Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2 RMS Books Hit Version 2.0

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the just-in-time-for-mother's-day dept.

Open Source 163

jrepin writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has just released in tandem the second edition of its president and founder Richard Stallman's selected essays, Free Software, Free Society, and his semi-autobiography, Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Revolution."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Free as in BSD (-1, Troll)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063606)

Because a license that ties the hands of the developer is not equal to freedom. Freedom is not freedom unless it involves both end-user AND developer.

Re:Free as in BSD (2, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063668)

It's only restricting your freedom if you want to restrict the users' freedoms. Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from. Weird, huh?

Re:Free as in BSD (4, Interesting)

McDee (105077) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063766)

And some people have this funny belief that true freedom applies to everybody. If I write code under a free license then everyone should be free to do with it as they will, no restrictions. Otherwise it isn't free: in "protection from" Vs. "freedom to" the freer one is the one with the word "free" in it. Doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063792)

You are also not free to sell yourself into slavery, but you don't complain about that lack of freedom. Your freedom as a developer only extends the where a user's freedom begins. If you want to close up source, then use your own code. Nobody is forcing the GPL on you.

Re:Free as in BSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063848)

...except for RMS, of course. You seem to be forgetting that using one of _his_ licenses requires copyright assignment to _his_ organization. Convenient.

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064048)

That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064314)

That's your choice, but I don't think that the FSF will close source on you.

I want to warn you that you are probably wasting your time, unless of course your goal was to demonstrate how unreasonable people can be.

This is like far too many arguments over what approach should be taken or what people should do for what amount to personal decisions. The people arguing against you in this thread are like little lemmings marching in lock-step to the beat of a general failed sentiment: it's never good enough for them to use what they believe in, and to not use what they don't believe in, because by God the other guy has to be converted too.

Insecure people just cannot stand the idea that others might have different needs, philosophies, tastes, and preferences and that these may lead to different decisions. They feel threatened by that, like their own preference loses legitimacy each time someone else doesn't share it. That's why I call them lemmings, for this is a rejection of individuality.

No one is going to force them to use GPL software. That isn't good enough. They don't want to use GPL software; therefore the very existence of GPL software bothers them. Other developers have decided, of their own free will, to use the GPL as a license for their software. This is software that no one has to use. The fact that someone somewhere might use it bothers them.

They can disguise their insecurity by saying "but the GPL has this-and-that" but it's all bullshit. I suspect they're trying to convince themselves that their insistence is valid and amounts to anything other than a religious intolerance. No one has to use the GPL. I personally think the GPL is a great license and maximizes everyone's freedom as much as is practical and sustainable, but let's say someone doesn't think so. Then their concerns for the GPL's impact on freedom are 100% mitigated by their total freedom to not use it. What, then, would be the complaint? What injustice has been perpetrated? Absolutely none, they just want to bitch about how terrible it is that the entire world doesn't just see everything their way.

That's what you are dealing with here. You can demonstrate how absurd it is but you are unlikely to change it.

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064370)

There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using the software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064422)

I love how you think that everything has to turn a profit. Your whole premise is false, since there are plenty of companies making millions from such software. Still, the belief that everything is made to be consumed and paid for is idiotic, especially in the world of software. Software can still be had for free, even if it is proprietary software. They call this piracy, yet no amount of DRM works and people still pay for things. I suspect that if everything was free software, your average guy would still pay for the software and the support, while large corporations would have to hire someone to maintain their stuff anyways. Software that is meant to be free should be extended to everyone, including the people who can't pay. I thought the point of markets was to meet human need, not the other way around.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064566)

The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying

Wrong. I have friend who own a company which makes money by taking GPL licensed code and adapting to a specific business needs. How is that not making money from modifying it?

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065460)

There are legitimate complaints against the GPL. The most notable one is you can't make money from modifying or using someone else's software if everyone can copy it for free. It's good for school projects and vendors who sell "support" but for actual software developers who want to make a living writing software it's not the best license to use. Does that make it less free? You make the call.

FTFY

Re:Free as in BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064318)

a) That's not true at all.
b) Even if it was true, that would only apply if you were using one of the FSF's licences, but the GP was about how no-one's forcing you to use the FSF's licences in the first place.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064122)

Somehow people have this funny belief that if you take someone else's code, you should give back to the community that you took it from.

And this is exactly what makes GPL non-free. It's a great moral to live by, and I fully support it's use, but it's not freedom. Freedom involves letting people chose for themselves.

