So you could use AT&T's service, but use whatever brand of phone you want.
Now it's the opposite. Microsoft and Sony control the phones. They don't realy give a shit about line as long as they control the end points. The less you spend on your internet service the more you can spend on their services and games.
Right now for the Xbox360 and the PS3 you can download game demos, do chat, rent movies/shows, and other things like that. The ideal home PC from their perspective, and as a added bonus Microsoft won't supply certain features for Xbox360, such as office productivity apps or media center. So you have to own a PC with Vista to get those features.
So on and so forth.
What would be nice to see is a specification for Free software gaming and media machine. A list of hardware specifications that are minimally needed to be compatable (basicly any hardware supported by Free software drivers). Then there is no reason why you couldn't hook that up to a TV and play games.
Pop in a DVD, it boots up a minimalist Linux environment to bootstrap a game. Play it just like a console.
There is something like that called Gamex http://www.rchoetzlein.com/gamex/GameX-home.htm
My idea wouldn't compete with Xbox360 or PS3 or anything like that. Far from it.
Just a list of hardware devices that are certified that a person can buy to build a Linux Mythtv box and boot games from live game cds.
Be combination game console, mythtv box, music jutebox and such things.
There is a similar thing called Knoppmyth reference platform.
I figure with HD televisions gaining popularity in the next couple years there is no real reason why they can't double as a computer monitor. Just makes sense to me.
As for gaming development Ogre3d is healthy and Crystalspace folks are doing very cool things with their stuff and Blender integration.
You can do things like run SPE's IDE inside Blender3D with celstart and python to make a totally integrated game development platform. It's getting quite sophisticated. Hope it keeps on maturing.
All Free software.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 13:52 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] If you can't fix the hardware, it's just not a console from a developer perspective. And if you're dealing with an array of hardware, what is the advantage of rebooting for the user?
This idea has been pushed so many many times, sometimes by idle chatter, and sometimes by fly-by-night shops, sometimes by do-gooders. It always fails.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 13:53 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] For example, early PC games were self-booting, but the market pressure to make the games cooperate with the installed operating system was too great.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 14:33 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well mostly it would be a way to deal with complex dependancies. A lot of games built on free software would end up with exceptionally complex dependancies and it would be just a easy way to deal with it.
A paticular version of python. Paticular versions cegui, paticular versions of bullet, with ogre3d 1.5.2 or something like that.
Encourage 'home brew' developement. Just for fun, you know? Nothing that is intended to dethrone Xbox or anything like that.
Linux would remove any need to 'fix' the hardware to a absolute, but it wouldn't be something that you could just by anything for. There would be certification proccess, you could by machines with the hardware or build it yourself.
Something like that.
Windows PC gaming is dying pretty well, except for smaller games and such. All the console makers have to do to kill off what is left, except for the 'hardcore' folks who like spending 2-3 thousand dollars on a PC, would be to allow keyboard and mice for games.
Sony PS3 does that, but it's to the game developers to allow their usage or not.
I think that it's a idea with merit, but the hardware support and aviability of open source 3d graphics is something that would kill it every time. Maybe things changed enough.
With PCIe 2.0 specifications they are starting to get the ability to allow VMs direct access to hardware. So you could possibly do things like 'minimize' the current distro, hand control of the 3d device to a VM, and play games in that.
Whatever.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 9:43 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I think you are missing the point. Yes, the PS2 is useful only for games, so it isn't a big threat on its own. However by purchasing it and its games we are financing the PS3.
The PS3 is useful for much more than games and is a very real threat. Connect an USB keyboard and printer, use Gmail, Google docs and spreadsheets and you have a useful home machine. Many people don't need to buy a PC anymore.
Yes, I know you can run Linux "officially" on the PS3, but without access to all the hardware, so you could never write a real game for example. So, the PS3 by actually being somewhat "freeer" than the rest of the consoles, clearly demonstrates that it is not free at all. It is Sony who decides what you can do with the PS3, not the owner of the console.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 11:03 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "However by purchasing it and its games we are financing the PS3. "
So? Presumably the people buying it WANT to support it, because they believe it represents good value as a gaming system for them. The fact that it COULD also be used as a general purpose computer seems completely irrelevant to that decision.
"The PS3 is useful for much more than games and is a very real threat."
