My Talk at Microsoft

https://www.stallman.org/articles/microsoft-talk.html

by thiccly • 7 years ago

264 183 7 years ago

Crinus3• 7 years ago

And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not in my talk.
Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.
I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.

I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.

meddlepal• 7 years ago

I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF mission.

bubblethink2• 7 years ago

it is unclear what benefit there would be

You can run windows software elsewhere. What more do you need ?

wyldfire• 7 years ago

I think the benefit is unclear but it's almost certainly not limited to good will.

There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today (for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.

cameronbrown3• 7 years ago

If Windows was open sourced it'd easily reach mainstream media awareness.

dimitar• 7 years ago

Given that Windows is a considered a "service" it makes sense unless there is something to hide (some odious telemetrics, perhaps). No one is going to replace Microsoft in selling Support and Updates, unless it isn't some niche that it doesn't care about anyway, just like Oracle didn't destroy the RHEL market with their own Linux.

I'm thinking it can help them win some government contracts outside the USA (by saying "you, and anyone else can see that there aren't any backdoors"). The potential open-source community can expand Windows markets the same way it did for Linux, making sure Microsoft remains relevant.

ChrisSD2• 7 years ago

When I asked HN about the licensing for windows.h and similar header files, there was some incredulity that MS could ever give them a permissive license (or even a slightly less restrictive one). And this was just for the public header files that define a public interface!

So I think it unlikely because Windows developers aren't calling for it and Linux developers don't care about it. Sure they'll open source particularly services and applications, especially as they move to more platforms. But I doubt they'd open source Windows itself.

squarefoot• 7 years ago

I also don't think it's impossible, but I am also sure they're not going to open any significant part of Windows until they have full control of Linux in corporate environments, which is probably going to happen in less than 10 years, or a lot less should they buy a well known popular distro then turn it into Microsoft Linux.

Operyl• 7 years ago

Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).

Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).

ryukafalz• 7 years ago

Sure, but it should at least differentiate between GPLv3 and GPLv3 or later. The SPDX license list does this: "GPL-3.0-only" vs "GPL-3.0-or-later". GitHub does not.

(Also, GitHub already does recommend licenses to some extent; there's a short list of highlighted ones in the license selection dropdown.)

robteix• 7 years ago

There are those who think that Microsoft invited me to speak in the hope of seducing me away from the free software cause.
Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more.

Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give up free software or to research him at all?

letstrynvm• 7 years ago

Because in 2019 msft finds itself making big $$$ from renting servers running Linux and associated FOSS stack.

Zhyl• 7 years ago

Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American".

(from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section)

This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable.

They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative.

Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...

Iv4• 7 years ago

I do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium.

I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.

asdfman123• 7 years ago

Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that.

Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over.

It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.

dhruvmittal• 7 years ago

They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source.

Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project & program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document & send us back to build or buy some alternative.

cameronbrown3• 7 years ago

I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or buy.

swebs• 7 years ago

You sure that's not just for GPL? I worked at a place that had a strict no-GPL policy due to the legal risks of non-compliance. LGPL and MIT software was fine though.

jki275• 7 years ago

It's not open source so much as it is GPL. In industry, GPL software is essentially anathema. MIT/BSD and other licenses are far easier to get approval to use.

EpicEng3• 7 years ago

Replace "open source" with "GPL" and I think you'd be correct.

Jedd4• 7 years ago

They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source.

Or, as rms went to some lengths to explain here and elsewhere, free software.

Paying attention is important in this particular case.

ChrisSD2• 7 years ago

But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. Not just free software (although that did seem to get the full brunt of their ire).

dhd415• 7 years ago

Frankly, I think that is a situation where Microsoft just voiced what was common practice in many places in the industry. I've worked on a variety of both commercial and widely-used open source software projects and in all cases, GPL-licensed code was forbidden after consultation with counsel because of the limitations it would have imposed either on the company itself or on the users of our software.

arminiusreturns• 7 years ago

This is more due to bad lawyers not understanding things than gpl itself, especially considering agpl, apache2 etc. Usually because nobody takes the time to explain it to them. Using RedHat as an example tends to be the most productive with legal and the C's in my experience.

dwighttk2• 7 years ago

Making money rather than crucifying a savior?

ndespres• 7 years ago

A reference to the Good Friday Agreement, a pivotal development in the UK/Republic of Ireland peace talks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

youdontknowtho• 7 years ago

"support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products"

They ship the Linux kernel as part of Windows now. They ship updates for it through Windows update. It's in beta, but will be released this quarter, I think?

richard_todd• 7 years ago

Earlier he had said that we shouldn’t keep old grudges, so I was surprised he then turned around and asked for them to renounce statements from 20+ years ago, made by people that aren’t even there anymore.