Users, developers, and software (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064464)

Someone to whom I would give credit if I could remember his/her name suggested that the opposite of free software is enslaved software. In this view, it is the software and not the user or developer whose freedom is guaranteed by the GPL.

Pretty sure that's not what rms meant to say, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064600)

User freedom is valued more then distributor freedom with the GPL, that doesn't make it non-free any more then valuing people's freedom not to fight vs to fight in law makes us non-free.

Re:Free as in BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063670)

You just go on thinking of what's best for *you*. I'll continue thinking of what's best for many.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063752)

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Altruism can be oppressive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064038)

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Many religious fanatics use that same rational: they know what's best for everyone else.

I'm sure the two posters above this one don't see it that way.

...which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Let's say that's true - I don't think it is. That assumes the altruist has perfect knowledge.

What's the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

RMS is NOT doing what he's doing for altruistic reasons. He's doing it because Xerox pissed him off decades ago for not giving away their printer software so that he could write his little printer notification program - to tell him when jobs are done. That's all.

RMS should get the Guinness World Record for longest temper tantrum.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065480)

Actually, that's perfectly rational thinking. Evolution, the whole of biology, and even economics is based on just that notion: the fuck do I care what happens to you as long as it increases my chances of survival/my fitness/my happiness. Being altruistic is by definition a losing move in any game, which is why altruists always make sure their altruism benefits them the most.

Except that you are totally wrong [discovermagazine.com]

Re:Free as in BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063672)

STFU. Loser.

Re:Free as in BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063920)

Did you know that scientific studies prove closed-source developers have more sex than GPL developers?

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064134)

Did you know that scientific studies prove that BSDed code is closed-source. Wait no... that's not right.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Insightful)

u17 (1730558) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063680)

I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063778)

I'm tired of this sad trolling. GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL. You know what? Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

Actually some GPL types don't respect the wishes of others as well, or possibly legal obligations.

Regarding the actions by some GPL types who take dual licensed code and remove the non-GPL license in an attempt to make the code GPL only:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/9/1/153822 [kerneltrap.org]

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064624)

By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064798)

By that logic no group respects anything since you could find at least one instance where a member of a group doesn't...

No, that's a quite erroneous interpretation.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064972)

Sorry, misread. I still fail to see what the argument is. Some people do things wrongly, what is the relevance to the group?

OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature. Your license has restrictions as well, get off the ideological high-horse.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064090)

You know, that could just be because people who use the GPL can freely use any BSD code they want, but people who want to use the BSD license are blocked from using GPL code.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064634)

So whining about people exercising the particular freedom they deem so important?

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065064)

Again in English?

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065120)

Some BSD-only advocates seem to have a problem with their code being incorporated into particularly licensed (GPL) products. Their main criticism against this practice is that it prevents it's inclusion in software with more restricted licensing. I.e. they believe that the ability of being incorporated into more restrictive software is very important to this group, yet they complain when people they don't agree with do it.

Re:Free as in BSD (2, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064142)

Closed source advocates never complain about the GPL, it's only GPL advocates that complain about closed source ;)

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065676)

Not true at all [slashdot.org]

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064486)

I'm tired of this sad trolling.

Then why are you on /. ?

GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license. It's only BSD advocates that complain about the GPL.

The GPL advocates are definitely more subtle about it -- they usually don't stage frontal assaults on BSD. They don't have to. GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition. Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling. Like many "hot button" social issues, it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion, and even when you do, few minds are ever changed.

Just because you want to use other people's code without having to respect their conditions doesn't give you the grounds to demean the GPL, dude.

I believe free software (whether as in speech or beer) is a gift, and the person giving the gift has an absolute right to impose whatever conditions they want on recipients. People who can't/won't accept the conditions must decline the gift. Taking the gift and not abiding by the conditions is not a morally acceptable alternative.

I also believe that giving gifts doesn't create immunity from criticism. People who don't like the conditions attached to a gift have an absolute right to complain. If enough people agree that the conditions are unreasonable, pressure from the community may convince the giver to modify their terms. If few people agree, pressure from the community may convince the complainer to sit down and shut up.

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064718)

GPL advocates have successfully created an environment where their concept of "freedom" is widely taken to be the one and only true definition.

The definition includes the BSD license. It is even recommended in cases where broad penetration is desired. It just that the definition does not require an adaptable license.

Any attempt by BSD advocates to challenge the GPL definition of freedom is seen as trolling.