To what is it a threat?
Yes, Sony defines what you can do with the PS3. Presumably the people buying it agre that what it is defined to do is of sufficient value to them to be worth buying. It's not an ethical question unless you buy into the FSF's somewhat unusual ethical system. If you do, you're free to factor that into your decision.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 5, 2007 11:14 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] The FSF do not want people to do what they want. They want people to do what the FSF want.
Seriously, as the FSF is so out of kilter with the beliefs of coders, corporations, and the general public, who do they represent other than themselves? Why should anyone give them the time of day, beyond the initial obstacles the FSF will put in front of people as they get untangled from them in the next few years? What distinguishes them from any other ignorable pressure group?
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 5, 2007 13:13 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Um... I'd suggest a less omniscient tone. The FSF clearly does resonate with a fair number of people. While I agree that they appear to have turned all their coders into lobbyists, to claim that they are "so out of kilter with the beliefs of coders, corporations, and the general public..." Well, I think that says more about you than it does about them.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 6, 2007 9:32 UTC (Fri) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] When RMS calls your average family and computer user "unethical" because they own a games console, then he stops speaking for them because these people obviously disagree with him.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 12, 2007 8:52 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Ah, you mean like you did to me. (*waits for the inevitable, but no less inaccurate for it, "That was different!"*)
I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what your technical problem is with the GPL3, for one thing. You didn't answer - you made some comment about me not wanting to listen, but didn't give me anything except a whole bunch of bluster to listen *to*.
And here you are, pulling the same trick again. And once again, no backup.
I respect that you have your own opinions, and I really don't care what you think of Stallman or the FSF. But I cannot respect your treatment of others exactly as you complain that "they" would treat you - the term for that is 'hypocrisy' - and it leads me to believe that you are merely spouting your own prejudices, pretending they have more importance than mere opinion does, and hoping you can shout down whoever calls you on them.
Not because I have anything to do with the FSF - I don't, and if your venality were directed at Theo de Raadt I'd be every bit as disgusted - but because your prejudices have no place in civilised discussion.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 12, 2007 8:53 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Sorry - I misread "stops speaking for them" as stops speaking to them".
Please disregard my comment, and accept my apologies.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 15, 2007 14:59 UTC (Sun) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] I said at the time that I doubt you'd listen.
The above two posts of yours are Exhibit A.
Apology accepted, though.
More evidence of FSF irrelevance Posted Apr 6, 2007 2:14 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] > who do they represent other than themselves?
Well, me, for instance.
Games consoles and the future of computers Posted Apr 5, 2007 14:05 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Maybe. But this is just "you are financing Sony, who is making the PS3", really. I do sometimes try to avoid giving money to companies who do bad things, but it is basically impossible to avoid them all. For example, in the average supermarket I do not buy bananas, because they are provided by Dole, who have a terrible track record in land mismanagement, labor abuse, etc. Here in the bay area, I find there are often non-Dole bananas available at a slightly higher price, in a special area you have to look for. But for many many years I was unaware of these issues, and did not think much about it.
Essentially I cannot avoid funding companies who do things that I wish they would not do, and so cannot self-subscribe to the idea that doing so is a misdeed, because it is unavoidable.
I do care, or did care, a good deal about the games industry. It's a creative medium that is relatively young and full of missteps and inventions. This is from a simple enjoyment perspective, an amatuer ludology perspective, with a bit of a critic mixed in. From a view of caring about this industry the (relatively) lassez-faire approach of Sony seemed like by far the lesser of a variety of evils, and bought a Playstation 2 quite deliberately to support that choice and approach, as well as for the ecosystem of creative games that I expected to occur on that platform (in which I was prooved correct).
However, as game consoles become more complex, the joy of the medium at least to me personally wanes. And yes, the console makers are continuing to engage in an obnoxiousness arms race with the pirates (who are a very real commercial force) at the expense of the users. That, combined with the Hubris says that I will not be purchasing a Playstation 3, and I am little worried that it will be a runaway success on the back of my prior payments, since it looks to be a lukewarm failure.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 4, 2007 20:09 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Would you buy a PC in which you cannot upgrade the OS or install any custom software ?"
Well, no, because running add-on software is a large part of why I from time-to-time buy computers.