In my mind, .net core and vs code and countless smaller projects are a complete renunciation of their previous public statements. Maybe Stallman can’t see that because they MIT license those things, but why ask for more talk when you are already getting action?

Edit: here’s Ballmer turning around in public on the cancer thing. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu... so I really don’t see what more Stallman wants.

jacquesm7• 7 years ago

Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. When it suited him Linux was a cancer, and when it no longer suited him he 'loved Linux'. If the wind should ever change Linux will for sure be a cancer again.

rerx• 7 years ago

Quoted for its WTF-factor:

Perhaps his new-found peace with Linux is linked to yoga, a practice he said he has taken up after leaving Microsoft in 2014.

deskamess• 7 years ago

Your point about 'action' vs 'talk' is valid.

In this case what is being asked is not a grudge that needs to be addressed. Keep in mind the underlying context of the suggestions => "what can Microsoft do". So this is, in my eyes, more of something that Microsoft can choose to do for themselves - admit that they said things in the past that were not exactly true. A self initiated internal cleaning of the air as they continue to engage the public community. This is not something that they have to do to address a grudge. It should be mostly symbolic to the external world. So, is there value in Microsoft actually coming out and saying it? Well, that's for Microsoft to decide.

jacquesm7• 7 years ago

I'd be happy with a donation to the FSF roughly equivalent to all the money they made by scare tactics against Linux on the server, including their backhanded funding of the SCO lawsuit.

feb• 7 years ago

And the money to "standardize" the ISO docx format.

jccalhoun• 7 years ago

I still have a creative commons communist shirt I bought when I saw it on BoingBoing https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html

They were created in response to Bill Gates comment that people who want to weaken or eliminate intellectual property laws were "some new modern-day sort of communists" https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html

UserIsUnused3• 7 years ago

Ballmer was more specifically referring to governmental funding going to free software, his competitors.

lunchables• 7 years ago

That's my problem with "Microsoft [heart] Linux" - there was never any apology. They attacked linux and open source for years and now suddenly they want to be best friends.

I need to see some real contrition and proof that they understand all the things they did were wrong so I can be convinced they won't repeat the same behavior. Otherwise it just sounds like an abusive partner begging you to take them back.

yummybear• 7 years ago

Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.

I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

incompatible• 7 years ago

Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.

kuu• 7 years ago

What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?

5trokerac3• 7 years ago

This is a perfect example of how Stallman ultimately is an authoritarian. He wants all the freedom to do what he wants, but has no problem with his "free software" vision limiting the rights of others.

As someone else pointed out, "what about proprietary HTML and CSS?"

Stallman has no ability to recognize the need for others to protect their own work, he only wants his free access to the fruits of others' labor.

Don't want to run proprietary JavaScript? Then bite the f'ing bullet and don't visit websites that have it. Don't expect everyone else to conform to your wants.

duckerude3• 7 years ago

A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript and runs on webpages. If you want to avoid using non-free software you have to disable Javascript on many websites.

Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more feasible goal.

close043• 7 years ago

A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript

Dropping JS will just lead to a lot of non-free software written in [something else]. It's not like non-free software will suddenly stop existing. You're not banning English because of the content that might use it.

There must be a better approach to this than "I'm not running any code because some of it may be non-free".

Smithalicious2• 7 years ago

I think this is a really weird reductionist take. Yes, if you don't run code, you also don't run nonfree code, but I'm skeptical that that "make people run less code" should be a goal of a free software movement...

danShumway4• 7 years ago

I've always been a bit confused by this take, because the most likely alternative to having proprietary code in the front-end is to have proprietary code in the back-end.