Since there isn't a "GPL definition of freedom" this isn't unreasonable. I suspect this is because the four freedoms as defined by the FSF are pretty damn reasonable, just the particular implementation with persistence is seen as a problem (even though it allows all of the freedoms as defined).

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065084)

GPL advocates never complain about the BSD license

BSD advocates are doing exactly what GPL advocates do: complaining about less-permissive licensing schemes.

GPL supporters regularly and loudly complain about less-permissive licensing schemes (see: Apple's iOS App Store, Microsoft, any other company that has not embraced the One True Way).

The attitude seems to be, "Everybody who is less permissive than us sucks because we can't use their shit, but anybody who's more permissive than us? Oh well, thanks for the code, LOL!" I have no sympathy for GPL advocates on this score, and it's not trolling. If the end-user's freedom is what the GPL is all about, shouldn't GPL advocates be criticizing BSD and other permissive licenses for not defending the same freedoms they criticize closed source software for not defending?

I'd think that GPL advocates, given their stated ideals of preserving "user freedom" as a valuable societal resource, would stick to their stated principles in all cases, but it seems like they're willing to throw out the whole "end-user freedom" thing as long as they can still see the source code and use it.

Re:Free as in BSD (4, Insightful)

tchernobog (752560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063732)

Troll. If you think that a license does not suit you, do not use it, use another one. Nobody is taking away your freedom as a developer to choose the license you prefer, or to write your own implementation. But as a developer myself, I don't see why you should benefit from my code, my hard work and my creativeness, close-source it, and invest maybe some marketing resources in it to drive me out of the market.

Fantasy? No. Personal experience. A loss of several thousands of euro from my part. So, keep your BSD license, I'll keep my GPL, thanks.

Re:Free as in BSD (0, Troll)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064156)

Okay, that's fine – don't give your code away for free, use the GPL... But don't claim you're protecting freedom when you're doing it.

Re:Free as in BSD (2)

Pav (4298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064804)

He's protecting the freedom of the software... that's why it's called free SOFTWARE.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063806)

The idea behind the GPL is to utilize the standard copyright practice where any derivative works are subject to the same copyright restrictions imposed by the creator. By having the requirement be that the source code remain available, the project is guaranteed to remain free as long as any interest in the project is retained, and regardless of who continues the project.

With BSD, the source code remains free only as long as interest in the source code itself is retained. If interest in the source code dies out and the project is distributed only in binary form for a while, it may become impossible to obtain the source code at a later time, and future developers would no longer have the freedom to make changes to it as readily.

Re:Free as in BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063818)

I think RMS would say that wanting the freedom to offer others the opportunity to waive their freedoms is antisocial.

Re:Free as in BSD (1)

Lundse (1036754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063822)

Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.

Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.

Re:Free as in BSD (3, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064174)

You're 100 percent right, of course, but because people would rather reflexively defend what they already believe in -- which is their beloved, but restrictive GPL -- you will be attacked. It's not trolling (as you're currently modded as I write this) to say that the GPL has the effect of forcing everyone else to behave with code as the license's authors want. The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code. The fact that the "free software" advocates can't understand that they are trying to control others is one of the supreme ironies in IT today.

Save 10 percent? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063624)

What's up with that? You'd think the text would be available free online.

Re:Save 10 percent? (3, Informative)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063644)

It is, actually. In a freedom-respectin' PDF form too!

The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063700)

The PDF's don't seem free, merely anonymous cash is OK so we won't do kindle.

From TFA:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK (2)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063740)

No, they are really free as in free beer out there. Just Google it. The first result of 'Free as in Freedom 2.0 PDF' is the download from the FSF. So go download it.

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063894)

No, they are really free as in free beer out there. Just Google it. The first result of 'Free as in Freedom 2.0 PDF' is the download from the FSF. So go download it.

That's good. Another commenter was kind enough to provide links: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2135728&cid=36063704 [slashdot.org]

The FSF seems to be obfuscating the fact that free versions are available. ;-)

Re:The PDF's don't seem free, merely cash is OK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064016)

The purchase page (http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/) contains direct links to both PDF files, so I don't think they're trying to hide it per sé (if so, why provide the links right on the same page as the order button), just badly designed.

Re:Save 10 percent? (2)

Adayse (1983650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063790)

Yes me too. I thought that it would be free online. I guess he is just making a point and maybe expecting $ to boot. I'm a little curious what RMS thinks about IP in general and his place in the world but not buy his book curious.