But it's NOT why I buy a router or a thermostat or a DVR. I buy those things for their functions, which is pretty much what the manufacturer intended and designed them for, and I am completely comfortable buying ones that aren't modifiable. If you DO buy consumer devices so you can hack them, more power to you, but it's not a concern for the enormous majority of purchasers.
Game consoles are in between, because they ARE intended to run a range of games, which clearly are software, so they feel more like computers, and because there clearly is some demand for the ability to run games that aren't commercially available. Even so, the enormous majority of console buyers just want them to run the purchaseable games.
There's a great gulf between those who see this as an ethical issue (like it's wrong to not care) and those who do. I can understand the ethical system Stallman has constructed, but I just don't buy it.
And before you get too excited about RMS's vision, recall that only a few years ago he said in an interview that he wasn't very excited about whether the software in devices was modifiable...
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 10:01 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] There's a great gulf between those who see this as an ethical issue (like it's wrong to not care) and those who do. I can understand the ethical system Stallman has constructed, but I just don't buy it. Then you, like many other people, are voluntarily giving away your freedoms. Of course it is your choice. It may not be apparent now, but in 10 years, when it is no longer possible to develop any custom software at all without paying license to Microsoft or Sony, you might change your mind. Of course most consumers can't be expected to understand this issue. Most people don't understand the harm in software patents, for example. I am sure that if there was a vote for or against software patents, most people would vote for, and also tap themselves on the back for doing the right thing :-) One could hardly blame them. Bottom line, the majority of consumers cannot make an educated choice on this matter. So, it is an exaggeration to call them "unethical" for doing so. However if I bought a PS3 today, I would consider myself unethical. (I am not too happy about it - I was actually planning on getting one evenually) On the subject of routers, etc. I think it is important to be able to install software like OpenWRT, etc. Not only is it fun, but can be very useful as well.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 10:54 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] It may not be apparent now, but in 10 years, when it is no longer possible to develop any custom software at all without paying license to Microsoft or Sony, you might change your mind.FUD. Scaremongering at its worst.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 11:14 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Yes, because I don't consider the four freedoms defined by the FSF to be essential in the same way that most of the things we think of as human rights are essential and inalienable. I'm perfectly happy to cede them with respect to specific kinds of devices.
I don't see any likelihood that all computers will be locked to particular operating systems in the future and I believe that any attempt to do so would create a huge furor with manufacturer and consumer complaints.
At the same time, I DO expect to see certain kinds of applications require locked-down hardware and certain kinds of devices to tend toward locked-down software to support content owners' demands for control of their products. I think that if that starts getting in the way of what general users consider important, there will also be a political furor that will lead to change, but it hasn't happened yet.
Note that I don't disparage your choice to consider this an ethical issue. If you feel better for not buying non-free devices, that's great. But many of us simply do not consider that an ethical issue. Happily, we are both free to form our opinions (that IS an essential freedom).
The fact that it can be useful or fun to run new software on routers is fine, if you care. I don't care. I want my router to just work, and if it doesn't, I'll send it back.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 14:05 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I don't see any likelihood that all computers will be locked to particular operating systems in the future and I believe that any attempt to do so would create a huge furor with manufacturer and consumer complaints. I don't think general purpose consumer PCs will disappear completely either. However they will probably become largely irrelevant. If all consumers are using PlayStations and Xbox-es (not to mention cell phones) to do what they normally would be doing on a PC, normal PC will probably become rare and very expensive. It doesn't matter whether you could afford one and write software for it. Nobody is going to use that software, because you can't run it on a locked game console. See, while we are congratulating ourselves that finally we have a completely usable 100% free OS and environment, the world is moving on to somethins else, which is locked. (Now, business computers are a different story - I have no idea how things will play out there) Note that I am not talking about an "evil" plan here, but about normal market forces taking place. Of course I am not an economist or a futureteller, but I think given the current situation, this course of events is likely. So, I'd like to do what I can to prevent it. Truth be said, I think my probability of success is slim to none ... It is fairly obvious that FSF and its ideals are continuously losing mindshare and the laws, at least in the US, are going in exactly the opposite direction - DMCA, DRM, etc. The only natural outcode of such laws is severaly locked down hardware.