It's not clear to me why I shouldn't tolerate closed-source Javascript that I can nonetheless inspect, archive, and edit on my own machine, but I should tolerate a closed-source SaaS backend that I can't inspect, archive, or edit.

Of course proprietary software limits freedoms, but does it limit freedom more than serverside logic? There are equal legal restrictions on both codebases, but I can't even exercise fair-use freedoms with code that I literally can't touch.

bubblethink2• 7 years ago

It's to avoid the use of non-free javascript, which is mostly taken for granted.

Dude2029• 7 years ago

Good idea regardless of motivation to be honest.

somedrag• 7 years ago

There are good answers from others but here is the longer explanation in Stallman's own words: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

raxxorrax2• 7 years ago

I would say my knowledge about software engineering is to 90% copied from ideas other people had before, but I am certainly underestimating that amount.

_ph_2• 7 years ago

I think we all know the pros and cons about running Javascript on web pages. But it becomes more and more obvious, that while Javascript gets abused for a lot of bad things, a modern web completely without scripting in web pages isn't feasible either.

Consequently, I consider this as something the GNU project failed to address. Why isn't there an official GNU webbrowser with a reasonable Javascript implementation? One where the browser and the JS engine would be free software and which could be seen as a reasonable platform for a modern web?

extra88• 7 years ago

That wouldn't address Stallman's objection; regardless of which browser is used, the JavaScript delivered by website operators would still be executed in the user's browser.

einpoklum• 7 years ago

I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself.

It's just like you should not need to take orders from people on the street so as to be able to understand what they're trying to tell you.

nirui2• 7 years ago

I somehow want to quote this too:

Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).

I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice.

It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make wiser choice before a repository is created.

Smithalicious2• 7 years ago

I take issue with the "promote ... the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later)" here. The GPL is a controversial license by itself, though it's the de facto copyleft license and reasonable to promote it, but the GPLv3-vs-GPLv2 debate is alive and well and I don't want GitHub to "promote" either of them as "the best".

simion3145• 7 years ago

Were you ever affected by the GPL3 vs GPL2 license? I am just wondering who is affected(not everybody makes kernels and drivers)

de_watcher• 7 years ago

TL;DR on GPLv3-vs-GPLv2: the v3 adds a protection against hardware lock-ins. It doesn't come up in 95% of the cases. But the license is different, so a debate can be started.

steveklabnik• 7 years ago

GitHub did make https://choosealicense.com , which is intended to help like this.

nirui2• 7 years ago

Yes, they have also put the link besides that license list.

However, my opinion is, the list better be designed in such way that users don't need to access to another website to understand what they're about to do.

It shouldn't be very hard, some sort of license description would do the work, I think.

quadrangle• 7 years ago

RMS knows that, and his suggestion was to have GitHub stop encouraging consideration of GPLv2 and instead promote GPLv3.

Iv4• 7 years ago

Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net).

That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110

AdmiralAsshat• 7 years ago

I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something like GNU Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.

yebyen2• 7 years ago

I've been in the too-awkward position of suggesting a solution "like" one that I have made, knowing already that there is some specific reason why my solution won't ultimately be the one that is accepted. Arguing this way results in a stunted discussion, giving away the foregone conclusion that my specific solution is obviously unsuitable for some reason or other, and is therefore not worthy of our consideration at all. (But we have a lot to learn from it, and we should have this discussion before putting it aside.)

It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used.

I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective.

Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.

Iv4• 7 years ago

GNU Taler is not a product. It is a GNU project. You can use it full-features for free.

warkdarrior• 7 years ago

How would a privacy-preserving payment system (like GNU Taler) obviate the need for Javascript?

pavon• 7 years ago

RMS and the FSF oppose any proprietary software, and refuse to use it. From a practical point of view, this means having to block javascript by default and at best whitelist it just on sites that are known to use only Free Software on their website. Furthermore, since that browsers and web standards don't provide an automated way to check javascript license before execution, and a site can change what javascript they use at any time (on every page load even), some Free Software advocates find it safer and easier to abstain from any javascript at all.