Hm... (2)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063630)

The Prophet (the Source Be with Him) is needing some benjamins?

Re:Hm... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063674)

I think it's more along the lines of he's getting tired of nobody listening to him any more. Of course you can hardly fault people for that, he hasn't said anything worth listening to in almost a decade or more. If the best that Stallman can do to try and remain relevant is continue to whine about people not calling it "GNU/Linux" then he should probably put his fat, smelly self out to pasture.

Re:Hm... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063908)

I thought his work on the GPL V3, his statements against software patents, and his concerns about non GPL Java VMs and .Net were within the last 10 years and pretty spot on. His recent concerns about cell-phone tracking seemed prescient, too.

Re:Hm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063846)

It's sad that he's spent the last five years cooped up in a house filled with trash and Pepsi bottles, growing his beard and watching TV obsessively while occasionally dispatching words of wisdom to his followers.

Wait - maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Where are the free PDF versions? (1, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063638)

Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (5, Informative)

wondershit (1231886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063704)

Here [fsf.org] and here [gnu.org] .

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063860)

Here [fsf.org] and here [gnu.org] .

Good. The main pages didn't seem to mention these free version. They seemed to obfuscate the issue with the free to anonymously pay cash comment:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065198)

Right, because prior to digital media there was a rich tradition of giving copies of books to people (and if we are reading as aggressively as you want to, the 'lend' in the next bit takes care of the fact that libraries generally lend out books for free).

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063928)

Where are the free PDF versions? Aren't these books open? ;-)

So, what you're asking is basically: "Where's all the free beer?"

I agree. The thought has crossed my mind many a time; Some of us are less picky than others...

Sure, It's awesome when something is free as "in freedom",
but even more so when it's also free as "in beer".

I frequently enjoy the freedoms of free software, but where's all the beer it has been in?
HELLO! The beer is still drinkable! Just because it's got a bit of FLOSS in it
doesn't mean all of us would turn our nose up at it... so wasteful.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064230)

well, doesn't matter if it's harry potter 9, it's going to be available online if someone likes it.

but this is a plea for money, they need/want people to order the book for cash, for show of support and all that. i mean, they have a wholesalers contact on that page. when the fuck did fsf start doing wholesale discounts and review copies and signing tour agenting for rms? i mean, you get volume discounts from MS. so what the fuck guys, what the fuck? punch back to 1996 or so and I'm using linux because can't justify the cash for expensive computer that would get dated fast.. but eh, 2011 now and rms done nothing but spammed for the past 20 years. and I end up using windows. because I like programs to be programs and shit to work - and all the good OSS stuff is available on windows and a lot of the shit too.

I mean even bill gates did more personal work that I enjoyed for free and I didn't get his book because it seemed stupid, by someone who's already checked out of the game. it's 2011 and rms done nothing for past 20 years so uh oh, not getting this one. get quoted often enough and I'll read it for free and MAYBE buy it.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064416)

I love the trolling, keep it up.
But you didn't mention Apple or Steve Jobs nearly as much as you should have. ;)

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064358)

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms. They tell you when and where you can drink it. If the distributor goes belly up or stops making the beer, you don't know how to make it yourself and lose it forever . . . so wasteful. So this free beer is fine and all, but where is the freedom? I think that's the point. Free as in beer is a preferable short term solution. But RMS was looking in the long run, and in the long run, he has been right every goddam time.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064540)

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms. They tell you when and where you can drink it. If the distributor goes belly up or stops making the beer, you don't know how to make it yourself and lose it forever . . . so wasteful. So this free beer is fine and all, but where is the freedom? I think that's the point. Free as in beer is a preferable short term solution. But RMS was looking in the long run, and in the long run, he has been right every goddam time.

Just an interesting note: I'm a coder and home-brewer... I work on open source software and share beer recipes with my friends at the local beer-club... People bring odd beers as well as their own creations, we taste them, many are good, others end up in the swill bucket. Fortunately my local home-brew supply store sponsors the meeting place for us (at their store), and there is always another beer-club to join, free beer to drink, and recipes to be had. (It's essential to keep a detailed log so that if the beer turns out well received, it can be reproduced).

Like software, beer takes resources to make. It takes a rare individual to freely share the product of their hard work, but the rewards and camaraderie are more than payment enough for some... donations are always appreciated as well (in both camps).

