LWN: Comments on "Reddit interviews Richard Stallman"

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

rahulsundaram — 2010-08-03T16:36:57+00:00

You would notice that I didn't use the term pragmatist and that is for good reason. opensource.org doesn't talk about open source as a marketing term for free software anymore. ESR certainly explicitly rejected the moralising of software freedom so that is not something made up either.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

hingo — 2010-08-03T16:06:41+00:00

I am not sure it makes much sense to talk about open source ideology. Open source itself as conceived is an effort to separate the ideology from the other effects of the system.

I see we are entering into dangerous territory here, but since this is an old thread and LWN being one of the most civilized places on the web, maybe we can indulge in that...

I can of course only speak for myself, and I wasn't there when the term "open source" was invented, but to me there is an open source ideology, and it is the same as the free software ideology, approached from a different perspective perhaps. When looking at people like Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, I also don't see how one could claim they would be completely separated from ideology (or culture, credo, in any case something in this general space). From my point of view open source as a term, and the related new terminology used, is just a marketing approach to introduce FOSS to a larger audience, who don't care or understand how to talk about ethics, but do like to enjoy the resulting benefits. The benefits again derive from the sound ethical base. (Or to put it another way: The open source launch was an effort to trick more people into using free software, which is good for all of us because a larger user base benefits free software in many ways :-)

The broader point related to above: ethics is not some abstract/holy concept separated from something like "pragmatism", even if we often juxtapose them like that. With ethical arguments you usually strive towards something like long term sustainability, something "good" for everyone. Yes, a pragmatist may sometimes (or often) favor short term gains and choose "unethical" alternatives. But even so, a pragmatist is never completely opposed to the ethical alternatives. In short, choosing an ethical option cannot be completely bad for you/society, because that's the whole point of ethics.

One example would be to ask: Is it better to advocate that everyone uses fully free software stacks (gNewSense), or is it a useful to approach to help people adopt FOSS "bit-by-bit", such as running Firefox on Windows? The answer of course is "both", since both of those help people move into the direction of more software freedom, not less.

I was afraid this is going off-topic, but now I remember the parent article is a Stallman interview, so maybe we are fully on-topic :-)

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

rahulsundaram — 2010-08-03T12:21:53+00:00

I am not sure it makes much sense to talk about open source ideology. Open source itself as conceived is an effort to separate the ideology from the other effects of the system. FSF considers the moral standing of software freedom as a fundamental human right to be the whole point and the other benefits as side effects that might or might not be true for specific instances. I think this changes the fundamental view of how to interpret licenses and OSI's track record seems to confirm this. As a result of this, In Fedora, FSF's interpretation is considered to be the authoritative one and the project goes along with it with Red Hat legal's assistance as well. DFSG is a similar definition to OSI but Debian doesn't really use lawyers to assist it in the legal interpretation. It seems to be based on rough consensus and ftp masters which is a whole different ball game altogether.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

hingo — 2010-08-03T11:44:42+00:00

Ok. Thanks for the second example. So the OSD or "open source ideology" is not in itself in any way different to free software ideology (or DFSG, just to make a point) but in practice the OSI has accepted some licenses that the FSF doesn't accept.

So having learned what this is about, I now agree it is correct to say there exists open source sw that is not free software, otoh I still get the impression this can be considered a bug / mistake of the OSI, rather than intentionally wanting to have it this way.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

pebolle — 2010-07-31T14:02:38+00:00

> [...] vague means just that: it is neither free nor un-free.

Something is either a free software license or not a free software license.

A free software license is a license that meets the requirements for free software licenses.

If something is to vague to be a license it is not a free software license. If something is a license but to vague to determine whether it meets the requirements for free software licenses it's also not a free software license.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

rahulsundaram — 2010-07-31T12:08:48+00:00

No, OSI has not changed their mind. They just recommend the newer version now. That was just one example. There are others.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html

Vague essentially means that FSF doesn't consider it a Free software license and doesn't consider distributions that include software under the license to be a Free distribution. If you want more context, feel free to talk to FSF directly.

Bottom line: OSI has made a few blunders, some of which is yet to be corrected and called licenses as open source licenses and hence not all open source software is Free software.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

hingo — 2010-07-31T10:55:04+00:00

Ok so even the OSI now agrees it is a bad license, but vague means just that: it is neither free nor un-free.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

rahulsundaram — 2010-07-31T10:06:32+00:00

OSI misjudged certain licenses and classified them as open source while FSF rejected them as non-free. Not many but important enough to be aware of it. One example is the Artistic License 1

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLic...

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

hingo — 2010-07-31T06:44:35+00:00

I think all proprietary software is unethical, even if it meets the definition of open source. (Some proprietary programs do.)

I've heard this said before by him, but really: What would be an example of such software?

To me open source and free software have always been synonyms. Like saying that ice is actually frozen water. I understand that RMS can be upset that the OSI shifted focus and power from him and FSF. But how could some software really be OSD compliant and not be free software? And would such software then be DFSG compliant but not free software?

Excellent interview

coriordan — 2010-07-31T01:06:30+00:00

Excellent interview. That's the first time I've seen him give a list of books worth reading, and on other questions he went into more detail than before.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

jordigh — 2010-07-30T13:51:41+00:00

I disagree. Given the highly skewed gender distribution, and just in general, it is not wise to make sexually dubious comments that could alienate whatever scarce female members there are in free software. Being a public figure and a spokesperson aggravates the damage. Women have had to put up with this sort of stuff forever and just telling them "grow a sense of humour!" isn't going to help. You have to understand that it's the ceaseless repetition of the same tired old brayings in many forms that kills any chances of laughing about it.

But still, nice to see that rms backed down about that kid.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

stumbles — 2010-07-30T13:28:02+00:00

Ah the ruckus over the virgins comment was way blown out of proportion and people need to get a sense of humor. Besides we all know the Holy sepulcher Saint Hoot-ten-nanny of the Highest insert more religious voodoo non-sense here Church of Vim has any virgin beat.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

jordigh — 2010-07-30T13:12:48+00:00

Wow, he actually said that if he lost his temper or was harsh with that kid, that he shouldn't have. That's quite gracious of him. He doesn't often admit he did something socially wrong (e.g. he never backed down about the Emacs virgins comments). In fact, that's the first time I see him do that. Are there other instances of him apologising like that?

Other than that, it's all classic rms, freedom, freedom, freedom, etc. If nothing else, I gotta admire his consistency and overall honesty, despite OpenBSD accusing him of hypocrisy. The man really does live by what he preaches.

Reddit interviews Richard Stallman

leoc — 2010-07-29T23:21:14+00:00

And the comments on the interview reminds me once again why I pay for lwn.