Payment processing software like Taler is most useful when integrated/embedded in as many websites as possible, including sites that use proprietary javascript. Even if the Taler implementation used only javascript with a Free license, using it on that site would require enabling both Free and non-Free javascript. Thus it would be preferable to Free Software advocates if Taler implementations were written to work without requiring javascript.

tzs• 7 years ago

Anonymous for and to whom?

Suppose I sell a digital good to a customer in the EU and use Taler to handle this. I need to know which country's VAT to collect, and I need to justify my choice to the tax authorities of any EU country that asks.

That seems to rule out using a platform that makes my customer anonymous to me.

xiaodai• 7 years ago

Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities. European Union funds some software, but more should be done. The economy of free software is a classific economics problems; too many free loaders. We can't continue to rely on volunteers. The public needs to fund open-source software, just like how to we fund universities!

simion3145• 7 years ago

99.999%

the numbers are not that bad, consider someone asks me to write them a tool for them to manage their electronic store inventory, tasks etc. I am the developer the shop is the client, I get paid and they get the programs and the source code. This is what it should be and not land int he situation where you get a change later and you don't have the source code.

Or someone hires me to write a program to apply a filter for an image, this program will run on my client server , because it runs on a server only my client will have the source and because the users won't run it on the browsers I do not need to send them a copy of the source.

Anyway there are more jobs where you are paid to write software and the client also gets the source and does whatever he wants with the code, as long as all users that run the program can get a copy of the source then it is free software. you don't have to make the code public on Github

syshum• 7 years ago

There are plenty of people that work on OpenSource at corporations.

Linux Kernel is a widely known example, but not the only one.

Further, there are funding models that do not require "donations" to fund libre software, "Free" does not mean free in cost, it means freedom.

Some options include

1. Paid Binary Dististrbution

2. Support Agreements

3. Priority Features

4. Customization

5. Hosting / SaaS

6. Paid documentation access

7. Donations / Tips

8. Normal Invoicing (most people forget You can invoice a company for GPL software, nothing prevents it. This is often good for Bean Counters)

There are others as well

soohyung• 7 years ago

Open source software isn't necessarily free software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

TheDong• 7 years ago

Many people get paid to write free software. Some people write free software and sell it (for example, some paid android and iphone apps have their code available under the GPL, but still make money).

There are many companies, including facebook/google/etc, that employ kernel developers who primarily write free software. There are companies that follow the opencore model, and many of their developers only work on the open portion (e.g. elasticsearch, mongodb, nginx, etc). There are some people who offer consulting for their free software and make good money by that. There are some companies where almost all development is free software, and money is gotten through other means (e.g. mozilla, redhat).

Free software does not have to mean working for free. It doesn't even mean you can't charge money for it (free as in libre, not free as in beer).

That being said, I agree that funding free software development is a large problem. Right now, the most sustainable model is a company to be interested in a project and to pay developers to work on it (e.g. linux), or for a company to own the project (e.g. firefox, mongodb).

There's no great funding story I know of for open source projects that are important, but maintained by people on the side (e.g. most of gnu coreutils, random libraries big projects depend on, etc).

However, your comment sounds more grim than reality is, and also conflates free as in libre with free as in beer.

Yeah, sure, you can't work for free, but that doesn't mean you can't make free software and charge people for it.

thelazydogsback2• 7 years ago

There are many companies, including facebook/google/etc, that employ kernel developers who primarily write free software

We pay eventually -- in this case the "free" software is paid for with a loss of freedom elsewhere, in this case by giving up your private information and fulfilling our role as as "consumers" using their code.

There are many that would rather actually pay in a transparent fashion.

raxxorrax2• 7 years ago

I devop proprietary software for proprietary hardware and still couldn't do much without people advocating free or at least open software and can acknowledge the importance. I try to give that back, even if that is only through teaching juniors.

gnode2• 7 years ago

Something I wonder is whether productized software needs to exist as an industry in its own right. Maybe it is enough for software to be incidentally produced in the course of other industries. The Linux kernel is today developed mostly by those with a commercial interest in using and supporting it, such as Intel, Google, Samsung and IBM. LLVM is supported largely by Apple; Go by Google; React by Facebook.

Comparatively, science and mathematics, which software is arguably conceptually closer to, haven't ended as human endeavours for want of direct commercial exploitation.