You see: Free as in beer means something WAY different to me than all you other small minded folk who know nothing of beer -- I make beer. Free as in beer to me means free to SHARE it. I can take just about any of the free beer I get at a beer club, culture its yeast strain & use the ingredient list to create more of the same.... So, it's really a failure in the saying... It should be "Free as in Lunch"? -- no... because I'm also a good cook, and can reproduce foods by taste and by recipe..... What about free as in promotional? (that's more like it)

(From your comments I take it you drink the crappy store bought mass produced beer that tastes like water? If not, check your local brew club for some of the best beer in town).

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064908)

Yes, but the beer is only drinkable on the distributor's terms.

Surely you meant: Yes, but the beer is only distributable if you print the recipe on the bottle.

Re:Where are the free PDF versions? (1)

gerddie (173963) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065382)

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software [gnu.org] - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Books come with LaTex files? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065498)

Of course you know that the FSF has no problem with selling software [gnu.org] - it is all about "free as in speech" and not about "free as in beer".

Of course. I just thought it was amusing that they were not prominently displaying where to find the free PDFs as they want software publishers to prominently display where to find the source code. I guess to carry the joke further I should ask if the books code with a CD with the LaTex files? ;-)

Diff (1)

Meneth (872868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063854)

I'd like a textual diff between the first and second editions. Any ideas on how to get/make them?

YES! (1, Insightful)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36063870)

Enough with the natty penguins and the wishy-washy "open source" pragmatism. We want the angry, righteous, jealous old testament god of Free Software.

Special offer, order today! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063914)

And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.

A charitable contribution would be better ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063972)

Special offer, order today! And receive a free BAR OF SOAP.

Actually a charitable contribution would be better. Order today and we will donate a bar of soap to a hacker in your name.

Re:A charitable contribution would be better ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065130)

At an average of one shower a month, your donation could make a huge difference in the the life of a sweaty neckbeard. A single bar of soap is so little for us, but means so much to the hacker that receives it.

Won't you please make a donation today?

Call now, operators are standing by.

When does his book in support of child rape hit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36063954)

http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) [stallman.org] "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children

Free Software, Free Society was an excellent book (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064028)

I'm wondering what the second edition adds or modifies. It would be hard to top the first one for incisiveness and succinctness.

And, as I've pointed out earlier... Much as I'd rather live in a country with a constitution than without one, so I'd rather release my works under the GPL than not. The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.

Network effects are the single most important factor in the economics of software development. A proprietary program that garners the time and attention of the world encourages the creation of other programs compatible with it, and not a free alternative, even if the proprietary program stemmed from that free alternative. Software is rendered obsolete by no longer functionally participating in the networked ecosystem of software. My 'free' program licensed under an excessively permissive license can be rendered useless by the existence of a proprietary program that was ultimately derived from the free program.

My continued freedom as a developer requires that I choose a license like the GPL.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064260)

The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom.

Right, it's much better for those other people to simply not work on your code. GPL: more freedom through fewer choices.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064286)

I agree completely. But to add to the discussion, I would like to note that if you want to put emphasis on continued freedom, then you should not just license under the GPL, but under GPL vN or any later version, and increment the N as new versions appear. Otherwise, as in the case of Linux, once new legal loopholes arise, allowing a licensee to bypass the four freedoms, your current GPL license will not offer protection against them.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064364)

The colophon claims the latex files are available on /faif, but I didn't see them.

You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (4, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064380)

... The GPL is the constitution that works towards my continued freedom as both an end-user and a developer. The BSD license is the license that allows other people to undermine and eventually destroy my freedom by building proprietary programs on top of mine that have a chance of eventually receiving all the time and attention of the world at large and thereby effectively destroying my freedom ...

No. The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom. You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it. Your network effect argument fails in two ways. First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on. The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code. You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort. Secondly, the network effect takes nothing away from you. For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold, and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x. There is no evidence to suggest that mac os x has diminished interest in or contributions to freebsd, quite the contrary actually. Mac os x elevated the awareness of and confidence in freebsd.

Please use the GPL all you care to, that is of course your right. However don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs. Rather accept the reality of the restrictions of the GPL and argue that their altruistic nature justifies them.

Charitable, or stupid? (5, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064754)

I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).

First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on

No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular. His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.

You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.

If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.

For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,

Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.

and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x

But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd? If BSD was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on. As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.

Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish, he might even be able to improve fishing techniques and pass them on so that we can all fish better.