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 14:24 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I suspect there are a lot of people who would be perfectly happy with a game console that had a good web browser for surfing and e-mail. For them, a closed system would be fine, because they don't want to add software to it.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people buying various kinds of software to run on PCs, so I suspect there will continue to be a market for machines that run add-on software, despite some migration of limited-use customers to single-purpose devices.
Over time, of course, things change. But I think the general-purpose computer will be around for quite a while, if for no other reason than that they are used for so many specific purposes that people won't want to have separate devices for each purposes...
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 13, 2007 15:37 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] And before you get too excited about RMS's vision, recall that only a few years ago he said in an interview that he wasn't very excited about whether the software in devices was modifiable...His express justification was that such devices weren't general-purpose computers, so there would have been no practical way to take advantage of the freedom. It's only recently that this has changed. His position may have represented a lack of foresight, or simply a focus on currently relevant problems. (I don't think RMS is so much about vision anyway, more about dogged promotion of his ethical and social beliefs. Though he does have moments of vision.)
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 3:55 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Would you buy a PC in which you cannot upgrade the OS or install any custom software ?Yes - if I didn't want to upgrade the OS or install any custom software. You've just summarised rather nicely the decision people make when choosing between buying a games console or a general purpose computer. It's nothing new - people have been making that decision since the days of the Atari 2600. And yet now we're told that the actions of millions of people over the past thirty years are unethical? Give me a break... If you don't want a locked-down games console, don't buy one. And certainly don't remove that choice for other people to make in the name of "freedom".
Interview with Richard Stallman on GPLv3 and More, by Sean Daly (Groklaw) Posted Apr 5, 2007 17:26 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] pretty much.
people buying or not buying PS3's aren't going to hurt or help the free software movement any.
The way I look at it it's unethical to distribute and produce closed source software. It's unethical to produce hardware that is specificly designed to take away control from users.
I have the same attitude for things that go far beyond just computers. My automobile, for instance, pisses me off to no end on how badly many parts of it are designed. Some things like the brakes and suspension are very very good and easy to work with. Other parts like the engine electronics are just asinine. All non-standard parts, all propriatory and there is no reason for it except to milk people out of money when it comes to repair. (seriously.. people can make more money off of used cars, repair, maintanance and such things then off of selling people new cars. They are designed that way)
Now they are starting to incorporate parts that are designed, literally, to spy on their owners. Some countries this is going to be a much bigger problem then others, but it's still a problem for me.
And I get pissed off at the cable company and how they block ports and such. I don't have a choice since there are only 2 companies that offer broadband in my area and the other one is _worse_ by far. Very irritating and such.
Without Free software I'd still feel this way. I like it because it matches my personal beleifs that pre-date any sort of Linux involvement. It's what made Linux and such attractive to me.
But if people want to produce software and hardware to do that stuff, then my attitude is let them do what they want. As long as they don't try to screw me over or hurt or inhibit my own personal stuff then I don't give a crap.
If people want to volenteer to surrendor their freedom when they dont' have to, then maybe they are stupid or lazy or whatever. But it's their right to do that.
Society is defined by the rights we surrender in order to get along with people. We surrender liberty through taxes. If I don't pay they eventually will send gangs of armed men and throw me into a metal and concrete cage.
That is exactly how government works. You do what they tell you or you get your property seized and you get thrown in jail or worse.
But I don't realy have a problem paying taxes (except they are a to high and the government is wasteful).
Same thing happens when you go down to the store. You can't just piss and shit in the frozen food section or anything like that. You'll get beaten and thrown in jail for that also and have your personal property taken away.
You can't just take what you want, you just can't hurt people because they upset you.
So in order for all this stuff to work, especially with computers is that you need to have a live and let live attitude and realise that sacrifices are a way of life. You need to make them to get along with others.
Let people do what they want. You only need to worry about it when it starts interfering with your ability to do what you want. Other then that things like the PS3 or Xbox 360 is realy very harmless.
If anybody can show me a way the neighbor kid buying a Xbox360 is going to hurt my (or their's) ability to use Linux for what I like then I'd like to hear it.
Link to the mentioned talk Posted Apr 4, 2007 18:52 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The talk that RMS had just finished is this GPLv3 April 1st one. And this can be voted for on digg.
|
|||||||||||