Maximus90002• 7 years ago

Some clunky writing here:

it isn't totally impossible.
so we can run them without any nonfree software

Edit: removed my suggestions

midgetjones• 7 years ago

> it isn't totally impossible.
how about: "It's totally possible"

That completely changes the meaning.

Maximus90002• 7 years ago

Agreed, my suggestion might be off. Either way, he's got some clunky sentences there.

bobwaycott• 7 years ago

I agree with your second suggestion (although you added an unnecessary that in there), but your first changes the meaning significantly. To my reading, “it isn’t totally impossible” signifies a thing being very to extremely difficult—perhaps close enough to impossible that the difficulty is worth recognizing as potentially insurmountable—though not entirely outside the realm of possibility. “It’s totally possible”, on the other hand, seems to indicate a thing of such negligible difficulty the obstacles are not worth mentioning.

typon• 7 years ago

Your edits fail to convey the context in which these sentences are written. Sometimes using a double negative conveys information that would be lost otherwise. In this case, the normal response to rms' suggestion would be "that's impossible!", to which he's replying that no, it isn't totally impossible.

decoyworker2• 7 years ago

I'm usually the first to shit on Stallman but I really liked his suggestions here.

But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org?

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...

Gaelan• 7 years ago

They’d have to drop the windows store, no?

decoyworker2• 7 years ago

This is a hypothetical. I realize the improbability.

qbaqbaqba• 7 years ago

Why not?

srbby2• 7 years ago

Linked from tfa: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html

we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other

Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?

jraph3• 7 years ago

It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare.

However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects.

I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a feature).

srbby2• 7 years ago

Two things that come to my mind from reading your response:

Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11...

Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...

jedieaston• 7 years ago

Interestingly, this is not the first time that I've heard Microsoft talk about open-sourcing Windows [0]. The licensing behind many of the components may make it a distant pipe dream, but since they make most of their money through their applications (i.e. MSSQL runs on Linux now, the software teams all work under Azure now), I could see it happening sometime.

[0] https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...

eloisant• 7 years ago

They could open source the Windows kernel, and it wouldn't change anything.

Just like OSX is based on Darwin which is Open Source, and Android is based on Linux, that doesn't provide any more freedom for users or encourage interoperability.

badpun2• 7 years ago

The users could at least fix the bugs and document the APIs better (via reading the code) than it's currently done on MSDN. Sounds like free labor for Microsoft BTW.

enz• 7 years ago

Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.
I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.

Really? Does anyone have more info about that?

DaiPlusPlus• 7 years ago

Depends on who you ask - if the NT kernel were to be made open-source it wouldn't impact Microsoft's sales of Windows because the kernel is useles without the userland - and the real value of Windows derives from the userland Win32 API.

If they mean the entire OS - kernel, userland, shell, the bundled programs that come with it - no, that won't happen, not least because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to all of that code: any third-party licensor could put a stop to that overnight.

souterrain• 7 years ago

Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.

I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.

paggle• 7 years ago

I hope he got paid well for that talk, it was probably his last paid speaking engagement.

shmerl• 7 years ago

Help fight against copyright on interfaces.

MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did they ever announce the reversal of their position?

To his points, I'd add:

* Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards.

This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before (ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)

fortran773• 7 years ago

I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views.

This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.

longcommonname• 7 years ago

Canceling a talk doesn't equate to changing a view.

qnsi• 7 years ago

He had a view that going and giving a talk would be a good idea, and activists convinced him to change this view

fortran773• 7 years ago

It means he's an easy mark, and doesn't think things through. I lost any respect I had for him after that, and so did everyone else in the circles I associate with.

jccc• 7 years ago

I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990

Could someone illuminate what this was about?

lemper• 7 years ago

something along with objective c's frontend for gcc.

https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...

sys_64738• 7 years ago

Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.

Once that occurs then we will all trust Microsoft without reservation. Even Stallman.

YeGoblynQueenne• 7 years ago

In case anyone else was wondering about when this was published, as I was, this was published on RMS's site today:

https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_Septe...

jamesgeck0• 7 years ago

Help fight against copyright on interfaces.

This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he talking about copyrighted APIs?

em-bee• 7 years ago

that's about APIs

My Talk at Microsoft

Related Stories