Charitable since it is an informed choice (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065142)

I see merits to both sides, but I at least have to point out some flaws in your argument (which may allow you to strengthen it and we could both benefit, unless you want to keep any insight to yourself of course, that is your right).

In the spirit of BSD I will share my "insights" with all, both those who share my philosophical beliefs and those who do not. ;-)

First, you *assume* that your software would have become popular like the fork did. Your version, GPL'd or unforked BSD may have never caught on

No, he assumes works derived from his work would have become popular ...

Which is exactly what I meant by "unforked BSD". Again, that is a quite gratuitous assumption, quite the boot strapping.

... His GPL'd work may have never caught on, but maybe someone else's GPL'd fork would have. The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have.

However the real point remains, no one is deprived of the benefits of the original work, as the OP was suggesting. As in FreeBSD users and developers are not deprived of their work by Apple's success with Mac OS X. They actually come out ahead given the increased aware of and confidence in FreeBSD.

You work may be the lesser replaceable part of the overall effort.

If it's not an important part, why are they using your work? ...

Irrelevant. It may simply be a convenience. Just because a convenience can be forgone does not mean it should be.

... On the other hand, if you realize your work wouldn't be a huge part of a larger application but you still don't want people to re-invent the wheel, you can still do the pragmatic thing and simply use the LGPL license.

That seems more like a minor concession. To be truly pragmatic would be to set aside one's personal agenda in order to achieve a universal audience.

For example linux works regardless of how many copies of ms windows are sold,

Linux and Windows are developed independently, which is a different argument than freebsd and OS X since they actually share a common base.

You are missing the point. A proprietary solution, or a network effect, does not diminish the value of the FOSS solution. Ie nothing is taken away from Linux users. They are perfectly able to continue on doing their own thing.

and people are free to use and contribute to freebsd regardless of how many people use mac os x

But if OS X works fine, why even bother with freebsd?

Again, convenience. Apple looked at Linux to the extent that it was used/supported by Apple in the early days for PowerPC hardware, before OS X's launch. Since they had experience with both, they could have gone either way. They also had experience developing their own replacement to the classic Mac OS line, the name of the project escapes me at the moment. There was also the option of buying BeOS rather than NextStep. The BSD path must have offered some greater convenience.

... If BSD [FreeBSD ?] was under the GPL license, or parts were LGPL, then freebsd would receive as many contributions as the part of OS X that freebsd is based on ...

And if this were true, how does this undermines my point that FreeBSD users and developers have lost nothing by going the BSD route? You are saying there are no additional contributions in the GPL scenario.

...As it is now, freebsd and OS X become fragmented, and some fixes in one aren't present in the other.

That is untrue. Apple has contributed to FreeBSD. Apple has even contributed code that was formerly proprietary, HFS+ (file system) code for example.

Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish, he might even be able to improve fishing techniques and pass them on so that we can all fish better.

That makes no sense. In this analogy Apple would be no more than one fishing pole vendor, merely the vendor of the most fashionable fishing pole. People with FreeBSD or Linux fishing poles are still able to cast their lines into the ocean, they have lost nothing due to the existence of the Apple branded fishing poles.

A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065362)

A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)

The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice. One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.

I like these analogies just fine.

Re:Charitable since it is an informed choice (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065568)

A closer feeding-the-hungry analogy would be the BSD camp is the charity that gives to a country that they know will takes the rice out of the bags with the US labels and repackage the rice into government labeled bags before distribution to the hungry. The GPL camp would be ones offering the rice under conditions, and when the conditions are refused, then no rice for you. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't start this feeding-the-hungry analogy. Perhaps we should just skip the analogies? :-)

The conditions being, of course, that the government must allow everybody to use the rice to plant their own rice fields if they so choose as well as distribute a brochure describing the best known ways to grow rice ...

No. The controlling condition would be to not replace the bag with the GPL labeling and terms. Since the government refuses this the rice would never get to the hungry. Replanting would only occur in the hypotheticals of the idealists. ;-)

... One encourages dependence, the other demands the government foster independence or refuses to help them. Eventually the latter government's people will revolt and replace it with a better one that doesn't object to such eminently reasonable conditions and the whole country will be richer.

I like these analogies just fine.

So you are going the Che Gueverra route, its OK to sacrifice some peasants and increase their suffering in order to manufacture a revolution that will promote one's ideology. Apologies if I shocked anyone. I actually read Che's writing, I didn't just buy the t-shirt.

Re:Charitable, or stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065380)

The forked popular version benefitted from the unforked one, otherwise it would never have been based on it. But in the GPL scenario, both contributing parties benefit from the popularity. Follow the BSD path and only one would have. It's like if someone else patents an idea you developed before you had a chance to, and now you never get to benefit when the idea takes off.

It's not like a patent at all -- you're still free to keep adding features and develop your program. If their software takes off, you can keep working on your version and watch your version take off (if you can make it as good or better). In the range of intellectual property restrictions, GPL's non-trivial licensing requirements make it much more like a patent whereas BSD is closer to public domain.

Re:Charitable, or stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065570)

>Charity is fine but if you want to help everyone, FORCE a man to fish instead of just giving him fish,

There, fixed that for you.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064808)

The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever. If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?

You act like there's no real-world examples of BSD vs GPL. Your Apple vs Unix vs Linux example disproves your argument! It's not like we have no examples of how BSD can just be gobbled up into a proprietary software, and how GPL software doesn't allow such a thing, and how well each different community is doing as a result... (Note: Even TiVO has to give their changes back to the communtiy, thus enabling ME to make my own TiVO with the same codebase if I wish -- ergo, GPL2 isn't poisonous for hardware makers).

GPL'd GNU/Linux gets better when it gets used by big players in the software space -- BSD? Well, It just gets used as a base, and is left as it was before hand... Additionally, devs can be sniped from the BSD projects and go to work for the proprietary vendor, further weakening the BSD community project.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065432)

The real work, the popular work, may have been the proprietary work. For example Apple's cocoa user interface code as opposed to the underlying freebsd code.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah.... the "real" work was cocoa and not the entire underlying OS... meh, whatever.

From the consumer's point of view that is the case. They aren't buying Macs to type "vi letter-to-grandma.txt ; lp letter-to-grandma.txt", they don't even know they had that option. ;-)

... If BSD Unix had used a license like the GPL, apple would have had to find some other OS to leach off of -- Or maybe BSD Unix would be a strong competitor in the online serverspace, and smartphone niches that Apple's OSX and Linux fills?

Actually Linux does not really compete in the smartphone space. The Linux based phones failed and Android phones are no more Linux than Mac OS X is FreeBSD. Android could replace the Linux kernel and few users would know or care, as Apple could replace FreeBSD and few Mac users would know or care. Hell, many Android devs are quick to say that Android is not really Linux.

You act like there's no real-world examples of BSD vs GPL. Your Apple vs Unix vs Linux example disproves your argument! It's not like we have no examples of how BSD can just be gobbled up into a proprietary software, and how GPL software doesn't allow such a thing, ...

The point you are missing is that when this happens nothing is taken away from the original BSD users and developers. The proprietary code would most likely have come into existence through some other path and retained its proprietary nature. For example if there were no BSD option Apple would *not* have built their user experience on top of Linux and release Mac OS X as a gpl'd Linux distribution. They would have continue with the internal project that was a modern replacement for the classic Mac OS (the project name escapes me, copland maybe) or they would have bought BeOS, or something else. Apple is replacing gcc after all.

... and how well each different community is doing as a result... (Note: Even TiVO has to give their changes back to the communtiy, thus enabling ME to make my own TiVO with the same codebase if I wish -- ergo, GPL2 isn't poisonous for hardware makers).

You leave out little details like vendors requiring code to be signed and with GPLv2 they are under no obligation to allow you to sign code. So your ability to deploy your code on your hardware is sometimes nonexistent. Hence the GPLv3, which is being avoided by some hardware vendors. Things are no where near as simple as you are suggesting.

GPL'd GNU/Linux gets better when it gets used by big players in the software space -- BSD? Well, It just gets used as a base, and is left as it was before hand... Additionally, devs can be sniped from the BSD projects and go to work for the proprietary vendor, further weakening the BSD community project.

Untrue. Apple contributes fixes and it has contributed new code to FOSS. For example the HFS+ filesystem. Its also sponsoring the development of the clang compiler, the gcc replacement. FreeBSD is also getting greater awareness and credibility. All FreeBSD is not getting is the Mac OS X user interface experience.

GPL devs can be lured to the "dark side" too, or get fed up with the politics, or grow bored, or get a life, ... Some project founders aspire to "cashing in" and keep their projects dual licensed to keep that option open.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (1)

Pav (4298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065032)

BSDers are hard to understand - they're like neighbours who complain of the obligation that borrowing tools and/or asking for help will place upon them. It might seem strange, but if you use peoples resources to build a patio they'll probably expect to be invited over for a barbecue (yes, even if that toolbox was "doing nothing" before you used it). What seems like an imposition to you makes others feel part of a community.

They may even feel more annoyed if your patio blocks their afternoon sun so everyone visits you instead. Oh yeah... but it's not THEIR afternoon sun - you just captured it better.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36065680)

The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom.

It does if the person who distributed software to me decided to close the source.

You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it.

Did I get the source?

The GPL ensures the first, by answering the second.

don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs

The BSD path has different freedom, one that can constrict and be denied wholly to people down the line. And yes, charity is an apt word. GPL'd software definitely has a price.

Re:You are just not as charitable as BSD dev ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065840)

IMHO, the support of freedom has both passive and active aspects. The passive part is simply to refrain from infringing on others' freedom. The BSD licenses to that just fine. The active part is to try to prevent acts which infringe on others' freedom. BSD makes no attempt to do that, but the GPL does make that attempt, to the extent that it can be done within the scope of a software license.

"greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs" - that's really splitting hairs. Both GPL and BSD devs are being entirely charitable by almost any definition. As for "greater freedom", ask "freedom for who?" Devs maybe, but certainly not users, at least the users of a proprietary fork (e.g. FreeBSD->OS-X). It seems weird to call something "more free" because it grants the "freedom" to withhold freedom from others.

I'm not the GP poster, but yes, I would indeed deny that BSD is either more free or more charitable than GPL. I think they are both about as free and charitably as you can get.

Re:Free Software, Free Society was an excellent bo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065386)

What has the licence to do with your problem?

You release your application under GPL. I have better ideas than you on how to improve it. I hire more and better people than you have, fork your app and release it under GPL.

It's all GPL. Still I sent you down the toilet and everyone switched to my app.

The best part: (3, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064104)

These were typeset with the FREE TeX and uses the FREE Computer Modern Roman fonts. The previous edition [oreilly.com] was typeset with FrameMaker and uses Adobe's Sabon fonts.

I had a free (as in torrent) copy of the previous version, but I couldn't read it knowing that it had been typeset with non-FREE software.

Re:The best part: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064224)

Free but not GPL.

Re:The best part: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064394)

I bet you're a real hit at parties.*

* By parties I mean the ones you hold with your hand and your penis.

Re:The best part: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064604)

NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064258)

Can I fork his books?

Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064536)

Search GNU
Replace \textsc{gnu}

Would look so much better....

Act now (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064620)

and you will receive free pubic hairs from the man himself, but only with the first 100 copies.

Re:Act now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36064832)

General Pubic Licensed?

'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow. (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36064688)

With no exception, ALL of the major groundbreakers in the history of societal freedoms and liberties, were considered fringe and even prosecuted in their time.

Today, thankfully, we dont have much prosecution. but labeling, despising, outcasting pioneers continue.

Stallman is no different. what he is bringing forth will underlie the basis of the society tomorrow.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065240)

The FSF was founded in 1985. 26 years ago. How soon will the tidal wave of change happen, again?

Stallman was fringe in 1985, he's fringe today, and he'll remain fringe 25 years from now, because the public at large doesn't give a shit about access to source code they neither understand nor have the capability to modify.

Also, he does no favors for the mainstreaming of his image or public perception by presenting as a sweaty, hairy asperger's case who eats shit he picks off his toes. If you show up in public looking like a hot, hairy, slovenly mess, then don't be surprised when people treat you that way.

Re:'Fringe' today, pillar tomorrow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36065370)

Hm, it already did happen. Nowadays most programmers won't touch closed-source libraries with a ten foot pole.
People used to be fine with weird undocumented file formats, now it's insane to even suggest it and whole governments throw your solutiion away when its file formats are undocumented.
Vendor lock-in is prosecuted by the courts and in some cases made illegal by the law to even try.
Many many more people are aware of the dangers of DRM and wary of throwing money into the gutter.
There are projects for Free hardware, Free operating systems, all the way up to CAD applications and math programs.
What change exactly are you waiting for?
Seems most of them already happened.

As for access to source code, entire companies do nothing but adapt free software programs written by others (or maybe themselves, incidentially) for some other persons that are paying them, all day long, every day. So obviously the people do care about access to the source code, if only indirectly by the bills they'll receive being smaller.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?